Advertisement

Using the DEMATEL model to expose core causal items of LibQUAL for improving library service quality: from the perspective of big data

  • Chia-Huei Wu
  • Yu-Hsi YuanEmail author
  • Sang-Bing TsaiEmail author
Focus
First Online:
  • 61 Downloads

Abstract

This study aims to expose the “causal core” items of LibQUAL+™ from professional librarians’ views. The objective is to prioritize limited resources to improve the most influential factors affecting the library service quality. Valid LibQUAL+™ questionnaires from thirty-two university library administrators in Taiwan are collected for analysis. The Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) technique is employed to build causal maps that can clearly locate the twenty-two LibQUAL+™ question items into four quadrants: core causal, inferior causal, inferior effect, and core effect. The DEMATEL causal maps can facilitate the library administrators to prioritize the limited resources for improvement. Five “causal core” items of LibQUAL+™ are identified, including the library staff should be motivated with high willingness to help users and giving users individual attention; the library amenities should provide a quiet space for individual activities; the library Web site should allow users to locate and access information easily and individually. The survey data represent what professional librarians’ think of the service quality in their libraries. The findings may serve as useful guidance to allocate limited budgets for library service improvement. This paper has pinpointed the “core causal” items of LibQUAL+™ for advancing library administration. It is the first of its kind in the literature to use the DEMATEL technique to identify the “core causal” items of LibQUAL+™ for improving library service quality.

