International Variations in Measuring Customer Expectations

ONEOF THE PROBLEMS WITH USING GAP ANALYSIS is our partial understanding of customer expectations. A survey of Chinese university library students’ expectations of service quality was compared to a similar survey done previously in New Zealand. Marked similarities in results show that there is perhaps a global set of customer expectations that can be used to measure academic library service quality. Three dimensions that concern staff attitudes, the library environment, and services that help the customer to find and use the library’s materials efficiently, are found in both studies. A secondary study investigated national culture as a source of attitudes to customer service. Using Hofstede’s dimensions, Library and Information Science (LIS) students in China and New Zealand were compared. Apart from some variation in the role of the manager in setting service standards, little variation appeared. The two surveys both suggest that national culture is not a major precursor of attitudes to service quality, so it will not impede efforts to set international measures of service quality for libraries. INTRODUCTION The increased emphasis on customer care seen in the 1980sand 1990s has also affected university libraries around the world and, as a result, the need to understand what library customers expect in terms of service quality is now necessary for good management. Service quality can be defined in different ways, but the most common approach used in libraries is PhilipJ. Calvert, Library and Information Studies Programme, School of Communications & Information Management, Victoria University of Wellington, P. 0.Box 600, Wellington 6001, New Zealand LIBRARY TRENDS, Vol. 49, No. 4, Spring 2001, pp. 732-757 02001 The Board of Trustees, University of Illinois CALVERT/INTERNATIONAL VARIATIONS 733 disconfirmation theory that examines the difference between a customer’s expectations and the customer’s perceived sense of actual performance. Surveys look for the extent that customer expectations of service are disconfirmed in practice; this is also called “gap” analysis. The SERVQUAL model of establishing service quality by employing gap analysis has been used in libraries for several years, and research shows it “offers service providers a diagnostic tool to assess what is important to meet or exceed their readers’ expectations for quality service and a monitor of how well they do so” (Nitecki, 1998, p. 190). Quinn (1997) argued that customer expectations can only be assessed by professionals, yet it has been established that customers and librarians have different expectations of the library, and “If there is a lack of congruence between users’ expectations and providers’ expectations, service qualitywill suffer regardless of how well services are planned, delivered, and marketed” (Edwards & Browne, 1995, p. 164). Hernon, Nitecki, and Altman (1999) say the belief that librarians already know what customers want, need, and expect is one reason they have been slow to accept the need to investigate service quality (p. 13). Customers have expectations about the service they will receive from an organization, and it is widely accepted that the key to good service quality lies in providing performance that meets or exceeds customer expectations of the service. That places the onus on library managers to know the expectations of their customers. Separately, but perhaps as importantly, a fuller knowledge of the origins, or antecedents, or customer expectations will provide management with a fuller understanding of the complex nature of service quality. The twenty-four statements in SERVQUAL have been so thoroughly tested that their reliability and validity is well established (see Zeithaml, Parasuraman, & Berry, 1990). Still, doubts have been expressed about the SERVQUAL’s applicability to contexts not close to its original setting (Robinson, 1999, p. 29). Its generality, as opposed to the specific context of a particular service sector such as libraries, has encouraged some LIS researchers to try a variation of gap analysis. Hernon and Altman (1998) pioneered a method of comparing customer expectations with objective indicators of service quality (p. 106) that has been tested in academic libraries in the United States, New Zealand, and Singapore (Calvert, 1997). This method is, in essence, similar to SERVQUAL but uses statements developed in consultation with library staff and customers that cover a wide range of aspects of service quality in libraries, though even the large number of statements generated so far cannot be said to be comprehensive. It also has the merit of being flexible enough to allow individual libraries to frame survey questionnaires to suit their own needs. 734 LIBRARY TRENDS/SPRING 2001 SEARCHING FOR GLOBALDIMENSIONS OF LIBRARYSERVICE QUALITY A problem with the gap model is that we have an inadequate understanding of customer expectations. Nitecki (1999) has pointed out that most research into library service quality has been case studies and has not prcduced normative results. She said: “Additional investigation is needed in library settings to draw insights about what library users find important in judging service quality and to speculate if universally prioritized factors exist across all library settings” (p. 225). In this project, it was hoped that, by investigating customer expectations in Chinese university libraries, the results would aid researchers around the world to move toward Nitecki’s ideal of a global understanding of customer expectations. Comparisons between the Chinese results and those from a similar survey conducted in New Zealand will add to our understanding of customer expectations. PRECURSORS QUALITY OF SERVICE Writers have identified different precursors of customer expectations. The SERVQUAL authors list word-of-mouth communication between customers; the personal needs of customers; past experiences of customers; and the external communications from service providers (Zeithaml, Parasuraman, & Berry, 