Adapting Service Quality Concepts to Academic Libraries

1
In recent years, both the library profession and the larger educational community
have focused increasing attention on a model of management commonly referred to as
service quality. The concept of service quality is somewhat elusive and resists easy
definition, but essentially it emphasizes customer satisfaction as its primary objective.
More traditional measures of academic library quality such as collection size are
considered to be of secondary importance.1
One example of this growing interest in service quality concepts by librarians was
the recent program featured at the 1996 American Library Association Convention,
sponsored by RASD, the Reference and Adult Services Division of ALA. The program,
called “Great Service Now: Framework for Action,” featured Dr. Leonard Berry, who
holds the J.C.Penney Chair of Retail Studies at Texas A&M University. Professor Berry,
who is the author of several books on quality service, was described by one of the
speakers on the program as the foremost authority on quality service.
The Rationale For Service Quality
Prior to introducing Dr. Berry, RASD president Mary Lou Goodyear neatly
summarized some of the reasons for the newfound interest of librarians in service quality.
The role and purpose of the library are being questioned by policy makers. Increasingly,
libraries are being called upon by local, state and national governing bodies to justify their
value to the public in a time of budgetary pressures, dwindling public funding, and
growing competition from other public institutions such as hospitals and prisons. As
more people ask “what are libraries good for?” libraries are subject to increasing scrutiny
and accountability. Libraries are being called upon to demonstrate their contribution as
2
never before. By providing a perspective of people as customers, the service quality
model offers a new concept of libraries.
Dr. Berry elaborated even further. Using the rhetoric of business, he warned that
America’s libraries are losing market share in what he termed “the information age.”
Berry believes this is a period in which libraries should be flourishing, because it is
characterized by a growing need for education and information on the part of the general
populace. He stated that libraries are declining in popularity while the popularity of
books is growing. As an example, he mentioned the success of the huge bookstore chain
Barnes and Noble, which he said has improved the appeal of booksellers.
According to Berry, huge bookstore chains are not the only threat to libraries. The
internet itself is a key competitor. Not only can customers purchase books online at
outlets such as the Amazon Web site, but the internet has become a user’s personal
library, or in Berry’s words, a “library in a PC.” The user no longer has to go to the
traditional library, because he can access information more conveniently from his
personal computer.
Faced with such competition, Berry is convinced that there must be a change in
how libraries market themselves. The situation is analogous to the post office facing the
threat from Federal Express. The way libraries can thrive is by delivering excellent
customer service. This could mean anything from creating a drive-up window, to
displaying books and information as products, to serving customers coffee from an
antique wooden bar.
Librarians must begin to think of themselves as retailers do, and realize that theirs
is not just a business but an interpersonal business, a “people” business. Like companies,
3
libraries must strive to increase market share. They can do so utilizing three methods: by
attracting new customers, by doing more business with existing customers, and by
reducing the loss of customers.
Berry then went on to explain that librarians can increase market share by creating
what he calls “multiple listening posts.” These are means by which librarians can listen
not only to external customers but also internal customers and even competitor’s
customers. Listening to the library’s internal customers (colleagues in other departments)
can reveal internal obstacles to service provision, while paying attention to the
competition’s customers will enable one to discover how competitors provide value.
There are many ways a library can survey its customers. Libraries can conduct
transactional surveys, which are surveys conducted immediately following some
transaction that occurs in the library. Other ways Berry mentioned included conducting
focus group interviews, asking customers to sit on advisory panels, and establishing an
actual or virtual customer complaint box, to capture criticisms, comments, and inquiries.
It is also important to conduct total market surveys, in which competitors are surveyed,
and to utilize employee field reporting, to gather feedback about what customers are
saying to employees in the field.
The overall quality of service can be improved in several ways. First, by
measuring not just the customer’s perception of service, but customer’s service
expectations. Second, by improving service and lowering costs. Berry was careful to
point out that improving service and lowering costs might seem like mutually exclusive
objectives, but that they can actually work in tandem. It is possible to do both by
eliminating any non-value adding processes in the library, by improving productivity
4
through technology, and by redesigning the service system to be simpler. As an example,
he mentioned the ability of Taco Bell to achieve better service by moving its food
preparation operations offsite, which expanded seating capacity for customers and
allowed employees to focus on serving them.
A third way libraries can enhance service quality is by showing customers respect.
Berry is convinced that there is a customer respect deficit in the U.S. He pointed out that
many of the most common customer complaints regarding service, such as customer
disparagement by employees, or being forced to wait for service, could be remedied by
basic attitudinal changes by service staff.
The final way that a library can improve the customer experience is by paying
greater attention to the overall atmosphere or ambiance that business is conducted in. As
an example, Berry mentioned the Tattered Cover Bookstore in Denver. It is popular with
customers not just for its outstanding selection of books, but also for its ambiance.
Customers love its antique, comfortable feel, and it is the policy of the store to allow
customers to sit all day and read if they wish.
Berry concluded his address by declaring that libraries must compete for
customers by offering something valuable and then delivering it in a way that creates
more value. Libraries must therefore define value and then create it. In an era of
Darwinian competition for resources, libraries must compete harder and more
passionately if they are to survive. Librarians must ask themselves, “if our library were to
disappear from the landscape overnight, would we be missed?”2
Some Limitations of the Service QualityModel
5
What are librarians to make of Dr. Berry’s analysis and prescription for the
current state of libraries? Some of the assumptions upon which his arguments are based
seem at least open to question. By examining these in more detail it might be possible to
arrive at a clearer understanding of some of the limitations and possibilities that the
service quality model holds for academic libraries. For example, it may be true that
libraries in this country as losing market share and that their popularity is decreasing.