Keywords

Service quality Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) LibQUAL Decision making Big data 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ahmed SMZ, Shoeb MZH (2009) Measuring service quality of a public university library in Bangladesh using SERVQUAL. Perform Meas Metr 10(1):17–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Association of Research Libraries (2013) LibQUAL+® 2013 survey. University of Northern British Columbia, Association of Research Libraries/Texas A&M University, College StationGoogle Scholar
  3. Asubonteng P, McCleary KJ, Swan JE (1996) SERVQUAL revisited: a critical review of service quality. J Serv Mark 10(6):62–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Avdic A (2018) Second order interactive end user development appropriation in the public sector: application development using spreadsheet programs. J Organ End User Comput 2018(30):82–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buttle F (1996) SERVQUAL: review, critique, research agenda. Eur J Mark 30(1):8–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chang B, Chang CW, Wu CH (2011) Fuzzy DEMATEL method for developing supplier selection criteria. Expert Syst Appl 38(3):1850–1858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen JK, Chen IS (2010) Using a novel conjunctive MCDM approach based on DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP, and TOPSIS as an innovation support system for Taiwanese higher education. Expert Syst Appl 37(3):1981–1990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chien Y, Huang Y (2017) Factors influence intention to adopt internet medical information on bulletin boards: a heuristic-systematic perspective. J Organ End User Comput 2017(29):23–41Google Scholar
  9. Cook C (2002) The maturation of assessment in academic libraries: the role of LibQUAL+™. Perform Meas Metr 3(2):34–112Google Scholar
  10. Cook C, Heath F (2001) Users’ perceptions of library service quality: a LibQUAL+™ qualitative study. Libr Trends 49(4):548–584Google Scholar
  11. Cook C, Heath F, Thompson B (2001) Users’ hierarchical perspectives on library service quality: a LibQUAL+™ study. Coll Res Libr 62(2):147–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cook C, Heath F, Thompson B (2002) Score norms for improving library service quality: a LibQUAL+™ study. Portal Libr Acad 2(1):13–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cook C, Heath F, Thompson B (2003) Zones of tolerance in perceptions of library service quality: a LibQUAL+™ study. Portal Libr Acad 3(1):113–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Din S, Paul A, Ahmad A, Gupta B, Rho S (2018) A service orchestration of optimizing continuous features using big data based fog-enabled internet of things. IEEE Access.  https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2800758 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fabisiak L (2018) Web service usability analysis based on user preferences. J Organ End User Comput 30(4):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fontela E, Gabus A (1976) The DEMATEL observer. DEMATEL 1976 Report, Battelle Geneva Research Center, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  17. Gabbie O, O’Neill MA (1996) SERVQUAL and the northern Ireland hotel sector: a comparative analysis—part 1. Manag Serv Qual 6(6):25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gabus A, Fontela E (1973) Perceptions of the world problematique: communication procedure, communicating with those bearing collective responsibility. DEMATEL report no. 1, Battelle Geneva Research Center, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  19. Gao S, Chen LS, Chen PL (2018) A fuzzy DEMATEL method for analyzing key factors of the product promotion. J Discrete Math Sci Cryptogr 21(6):1225–1228.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09720529.2018.1525904 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hajime Y, Kenichi I, Hajime M (2005) An innovative product development process for resolving fundamental conflicts. J Jpn Soc Precis Eng 71(2):216–222Google Scholar
  21. Heinrichs JH, Sharkey TW, Lim JS (2006) Research investigation of information access method. J Acad Libr 32(2):183–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Helgesen Ø, Nesset E (2011) Does LibQUAL+™ account for student loyalty to a university college library? Qual Assur Educ 19(4):413–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ho WRJ, Tsai CL, Tzeng GH, Fang SK (2011) Combined DEMATEL technique with a novel MCDM model for exploring portfolio selection based on CAPM. Expert Syst Appl 38(1):16–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ho LH, Feng SY, Lee YC, Yen TM (2012) Using modified IPA to evaluate supplier’s performance: multiple regression analysis and DEMATEL approach. Expert Syst Appl 39(8):7102–7109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hu HY, Lee YC, Yen TM, Tsai CH (2009) Using BPNN and DEMATEL to modify importance-performance analysis model: a study of the computer industry. Expert Syst Appl 36(6):9969–9979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Huang L (2017) A cultural model of online banking adoption: long-term orientation perspective. J Organ End User Comput 2017(29):1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Huang Z, Nie J, Tsai SB (2017) Dynamic collection strategy and coordination of a remanufacturing closed-loop supply chain under uncertainty. Sustainability 2017(9):683.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su9050683 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jody CF (2014) The dimensions of library service quality: a confirmatory factor analysis of the LibQUAL + instrument. Libr Inf Sci Res 36(1):36–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kayongo J, Jones S (2008) Faculty perception of information control using LibQUAL+™ indicators. J Acad Libr 34(2):130–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kenichi F, Yoshihiro N (2002) Study on function and failure analysis of snow melting machines. Trans Jpn Soc Mech Eng Ser C 68(675):3447–3455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kim YH (2006) Study on impact mechanism for beef cattle farming and importance of evaluating agricultural information in Korea using DEMATEL, PCA and AHP. Agric Inf Res 15(3):267–280Google Scholar
  32. Kyrillidou M (2008) LibQUAL+® and beyond: library assessment with a focus on library improvement. Perform Meas Metr 9(3):160–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lee YC, Hsieh YF (2011) Integration of revised simultaneous importance performance analysis and decision making trial and evaluation laboratory: a study of the mobile telecommunication industry in Taiwan. Afr J Bus Manage 5(6):2312–2321MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. Lee YC, Li ML, Yen TM, Huang TH (2010) Analysis of adopting an integrated decision making trial and evaluation laboratory on a technology acceptance model. Expert Syst Appl 37(2):1745–1754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Li Y, Wang X (2018) Seeking health information on social media: a perspective of trust, self-determination, and social support. J Organ End User Comput 30(1):1–12MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lin YW, Liu EF (2007) A study of service quality assessment in university libraries in Taiwan from the perspective of LibQUAL+™. Univ Libr J 11(2):19–44Google Scholar
