Prioritizing the quality of information center services in terms of Kanoâs model and asymmetrical practice

Rohmand, Saideh; Esmaili Givi, Mohamad Reza; Pourezzat, Aliasghar

doi:10.35050/JIPM010.2018.073

Prioritizing the quality of information center services in terms of Kanoâs model and asymmetrical practice

Authors

Saideh rohmand

Mohamad Reza Esmaili Givi

Aliasghar pourezzat

10.35050/JIPM010.2018.073

Abstract

The objective of the present study is prioritization of the quality of information service centers in terms of Kano’s model and asymmetrical performance impact. This research is an applied research in terms of purpose, and is a descriptive survey in terms of data collection. A number of students at Tehran University at different educational levels, as clients of the Central Library during the educational year 1394-1395, served as the participants of the study. According to the information center of the Tehran University library, the number of clients during the period under investigation was 137,042. Using the Cochran formula, the sample size equals 375. Applying a random stratified sampling, the researcher collected 376 completed questionnaires. The collected data were analyzed through applying statistical tests, transforming the Likert scale into Kano’s model and asymmetrical performance impact formula. The results, generally indicate that the “services effect” factor, associated with the performance services category with low performance; “information control” factor associated with the category of motivational services, with low performance; while the factor “space and location of the library”, associated with basic services in high performance. Therefore, the prioritization of the measures to promote the quality of the library services, with regard to the Libqual dimensions, would be: (1) To promote the performance level of the factor “service effects” from a low- performance to a higher- performance level. (2) To promote the performance level of the factor “information control” from a low level to a higher performance level as well. (3) To sustain the performance level of the factor “space and location of the library” as it is.

Keywords

LibQUAL

Kano’s model

effect of asymmetrical performance analysis

provision of information resources Center at Tehran University

Bauk, S., S. Šćepanović, & M. Kopp. 2014. Estimating Students’ Satisfaction with Web Based Learning System in Blended Learning Environment. Education Research International. 2014 (2014): 1-12 (Article ID 731720, doi:10.1155/2014/731720). Bayraktaroğlu, Özge, & Özgen. 2008.Integrating the Kano model, AHP and planning matrix: QFD application in library services. Library Management 29 (4/5): 327– 351. Caber, M., T. Albayrak, & E. T. Loiacono. 2013. The classification of extranet attributes in terms of their asymmetric influences on overall user satisfaction an introduction to asymmetric impact-performance analysis. Journal of Travel Research 52 (1): 106-116. Calvert, P. J. 2001. International variations in measuring customer expectations. Library Trends 49 (4): 732-757. Chen, L. H., & Y. F. Kuo. 2011. Understanding e-learning service quality of a commercial bank by using Kano’s model. Total Quality Management 22 (1): 99-116. Garibay, Cecilia, Humberto Gutierrez, & Arturot Figueroa. 2010. Evaluation of a Digital Library by Means of Quality Function Deployment (QFD) and the Kano Model, The Journal of Academic Librarianship 36 (2): 125–132. Kahneman, D., & A. Tversky. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the econometric society 47 (2): 263-291. Martilla, J. A., & J. C. James. 1977. Importance-performance analysis. The journal of marketing, 77-79. Mikulic, J., & D. Prebezac. 2008. Prioritizing improvement of service attributes using impact range-performance analysis and impact-asymmetry analysis. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal 18 (6): 559-576. Mittal, V., W. T. Ross, & P. M. Baldasare. 1998. The asymmetric impact of negative and positive attribute-level performance on overall satisfaction and repurchase intentions. Journal of marketing 62: 33-47. Oh, J. C., S. J. Yoon, & B. I. Park. 2012. A structural approach to examine the quality attributes of e-shopping malls using the Kano model. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 24 (2): 305-327. Rezaie, M., H. E. Nosratabadi, & H. Fazlollahtabar. 2012. Applying KANO Model for Users’ Satisfaction Assessment in E-Learning Systems: A Case Study in Iran Virtual Higher Educational Systems. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education (IJICTE) 8 (3): 1-12. Shahin, A., & M. Zairi. 2009. Kano model: A dynamic approach for classifying and prioritising requirements of airline travellers with three case studies on international airlines. Total Quality Management 20 (9): 1003-1028. Zeithaml, V. A., A. Parasuraman, & L. L. Berry. 1990. Delivering quality service: Balancing customer perceptions and expectations. New York: Simon and Schuster. Zhao, M., & R. Roy Dholakia. 2009. A multi-attribute model of web site interactivity and customer satisfaction: An application of the Kano model. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal 19 (3) 286-307