There is some evidence to suggest that this is not the case, however. One recent study
reported that two out of three Americans go to libraries each year.3
Another assumption Berry makes that seems debatable is whether libraries,
particularly academic libraries, are in direct competition with large book store chains.
The idea that students may be going to the big chains to purchase books instead of going
to the library to borrow them is open to question simply because the cost to the student
would be prohibitive. Indeed, in the author’s experience students frequently inquire at the
reference desk as to whether the library owns copies of the textbooks a professor has
assigned for their class, even though copies are readily available at the campus bookstore.
It is apparent that many of these students are trying to avoid the cost of purchasing these
often expensive books themselves if they can possibly obtain them at the library.
The other major threat to libraries that Berry mentioned in his address was the
internet. It is true that the internet has grown rapidly in the past few years, and will likely
continue to do so in the future. Yet it may be something of an exaggeration to say that the
internet now constitutes a “library in a PC.” Some of the many reasons why this may not
be true include the unscholarly nature of much of the content to be found on the internet,
the lack of digitized books available at present, and the difficulty of conducting scholarly
6
research on the internet due to the fact that many of its resources are uncataloged and are
subject to frequent shifts in location. Internet access itself is often difficult or
frustratingly slow because of technical problems or heavy usage.4 This is not to say that
the internet does not have the potential at some point in the future to rival academic
libraries as the key of source of scholarly information, only to note that it does not now.
Perhaps it might be more reasonable to say that, at present, they complement one another.
Although Dr. Berry did not mention them in his address, other observers have
suggested that commercial document delivery services might pose an additional threat to
academic libraries.5 The ease and convenience of being able to order an article from a
service like CARL Uncover is undeniable. The problem is that the cost per article can
typically run ten or twenty dollars or more, depending on the length. Many students balk
at paying such a price for a single article, thus limiting the popularity of such services,
and their potential threat.
Service Quality and the Academic Library Environment
There is another bigger assumption that Berry makes that is open to question. It is
that the overall service quality model can be imported from the commercial environment
of business to the non-commercial environment of the academic library without at least
some adaptation. Berry makes no allowance for the fact that the educational setting is
different from the corporate one. The assumption appears to be that a model that works
in one sector will readily translate into another, but this is not necessarily so.
7
Some of the difficulties involved in applying service quality concepts to nonprofit
environments have been noted in a recent article about adapting TQM to
government agencies.6 Many of these would apply to education as well. For example,
one problem noted is the difficulty of defining the customer in a non-profit setting.
Academic libraries would appear to have not one, but many customers, including
students, faculty, university administrators, and indirectly, parents of students. The
situation is further complicated by the fact that these various constituencies may compete
for library services, and make contradictory demands on the library.
In the case of public universities, the library may have indirect or “hidden”
customers, such as state governing bodies, and ultimately the public itself. In some
instances, the library must decide whether it risks offending immediate customers such as
students in order to fulfill its obligations to other less visible customers. These indirect
customers complicate and challenge the validity of more simplistic notions of customer
satisfaction and instruments used to measure it that might otherwise be perfectly adequate
in commercial environments.
Thus, while many of the planning, organizing, marketing, budgeting, and related
administrative activities and procedures in the business sector may have much in common
with those in the non-profit sector, there are also important differences. One important
difference lies in the area of goals. In a commercial environment, the goal is to maximize
profits, which provides a relatively simple basis for decision making. In a non-profit
setting, there may be many different goals that diverge from or even conflict with one
another.
8
Academic library administrators, for example, may decide that they want to make
customer satisfaction their first priority. But the presence of employees with strong
professional values and training who may have different ideas about the library’s
priorities and how best to go about achieving them makes implementing service quality
potentially more difficult. Professional librarians may insist on making autonomous
value judgments and decisions with regard to how they conduct their work. Many may
have strong convictions about their work, and this sense of professionalism may conflict
with management initiatives that are based on consumerism or commercialism.7
The Semantics of Service Quality
Part of the difficulty of adapting the service quality model to academic libraries
stems from differing definitions of basic concepts like “quality” and “service.”
Advocates of the service quality model believe that quality service means surveying what
the customer wants and finding the best way to provide it. Critics of the model define
quality service as providing customers with what trained professionals (i.e. librarians)
think they need.8 In the service quality literature, recipients of service are commonly
referred to as “customers.” Critics have claimed that this debases the librarian’s
relationship to the user by suggesting that the knowledge which the librarian transmits is
sold, as it might be in an information brokerage. Use of the word “customer” has also
been criticized for implying that the user is a passive consumer of information, rather than
being actively engaged in the learning process.9
It may seem trivial to argue over language, but it is not only the language that is
important but the concepts behind the language--what the language implies and how it is
9
interpreted. To refer to a student as a “customer” may misinterpret the nature of the
librarian/user relationship to the degree that it suggests a student can “buy” an education,
without some degree of personal effort as well as assistance from the librarian. The
process of acquiring a college education, part of which involves learning to use the
library, can be hard work that involves sustained concentration and exertion that is not
always comfortable or pleasant, and certainly not passive.10 This sometimes arduous
process may conflict with the service quality goal of customer satisfaction and delight
without some sort of adaptation of the model to an educational setting.