1991, p. 19).A list produced from an LTS perspective included word of mouth, customer’s prior experience, and competitive behavior (Hernon & Altman, 1998, p. 11).To those lists, the impact of national culture can be added. The resulting six factors can be configured as follows: l h e customer: 1. past experience of the customer; 2. word-of-mouth from other customers; 3. personal needs of the customer; and 4. national culture of the customer. The service provider: 5. communications (direct and indirect) about what the customer can expect. Competitors: 6. service provided by other providers that acts as a benchmark. There seems to be no research that tries to establish priority among the various sources of expectations. Millson-Martula and Menon (1995) say that “needs” may be accorded the most worth because of their supposed objectivity; yet, however true this may be, personal needs vary so much between customers that management will find it extremely difficult to incorporate any knowledge of individual needs into strategic plans. Only when a pattern of needs emerges is the information of value. CALVERT/INTERNATIONAL VARIATIONS 735 Of the other four factors given in the literature, the most influential in forming expectations is likely to be the customer’s personal experience of the service. In a project that examined the relationship between customer perceptions and expectations of a pubic library service, British researchers concluded: “User’s experience has emerged as the most important factor impacting on the way that they form expectations and perceptions of the service.” It was the “snapshot” of service received during a service experience that had a significant impact on perceptions, and also that subsequent expectations were formed as a result of the experience (Lilley & Usherwood, 2000, p. 16).A series of such encounters will form the customer’s expectations of service quality. A practical difficulty that results from this is that expectations are likely to change with familiarity (Carman, 1990) so, if possible, the level of familiarity should be gauged along with the expectations or, alternatively, take only the views of individuals with experience of the service and use their responses as a norm for all customers’ expectations (Robinson, 1999, p. 28). Chinese university students will have had few true library experiences prior to starting a degree, for school libraries are nonexistent throughout much of the country and rudimentary where they do exist. This is not so in New Zealand, so the impact of school library experiences on university student expectations needs to be borne in mind as a possible factor, though this research has not produced any conclusions about its effect. Presumably, word-of-mouth communication is a by-product of personal experiences of the library by different individuals who then share the knowledge they have gained with their friends. This might be modified by library communications, but it seems as though it is the personal experience that has the strongest effect-as one might intuitively expect. As libraries raise their marketing efforts, they will presumably be conscious of the impact their messages have on customer expectations. Indeed, marketing services can help to create reasonable expectations of a service before it is experienced in person, as can the use of service level agreements, provided they are widely publicized. Both Chinese and New Zealand university libraries produce written material introducing customer services, and they are increasingly using Web sites to promote access to electronic services, so this will surely have some impact on expectations. This sort of promotion runs the risk that unmediated customer use of electronic services may result in some very unhappy “snapshot” experiences. Marketing is also important in changing those customer expectations that management believes are below a desirable level. For example, the University of Waikato discovered very low customer expectations of “reader education” classes (or bibliographic instruction, as they might be called in North America) so set out to raise expectations in order that more students would take advantage of the classes offered (Harwood & Bydder, 1998). 736 LIBRARY TRENDS/SPRING 2001 Significantly, the research that produced most of these “factors” in forming attitudes to senice quality has all emanated from the United States and so is representative of a single national culture. It is worth asking if the same antecedents of customer expectations will be found around the world or if national culture exercises a major influence on the formation of attitudes to senice quality. Every person carries patterns of emotions and potential behavior learned throughout a lifetime. Much of this is acquired in early childhood from family members and the social environment such as friends, television, and pop music, and it forms what Hofstede (1997) calls “mental programs” that partially predetermine a person’s behavior (p. 4). People have a learned reaction to any given situation, so it would be logical to expect customer service to include many moments when cultural characteristics play a part in the behavior of the customer or staff member concerned. As an example, it could condition the response a staff member shows to a customer’s dress or speech, to the amount of certainty the staff member feels she must show in the answer provided, to the extent she shows personal initiative in seeking a satisfactory answer to the customer’s question and how much she might fall back on stock responses from a manual, even to how much the staff member attempts to impress superiors with her behavior. Later, this article will tentatively explore the potential impact of national culture on the formation of attitudes to service quality in library and information management. It is worth adding at this point that Hofstede did not claim that “mental programs” were unerasable, but he suggested that certain behavior might need to be unlearned while new behavior patterns are acquired. OBJECTIVES PROJECT