Perhaps the term “customer” or “client” might be better used to describe the
nature of the relationship between the special librarian and the user. In a special library
environment, the straightforward provision of information that the user wants appears to
be much closer to the ethos of the service quality model. In a more complex environment
such as academia, the librarian may have to interpret to some extent what is best for the
user’s needs, which is different from simply satisfying a user’s wants.11
This distinction between wants and needs may seem like another semantic
subtlety, but the difference has important implications. “Want” suggests a conscious
desire for something, while need implies a greater degree of necessity or urgency which,
if it is denied, may result in some kind of adversity or serious consequences to the person
in need. A person may need something, but not necessarily be aware of it, thus making
needs more difficult to detect than wants.12 That is, it is possible to determine what a
library user wants by asking him, but when asked, that same user may not be able to
articulate his needs, nor even always be aware of them.
10
A user survey instrument such as Servqual or Servperf may thus be perfectly
capable of revealing a user’s wants, but not necessarily the user’s needs. Yet because
needs are seemingly more important than wants, it then becomes important to determine
who decides what the user’s needs are. Is the librarian in his or her role as professional
capable of making such a determination?
Competing Models of Service
There is no easy answer to this question, but it is nonetheless important to make a
distinction between wants and needs in order to point out that the service quality model
may be less effective in determining user needs than wants. Academic librarians have
traditionally used an older didactic model of service that is more or less based on the
faculty model of teaching.13 In this model, the librarian has assumed the responsibility
of anticipating what the students needs will be, which frequently call for the development
of certain competencies in library research. These determinations are usually made in the
context of some larger academic mission, such as to foster independent researchers
capable of lifelong learning, or at least students capable of going on to successfully
complete assignments at the graduate level.
Librarians must teach students these research skills so that they will learn to be
self-sufficient, rather than simply providing the student with information by finding it for
them. According to this didactic model of service, for the librarian to actually give
students the answer would be to satisfy their immediate wants at the expense of their
longer term needs. To do so would actually be a form of disservice, because in the
reference transaction the student would learn little or nothing, thus reinforcing his
11
dependence on the librarian and defeating the university’s larger mission of creating
independent learners. The definition of quality service in this older model is not so much
the immediate satisfaction of user wants but serving users in a way that enhances their
intellectual and personal development.
It is possible to cast this older model of didactic service in the language of
business, using rhetoric similar to the service quality model. Instead of thinking of the
student as “customer,” upon graduation the student might be thought of as the “product”
of the university (and indirectly, the library) and the “customer” then becomes the
prospective employer.14 It is the responsibility of the librarian to help deliver a quality
product to the employer, who is the ultimate determiner of quality. This definition of
quality actually harkens back to the earlier roots of the quality improvement movement,
which has its origins in attempts to improve the quality of the manufacturing process.15
The fact that there are alternative models of service and that the service quality
model may require some adaptation to non-commercial settings does not mean that it is
not of value, and possibly considerable value, to libraries. As Moore and Kelly point out
in an article on the utilization of the service quality model in the social work field,16 the
acceptance of quality service concepts does not have to wait for the resolution of every
incompatible aspect with non-profit organizations. Just because non-commercial
environments and goals are more complex than in the business sector does not mean
service quality concepts cannot be adapted if done with sensitivity to the differing context
in which they will be implemented. Perhaps it might be useful to examine some ways in
which the service quality model can be adapted to the complex environment of the
library.
12
Adapting Service Quality Concepts to Reference Services
The reference services department is one of the areas of the library most
vulnerable to potential conflict between business-based service quality concepts and
departmental policies and procedures, which are often based on the institutional mission
of the university. Additionally, it is not always easy to implement basic tenets of quality
service that rely on satisfying the customer’s needs and wants when the customers
themselves may not be entirely sure of what they are seeking. You cannot give customers
what they want when they themselves are not sure. Customers cannot always be expected
to have clearly formed preferences regarding the ever-changing and often bewildering
array of electronic and paper products that they have to choose from. It is often left to
the librarian to decide the best way to obtain the information the customer is seeking.17
If service quality concepts place the highest priority on delivering excellent
service as perceived from the customer’s point of view, than the user who comes to the
reference desk requesting a product or service that is totally wrong for their needs
presents a challenge to the librarian. A delicate process of redefining or renegotiating the
customer’s wants may be necessary.18 The librarian must forego the temptation to
simply give the user what he wants, and instead employ tact and finesse in explaining
why there may be a better alternative and helping the user rethink his needs in such a way
that the user is not embarrassed or offended and the librarian does not create the
impression that he or she is intellectually superior. There is always the risk that the
librarian will not be successful in this endeavor, but he or she will at least have the
13
satisfaction of knowing that that he or she acted out of a sense of professional ethics,
rather than giving the user a quick fix.
Another potentially difficult situation is the user who comes to the reference desk
with unrealistic expectations. A classic case is the student who is seeking “help” with an
assignment, but who wants the librarian to find the information rather than having the
librarian explain how he can search for the information himself. There are any number of
reasons why students have such expectations. They may be based on an inadequate
understanding of the educational mission of the academic library, in which the primary
function of the librarian is seen as educating users by teaching them library research
methods, rather than simply giving the information to them. The student may be in a
hurry, or uncomfortable or unfamiliar with technology, or simply unmotivated to do the
work himself.
Not all librarians will agree that simply providing the student with the information
being sought is actually a form of disservice to him or her because the student will not
have learned from having to do it himself.19 Yet those librarians who subscribe to the
didactic service model of academic librarianship may feel that simply providing the
student with the information may present an ethical conflict with their role as instructor
and compromise the teacher-student relationship. This is a problem found not only in
reference encounters with undergraduates but also with library students.20 Librarians
who feel that training the user how to locate information is more important than solving
the user’s immediate problem may have difficulty in satisfying the user in service quality
terms, much less delighting him or her.
14
Despite the complexity of the situation, didactic model adherents do not
necessarily have to give up their teaching function and thus risk weakening their
association with the teaching faculty, thereby eroding their claims to faculty status.21 It
is still possible for librarians to take advantage of the “teachable moment” in the course
of the reference encounter and satisfy the user in a manner consistent with the service
quality model. Indeed the potential solution may be found in how the librarian manages
the reference encounter.
In any service encounter, the customer often brings a psychological “script” into
the situation, which is a series of expectations based on the customer’s previous
experience in similar situations.22 Particularly in the case of undergraduates relatively
new to an academic environment, the script they may possess may be based on their
experience with other kinds of libraries such as public libraries. If the librarians in these
encounters acted as “go fers” and promptly fetched whatever the student asked for, it is
not unreasonable for students to expect the same response from an academic librarian.23
However, these early expectations that the customer brings to the service
encounter are often tenuous and not held as firm convictions in the customer’s mind.24
This provides the librarian with an opportunity to actively involve the customer in helping
to create their own service, much as customers who use automated teller machines or who
pump their own gas do. This may necessitate explaining how the customer’s involvement
will contribute to their own goal achievement and self actualization. Librarians can
promote the benefits of greater customer involvement not only on an individual basis
during the reference encounter, but also to larger audiences in user instruction classes.
These classes present a particularly good opportunity for librarians to explain that
15
although user satisfaction is a top priority, they have other important educational
objectives that need to be addressed in reference transactions.26 It may be easier for a
librarian to explain this more fully in a classroom setting then when pressed for time
during a brief reference encounter.
By actively managing these service encounters and explaining to customers that
parts of the service process that they consider to be annoying or inconvenient are actually
done in their best interests, librarians help to enhance customer’s service perceptions.
Customers who realize that the librarian has their long term development in mind may
tend to be more favorably disposed to that service.27 In effect, part of the service that
the librarian should provide is to take into account the fact that the user’s expectations
may be unrealistic. The librarian then works with the user to adjust those expectations to
reality. This process of adjusting user expectations is itself a service, and can be
performed skillfully or poorly with corresponding results.
The service quality literature analyzes this process in some detail. Once the
librarian believes that he or she has a clear grasp of the user’s expectations, he or she can
then check it with the user by a technique called mirroring.28 The librarian might say to
the user “What you seem to be looking for is not just information about sibling rivalry,
but also someone to help you search for it on the computer.” Asking for this kind of
informal confirmation from the user allows him or her to correct any assumptions on the
librarian’s part.
If the librarian discovers at this point that the user’s expectation is in fact
unrealistic, the librarian can then take several steps. One is to briefly explain why it may
hinder the student’s development if the librarian performs his search for him. Another
16
step the librarian can take is to use a technique called “bone throwing,” which involves
compensating a customer for a perceived denial or loss of service.29 This means doing
something for the student that shows the librarian empathizes with his or her situation,
and wishes to help as much as possible without engaging in outright spoon-feeding. For
example, the librarian might say “I’ll perform a sample search while you watch, then you
can try the real one.”
Empathy is another critical element in the customer transaction. The librarian
must convey a strong sense of understanding the user’s situation. On a physical level,
this includes exhibiting an intense interest in the customer’s problem and nodding at
appropriate intervals to indicate one understands the need the customer is expressing. At
a verbal level, it involves the use of empathic responses that indicate to the user that he or
she has been adequately understand on an emotional level. For example, in responding to
the user who had been expecting the librarian to do the search for him, the response might
be “I would feel frustrated too if my assignment was due tomorrow and I hadn’t realized
I’d have to learn to do much of the work myself.”30 In the service encounter, customers
respond not just to what is said or done, but how it is done.
If clarifying customer expectations, listening, and empathizing prove to be
ineffective in satisfying the customer, there is another technique the librarian can use,
called “diffusing.” The librarian can say to the customer, “let me introduce you to my
supervisor who can provide you with additional assistance.”31 This technique can be
particularly useful in situations in which the customer has concerns about policy issues.
By providing the customer with “a second opinion” from someone whom the customer
regards as being of importance, the very act of receiving the additional attention can be a
17
source of satisfaction to that customer. If the supervisor reiterates what the librarian has
told the patron, hearing disappointing news from a second person can actually reassure
the customer that he wasn’t being singled out or that the first librarian’s response was
“personal.”