OF THE PRIMARY There were two objectives set for the research reported here: (1)to compare the customer expectations among university library customers in China and New Zealand to identify similarities and differences, and (2) to produce global dimensions for customer expectations of academic library service quality. Methods Focus groups of between four and eight library staff were held in Peking and Tsinghua Universities in China. The focus group members were presented with a list of statements produced in New Zealand by Hernon and Calvert (1996) and asked to consider their appropriateness to the Chinese situation. The statements on the list were amended and deleted according to the opinions expressed in the focus groups, with more statements being added to make the list truly representative of service quality as it is understood by university library staff in China. As an example of this, statements about drinking fountains were removed, but one on an adequate supply of clean water (for making tea) was added. CALVERT/ INTERNATIONAL VARIATIONS 737 Although this reduced the comparability of the two lists, there was also a need to produce outputs useful to the hosting university libraries so that the final list of statements included some elements of compromise to achieve that result. The statements were put into a questionnaire that asked library customers to rate their expectations of service quality in an “ideal” university library on each statement. The survey was completed by 135 customers (all of them students) in the two libraries. The data were entered into SPSS running on a PC. The mean of responses to each statement was calculated for each university separately, then the combined mean for all 135customers. Ranked lists with the highest means at the top were produced for each university and then for the combined means (Table 1).Both universities have been given their own ranked lists together with calculated means, so a by-product will be a list of statements that each individual university library will be able to use if they wish to conduct a separate analysis of service quality. A Spearman Rho correlation for the two universities was .73,perhaps lower than might be expected considering the similarity between the student bodies but significant nonetheless. Further analysis of the ranked lists for Peking and Tsinghua showed forty of the eighty-six statements within ten spaces of each other, showing considerable similarity on some aspects of service. At one university, statements on staffing scored quite highly while, at the other university, statements about the library’s catalog ranked higher. The data were subjected to principal component analysis followed by Varimax rotation. Nine factors could be produced using all eighty-six variables, but it required the removal of two statements before more factors could be produced and, once thirteen factors had emerged, it was not possible to produce more, even after forty rotations, without removing an excessive number of variables. Thirteen factors produced the most easily comprehensible output (see Appendix A). Reliability analysis of all thirteen factors produced high Alphas between .919 (the first factor) and .579 (the eleventh factor), showing that the results are robust. Only statements loading at higher than .4 are displayed. COMPARISON AND NEWZEALANDRESULTS BETWEEN CHINESE Table 1shows the combined means and resulting ranked list ofstatements from the two Chinese university libraries. Customers have said their expectations on the statement “It is easy to find where materials (books, journals, videos, maps, etc.) are shelved” exceed all others. If expectations are based on personal experience, then the sheer size of the two university library buildings at Peking and Tsinghua may account for this because students, in particular, will find it challenging to find what they need unless a rational layout supported by good signage aids them in their search for materials and service desks. Avisitor to either one of the libraries 738 LIBRARY TRENDS/SPRING 2001 Table 1. The Mean of All Responses, Ranked from Highest Expectations to the Lowest. 1. It is easy to find where materials (books, journals, videos, maps, etc.) are shelved. 2. The information I get from library materials is accurate. 3. The library’s Web pages contain correct and useful information about library services and materials. 4. Information displayed on the computer catalog is clear and easy to follow. 5. Study areas in the library are kept quiet. 6. Lighting in the building is adequate to my needs. 7. Catalog computers are in good working order. 8. Documents I want are in their proper places on the shelves. 9. The computer catalog is an accurate source of information about all documents held by the library. 10. The range of materials held by the library meets my course needs. 11. Instructions on remote access to the computer catalog are easy to follow. 12. Directional signs in the library are clear, understandable, and helpful. 13. Library materials are reshelved promptly after use. 14. The library material I need is in good condition (e.g., not brittle or falling apart). 15. The toilets are clean. 16. Internet, CD-ROM, and database computers are in good working order. 17. The library purchases new materials which are relevant to my course needs. 18. I can usually find a seat or study desk when I want one. 19. I find the temperature in the building is comfortable. 20. Computers for the library catalog are conveniently distributed throughout the library. 21. Library staff give accurate answers to my questions. 22. Library staff are approachable and welcoming. 23. It is easy to find out in advance when the library will be open. 24. I find the ventilation in the building is comfortable. 25. When I connect remotely to the computer catalog I do not get a busy signal or get disconnected. 26. The material I need from the course materials collection is usually available to me when I want it. 27. Library staff are courteous and polite. 28. I feel safe in the building. 5.970 1.348