At the broader level of policy, it would be extremely helpful to create a written
policy for service quality. Such a policy would make it easier for librarians to avoid
having to make personal judgments in serving users.32 The policy could make clear if
different levels of service are to be provided to different types of users (e.g. faculty vs.
students). It might also specify particular types of service situations or user requests
along with appropriate staff responses to them.
Adapting Service Quality to Access Services
Reference services is perhaps the most obvious example of the necessity of having
to adapt the service quality model to academic librarianship. There are other examples as
well, such as access services. Some access services programs now feature services that
enable faculty and students to request that books and articles be retrieved for them from
the stacks by library staff, sometimes free of charge or for a modest photocopying fee.
Such programs tend to be very popular with students at institutions that offer them, and it
is not unusual for students to request that a dozen or more articles be retrieved for them at
a time, enough to write a research paper with.
These document delivery programs are extremely useful and valuable services to
certain portions of the campus population, such as faculty or distance learning students
who cannot spend extended periods of time on campus. However, to extend the service
18
to the larger student body, particularly undergraduates, may conflict with the overall
educational mission of the university. There are several reasons why this is so.
To begin with, these services often simply assume that their customers already
possess the necessary skills to locate a monograph or journal in the stacks. Yet this is not
always so. The author has encountered students (typically undergraduates) who come to
the reference desk claiming that they are unable to find not merely a particular volume or
call number, but an entire call number range. Such students obviously need more
experience in locating material in the stacks, which is a relatively easy procedure once
one gets accustomed to how the LC classification system is arranged.
For undergraduates coming from small towns possessing only limited experience
with the Dewey classification system of a small town public library, figuring out the LC
classification system of a large research library may require some initial thought and
effort. Library services that offer to retrieve stacks materials for students make it possible
for them to attend college without having to learn this basic skill. To allow students to
graduate without necessarily being able to locate a book in the library may run counter to
broader educational objectives of creating independent, life-long learners.
Another important lesson that customers of these services are denied is learning
the importance of serendipitous browsing.33 Experienced scholars understand the value
of this vital aspect of the research process. Typically, it is a process in which one goes to
the stacks seeking a particular book or article, and is delighted to discover related and
sometimes more valuable materials shelved in close proximity to the item that was
originally sought. Students who use document retrieval services never learn how
19
important this intellectual grazing activity can be, and as a result their research is
impoverished and they themselves as researchers are potentially less effective.
Perhaps it might be possible to adapt these document delivery services so that they
conflict less with the mission of educational institutions to produce effective scholars.
One possibility might be to limit the services to graduate students or upperclassmen, who
presumably would have been required to learn how to locate stacks materials in their
earlier years. Another option might be to offer the service to students who have
successfully passed a brief test of their ability to locate stacks materials. Such a test could
be administered virtually using an online program developed for student shelvers.
Moreover, it might enhance the value of the service in the student’s eyes. It would allow
those document delivery services to be offered, yet ensure that only qualified students
would be using them.34
Modifying Service Quality Concepts for Collection Development
One of the most basic assumptions of the service quality model is that only
customers are capable of judging service quality, and that “all other judgments are
essentially irrelevant.”35 Yet, traditionally, librarians have selected books for the
collection based not so much on what they believe students would want, but rather in
anticipation of what they believe students will need for their studies. Librarians have thus
tended to make choices that the students themselves might not make. Some indication of
the kind of books students purchase may be found in examining a recent list of campus
bestsellers. These tend to be a mix of genre fiction, pop psychology, and satirical
humor.36
20
Collection development librarians have made their selections based in part on the
didactic model of service. With regard to developing the collection, this means that
materials are chosen primarily on how well they support the instructional function of the
library. This philosophy was summed up by Ross Atkinson, when he wrote “The
academic library must therefore acquire material specifically intended for and used by
undergraduates in fulfillment of its instructional function.”37
This would suggest that the service quality model with its demand-oriented
approach to collection development, and the didactic service model with its instructional
emphasis represent another potential source of conflict. The service quality model would
attempt to increase usage and make the collection more responsive to immediate
customer wants, regardless of other considerations such as quality or representativeness
or didactic value. This approach deserves some consideration in light of usage studies
such as the one done at the University of Pittsburgh, which indicated that a large
percentage of library collections are infrequently or never used.38
At least in its pure form, however, the service quality model would suggest that
the academic library be run something akin to a bookstore. Proponents of the model such
as Berry frequently compare the library with the large bookstore chains, and suggest that
libraries have much to learn from them if libraries are to survive. Given the book buying
tastes of students, it would be difficult to rely solely on their opinions as to what should
be made available or as to what constitutes quality. Many large research libraries even
discourage purchasing such obviously didactic items as textbooks, even though they are
frequently sought by students. Clearly, service quality concepts that emphasize demand
and use principles with regard to developing the collection will require some adaptation
21
to the academic library, with its long-standing emphasis on buying books that users
should read, rather than what they actually do read. It may come down to a question of
whether it is better for the library to try to cater to student’s current interests, or whether it
is necessary to try to expand student’s interests by purchasing titles that are critically
valued that may be more enduring.
The issue raised here goes beyond that of collection development to the larger
issue of determining to what degree librarianship is a profession. In the medical
profession, patients are not allowed to prescribe their own remedies. The patient relies on
the professional judgment of the physician. Is the library user then capable of deciding
what books should be purchased, or more generally, how the library should function in
order to satisfy his wants or needs? The service quality model suggests that this may
indeed be true. This then raises the further question of whether relying heavily on user
opinion diminishes the role of the librarian’s professional judgment in collection
development in particular and managing the library more generally.39
The same issue was raised 35 years ago when sociologist William J. Goode
questioned whether librarianship would ever become a profession. He wrote that in
“serving” the user, the librarian needs to learn the user’s wishes and try to satisfy them.
But Goode warned that this can also deteriorate into simply giving users what they want,
rather than attempting to educate the reader and thus fulfill a higher social obligation.
Goode noted “This strain between the wishes and real needs of a clientele is perhaps to be
found in all professions, but in established professions more often it is resolved by the
professional’s decision.”40 The implication is that the librarian must not relinquish his or
22
her professional judgment if he or she has any hopes of ever being considered a true
professional.
Nonetheless, it may be possible for the librarian to better tailor the collection to
the user’s needs, without necessarily sacrificing professional judgment. One possible way
to adapt the service quality model to academic library collection development would be to
place more emphasize on use studies. This would appear prudent given the growing
number of titles published and the decreasing size of collection development budgets.
Some universities have begun to track circulation and interloan activity using automated
systems with the intention of discovering which subject areas and titles are most in
demand. This data could then be used to buy similar titles in related areas. Care would
need to be taken so that this approach is not overemphasized and that some emphasis is
still placed on developing other areas of the collection. The resulting collection would
thus be more demand-oriented and reflective of local user needs without being entirely
dictated by popular tastes.41
Another way to achieve a more demand-oriented collection would be through the
use of local citation analysis. This would involve examining the sources cited in
dissertations and theses written at the particular library under study, and checking these
sources against the library’s holdings. Titles not part of the library’s collection could then
be added as necessary. This technique would appear to be particularly useful in satisfying
customer needs at the graduate level.42 Various in-house measures of use such as
marking volumes before reshelving them could also be utilized.
23
The Service Environment and the Academic Library
The service quality model places great emphasis on “tangibles.” These elements
of the service environment include the overall condition and appearance of physical
facilities, equipment, and staff. These seemingly external factors are important to
customers because they make judgments about the overall quality of service based on
them.43 Even such relatively intangible elements of the environment such as decor, style,
color, art, and sound can be important to the customer.44
In his ALA address, Leonard Berry mentioned the importance of the overall
service atmosphere to customers, and used the Tattered Cover Bookstore in Denver as an
example. He uses the store as an example again in his most recent book on service.
Berry specifically mentions that the store’s antique furnishings and atmosphere make the
customer feel at home. He quotes an employee who refers to “151 comfy chairs and
couches” as contributing to the overall ambiance that makes the store so popular with
customers.45
The service quality emphasis on ambiance and atmosphere would suggest that
there is no reason academic libraries need to be cold or institutional. Certainly more
attention could be placed on ergonomic factors in computer workstations and study areas.
But to furnish the library with overstuffed chairs and couches might actually constitute an
imposition on some students. The reason for this is that students often come to the library
not so much as to relax or unwind, but rather to work and study. For these students,
“comfy” furniture might actually hinder their concentration when they would prefer to be
alert and focused. This is not to imply that the furnishings need to be spartan or
24
uncomfortable, but only to suggest that customers go to stores like Tattered Cover with
different needs than the ones students bring to academic libraries.
One possible adaptation of the service quality emphasis on atmosphere might
involve designating certain sections of the library as “comfort zones” that are furnished
with an extra emphasis on comfort. Such areas could be furnished with lounge chairs,
plush couches, and table lamps to give them a living room type of atmosphere. This
would allow students the option of studying in whatever kind of environment they prefer,
and possibly even shifting between them if they so desired. Students who feel simpler
upright chairs and study tables help them do their work better would not be compromised
by such an arrangement.
There is some evidence to suggest that functionality is an important aspect of
ambiance in the eyes of library users,46 and greater emphasis could be placed on
orienting cues like signage. Special attention could be given to heavy traffic areas like
reference. Restaurants, airports, and department stores have taken into account the
psychology of waiting in line for service by providing distractions for customers, and
academic libraries might do likewise. Would library users waiting in line be more
satisfied if they could watch answers to frequently asked reference questions displayed on
overhead video monitors? Some might even discover the answer to their question on the
video, thus eliminating the need for having to wait in line any further.47 Using such
instructive or diverting materials to engage customers who are waiting can help reduce
customer frustration, as long as it is remembered that the activity chosen should offer a
benefit itself and be somehow related to the subsequent service encounter.
25
The area in which academic libraries can really learn much from bookstores is
merchandising. Academic libraries typically treat their most valuable commodities,
including books, journals and databases, as stock that is to be warehoused. These
resources are seldom displayed in a way that makes them appear attractive or valuable to
customers. As a result, the library loses an opportunity to enhance its value in the eyes of
customers by not adequately displaying its wares. The customer cannot value what the
library does not itself value.
Imagine how much more valuable the library might appear to a customer if the
newly acquired books were prominently displayed. Carousels displaying books with dust
jackets still on them and highlighted by track lighting might contribute to a more inviting
environment then the current warehouse method that is so commonly used.48 New
databases could be similarly showcased using some of the techniques that vendors at
library conventions have used successfully to attract customers to their booths. Using the
environment as a tool for increasing customer’s current awareness is an important service
that can only enhance the value of the library to the customer and potentially increase
traffic in the library by conveying the image that the library has merchandise of value.
Conclusion
This study has tried to point out some of the limitations and suggest some of the
possibilities of the service quality model for academic libraries. Many of the limitations
stem from the fact that the service quality model was originally developed for use in a
commercial environment. This does not mean that the model is not without utility for the
non-commercial environment of the academic library. Incorporating service quality
26
concepts into the academic library setting is perfectly feasible and potentially valuable,
but, as this study has tried to indicate, some adaptation may be necessary. The presence
of an older competing model of didactic service may result in some resistance on the part
of librarians who subscribe to this model. It is nonetheless possible for elements of both
models to co-exist in a hybrid form that includes some of the best aspects of each model.
This study represents an initial attempt at suggesting how the two models might be
merged, but more research is needed in this area.
Some possible ways in which the service quality model might be adapted to
various areas within the academic library have been discussed. Pure service quality tenets
that insist that the customer is the sole judge of service or that satisfying customer wants
is the key to quality service do not seem to fit readily with the academic library
environment. The goals and methods of academe, and the relation of staff to customers is
more complex than in the business and manufacturing settings that service quality
concepts developed from. A basic paradox of academic librarianship that seems to
emerge from this study is that by not always giving the student what he or she wants, the
librarian is actually performing a service for the students by helping them to become more
independent and encouraging them to move toward greater self-sufficiency.
Service quality concepts can make a significant contribution in this effort, because
the service quality literature is especially rich in ways to prevent potentially disgruntled
customers from going away dissatisfied. As this article has tried to show, librarians can
learn much from adopting some of these techniques for relating to customers better. It is
interesting to note that even though many librarians spend at least some part of their day
involved in public contact, there is no component of library school training that gives
27
librarians instruction in how to handle customers. Here too, librarians can learn much
from the business sector. Many companies invest considerable time and effort in training
staff that will be involved with the public, and such programs could serve as models for
libraries and library schools interested in improving customer relations, and ultimately,
customer satisfaction.
Other areas of the library besides reference services can benefit from adapting
service quality concepts as well. The collection can be made more responsive to local
user needs through the judicious use of user studies that strengthen the collection in
heavily used areas but never at the expense of neglecting those areas that are less in
demand. Academic libraries can also greatly improve the service environment by
adopting some of the successful merchandising techniques employed by bookstores, so
that both books and electronic resources are better displayed and brought to the attention
of customers. Making the physical environment of the library appear more like a store
and less like a warehouse may be as important as good customer relations in helping the
customer appreciate the value of the library and its contents. It can thus be seen that the
rich possibilities of adapting service quality concepts to the academic library environment
may outweigh many of the limitations that the model currently poses in its pure or
orthodox form.
1) Danuta A. Nitecki, “Changing the Concept and Measure of Service Quality in
Academic Libraries,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 22 (May 1996): 181-190.
28
2) Leonard L. Berry, “Great Service Now: Framework for Action” (paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Library Association, New York, N.Y., July 1996)
3) Tibbett L. Speer, “Libraries from A to Z,” American Demographics 17 (September
1995): 48-54.
4) Clifford Stoll, Silicon Snake Oil (New York: Doubleday, 1995), p. 188.
5) Marilyn Domas White and Eileen G. Abels, “Measuring Service Quality in Special
Libraries: Lessons From Service Marketing,” Special Libraries 86 (Winter 1995): 36-45.
6) James E. Swiss, “Adapting Total QualityManagement (TQM) to Government,” Public
Administration Review 52 (July/August 1992): 356-362.
7) William H. Newman and HarveyW. Wallender, “Managing Not-For-Profit
Enterprises,” Journal of Library Administration 1 (Spring 1980): 87-97.
8) Bob Usherwood, “Libraries as a Public Service,” Public Library Journal 7
(November/December 1992): 141-145.
9) Karyle S. Butcher, “Total QualityManagement: The Oregon State University Library’s
Experience,” Journal of Library Administration 18 (1/2) 1993: 45-56.
10) Robert Pedersen, “The Perils of Total QualityManagement: Bringing Business
Rhetoric to Academe,” The Chronicle of Higher Education 39 (September 23, 1992): B4.
11) Susan Jurow, “TQM: The Customer Focus” in Total QualityManagement in
Libraries: A Sourcebook ed. by Rosanna M. O’Neil (Englewood, Co: Libraries
Unlimited, Inc., 1994): 18-19.
12) Andrew Green, “What Do We Mean By User Needs?” British Journal of Academic
Librarianship 5 (2) 1990: 65-78.
29
13) Thomas Seay, Sheila Seaman, and David Cohen, “Measuring and Improving the
Quality of Public Services: A Hybrid Approach,” Library Trends 44 (Winter 1996): 464-
490.
14) William E. McGrath, “The Reappearance of Rankings: Reliability, Validity,
Explanation, Quality, and the Mission of Library and Information Science,” Library
Quarterly 63 (2) 1993: 192-198.
15) George Keller, “Increasing Quality on Campus: What Should Colleges Do About the
TQM Mania?” Change 24 (May/June 1992): 48-51.
16) Stephen T. Moore and Michael J. Kelly, “Quality Now: Moving Human Services
Organizations Toward a Consumer Orientation to Service Quality,” Social Work 41
(January 1996): 33-40.
17) Jo Bell Whitlatch, “Customer Service: Implications for Reference Practice,” The
Reference Librarian 49/50 (1995): 5-24.
18) David K. Carr and Ian D. Littman, Excellence in Government: Total Quality
Management in the 1990’s (Arlington, Va.: Coopers and Lybrand, 1990) p.32.
19) James Rettig, “Can We Get There From Here?” in Evaluation of Public Services and
Public Services Personnel ed. by Bryce Allen (Urbana, IL.:University of Illinois,
Graduate School of Library and Information Science, 1991): 3-26.
20) Gayle J. Hardy and Judith Schiek Robinson, “Reference Services to Students: A
Crucible for Ethical Inquiry,” RQ 30 (Fall 1990): 82-87.
21) John Lubans, Jr., “Teaching the User: Ethical Considerations,” The Reference
Librarian 4 (Summer 1982): 89-98.
30
22) J. Richard McCallum and Wayne Harrison, “Interdependence in the Service
Encounter,” in The Service Encounter: Managing Employee/Customer Interaction in
Service Businesses ed. by John A. Czepiel, Michael R. Solomon, and Carol F. Surprenant
(Lexington, Mass.:Lexington Books, 1985): 35-48.
23) Bea Flinner, “Academic Libraries and Reference Ethics,” The Reference Librarian 4
(Summer 1982): 151-155.
24) Christopher Millson-Martula and Vanaja Menon, “Customer Expectations: Concepts
and Reality for Academic Library Services,” College and Research Libraries 56 (January
1995): 33-47.
25) Barbara A. Gutek, The Dynamics of Service: Reflections on the Changing Nature of
Customer/Provider Interactions (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995) p.147.
26) Janet Dangenais Brown, “Using Quality Concepts to Improve Reference Services”
College and Research Libraries 55 (May 1994): 211-19.
27) Valarie A. Zeithaml, A. Parasuraman, and Leonard L. Berry, Delivering Quality
Service: Balancing Customer Perceptions and Expectations (New York: The Free Press,
1990) p. 45.
28) Fred E. Jandt, The Customer Is UsuallyWrong! (Indianapolis: Park Avenue
Publishers, 1995) p. 39.
29) Ibid., p. 43.
30) Bernice B. Johnston, Real World Customer Service (Naperville, Illinois: Small
Business Sourcebooks, 1996) p. 42.
31) Arlene Farber Sirkin, Is the Customer Always Right? (Towson, Md.: American
Library Association/Library Video Networks, 1994) Videocassette, 23 minutes.
31
32) Hardy and Robinson, “Reference Services to Students,” p. 86.
33) James D. LeBlanc, “Classification and Shelflisting as Value Added: Some Remarks
on the Relative Worth and Price of Predictability, Serendipity, and Depth of Access,”
Library Resources and Technical Services 39 (July 1995): 294-302.
34) Paul Heller and Stuart Kohler, “Take This Book and Shelve It!” College and
Research Libraries News 57 (July/August 1996): 425-426.
35) Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Berry, Delivering Quality Service p.16.
36) “What They’re Reading on College Campuses,” The Chronicle of Higher Education
42 (April 5, 1996): A36.
37) Ross Atkinson, “Old Forms, New Forms: The Challenge of Collection
Development,” College and Research Libraries 50 (September, 1989): 507-520.
38) Allen Kent, et al., Use of LibraryMaterials: The University of Pittsburgh Study (New
York: Dekker, 1979).
39) George McMurdo, “User Satisfaction” New LibraryWorld 81, 958 (1980): 83-85.
40) William J. Goode, “The Librarian: From Occupation to Profession?” The Library
Quarterly 31 (October, 1961): 306-320.
41) William A. Britten and Judith D. Webster, “Comparing Characteristics of Highly
Circulated Titles for Demand-Driven Collection Development,” College and Research
Libraries 56 (July 1995): 313-318.
42) Margaret Sylvia and Marcella Lesher, “What Journals Do Psychology Graduate
Students Need? A Citation Analysis of Thesis References,” College and Research
Libraries 56 (July 1995): 313-318.
32
43) Kirk L. Wakefield and Jeffrey G. Blodgett, “The Importance of Servicescapes in
Leisure Service Settings,” Journal of Services Marketing 8, 3, 1994: 66-76.
44) Gregory D. Upah and James W. Fulton, “Situation Creation in Service Marketing,” in
The Service Encounter, p.257.
45) Leonard L. Berry, On Great Service: A Framework for Action (New York: The Free
Press, 1995), p. 70.
46) Patricia Dewdney and Catherine Sheldrick Ross, “Flying a Light Aircraft: Reference
Service Evaluation from a User’s Viewpoint,” RQ 34 (Winter 1994): 217-230.
47) Jean-Charles Chebat, Pierre Filiastrault, Claire Gelinas-Chebat, and Alexander
Vanisky, “Impact of Waiting Attribution and Consumer’s Mood on Perceived Quality,”
Journal of Business Research 34 (November 1995): 191-196.
48) Carrie Goerne, “Now Book Browsers Can Munch Brownies as They Shop for
Browning,” Marketing News 26 (July 6, 1992):1-9.