  37. Lin CJ, Wu WW (2008) A causal analytical method for group decision making under fuzzy environment. Expert Syst Appl 34(1):205–213MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lin YT, Yang YH, Kang JS, Yu HC (2011) Using DEMATEL method to explore the core competences and causal effect of the IC design service company: an empirical case study. Expert Syst Appl 38(5):6262–6268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Liu J, Li Y, Ruan Z, Fu G, Chen X, Sadiq R, Deng Y (2015) A new method to construct co-author networks. Phys A 419:29–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Liu B, Li T, Tsai S-B (2017) Low carbon strategy analysis of competing supply chains with different power structures. Sustainability 9:835.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su9050835 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Liu A, Liu H, Xiao Y, Tsai S-B, Lu H (2018a) An empirical study on design partner selection in green product collaboration design. Sustainability 10(1):133.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su10010133 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Liu W, Shi HB, Zhang Z, Tsai SB, Zhai Y, Chen Q, Wang J (2018b) The development evaluation of economic zones in China. Int J Environ Res Public Health 15:56.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15010056 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Morales M, Ladhari R, Reynoso J, Toro R, Sepulveda C (2012) An independent assessment of the unidimensionality, reliability, validity and factor structure of the LibQUAL+™ scale. Serv Ind J 32(16):2585–2605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nadiri H, Mayboudi SMA (2010) Diagnosing university students’ zone of tolerance from university library services. Malays J Libr Inf Sci 15(1):1–20Google Scholar
  45. Nagata H, Satoh Y, Gerrard S, Kytömäki P (2004) The dimensions that construct the evaluation of service quality in academic libraries. Perform Meas Metr 5(2):53–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nanayo F, Toshiaki T (2002) A new method of paired comparison by improved DEMATEL method: application to the integrated evaluation of a medical information which has multiple factors. Jpn J Med Inf 22(2):211–216Google Scholar
  47. Neshat N, Dehghani M (2013) Review of the current gap between clients’ expectations and perceptions of received service in national library by using gap analysis model. Perform Meas Metr 14(1):45–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nitecki DA (1996) Changing the concept and measure of service quality in academic libraries. J Acad Libr 22(3):181–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nyeck S, Morales M, Ladhari R, Pons F (2002) 10 years of service quality measurement: reviewing the use of the SERVQUAL instrument. Cuadernos de Diffusion 7(13):101–107Google Scholar
  50. Parasuraman A (2002) Service quality and productivity: a synergistic perspective. Manag Serv Qual 12(1):6–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Parasuraman A, Zeithamal VA, Berry LL (1985) A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. J Mark 49(4):41–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Parasuraman A, Zeithamal VA, Berry LL (1988) SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring customer expectations of service. J Retail 64(1):12–40Google Scholar
  53. Parasuraman A, Berry LL, Zeithaml VA (1991) Refinement and reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale. J Retail 67(4):420–450Google Scholar
  54. Parasuraman A, Berry LL, Zeithaml VA (1993) Research note: more on improving service quality measurement. J Retail 69(1):140–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Parasuraman A, Zeithaml VA, Berry LL (1994) Reassessment of expectations as a comparison standard in measuring service quality: implications for future research. J Mark 58(January):111–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Psannis K, Stergiou C, Gupta BB (2018) Advanced media-based smart big data on intelligent cloud systems. IEEE Trans Sustain Comput.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TSUSC.2018.2817043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shen YC, Lin GTR, Tzeng GH (2011) Combined DEMATEL techniques with novel MCDM for the organic light emitting diode technology selection. Expert Syst Appl 38(3):1468–1481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Shieh JI, Wu HH, Huang KK (2010) A DEMATEL method in identifying key success factors of hospital service quality. Knowl Based Syst 23(3):277–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tamura H, Okanishi H, Akazawa K (2006) Decision support for extracting and dissolving consumers’ uneasiness over foods using stochastic DEMATEL. J Telecommun Inf Technol 4(1):91–95Google Scholar
  60. Thompson B, Cook C, Heath F (2000) The LibQUAL+™ gap measurement model: the bad, the ugly, and the good of gap measurement. Perform Meas Metr 1(3):165–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Thompson B, Cook C, Thompson RL (2002) Reliability and structure of LibQUAL+™ scores: measuring perceived library service quality. Portal Libr Acad 2(1):3–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Thompson B, Cook C, Heath F (2003) Structure of perceptions of service quality in libraries: a LibQUAL+™ study. Struct Equ Model 10(3):456–464MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Thompson B, Cook C, Kyrillidou M (2005) Concurrent validity of LibQUAL+™ scores: what do LibQUAL+™ scores measure? J Acad Libr 31(6):517–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Thompson B, Cook C, Kyrillidou M (2006) Using localized survey items to augment standardized benchmarking measures: a LibQUAL+™ study. Portal Libr Acad 6(2):219–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tsai SB (2018) Using the DEMATEL model to explore the job satisfaction of research and development professionals in china’s photovoltaic cell industry. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018(81):62–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tsai WH, Chou WC (2009) Selecting management systems for sustainable development in SMEs: a novel hybrid model based on DEMATEL, ANP, and ZOGP. Expert Syst Appl 36(2):1444–1458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tsai SB, Huang CY, Wang CK, Chen Q et al (2016a) Using a mixed model to evaluate job satisfaction in high-tech industries. PLoS ONE 11(5):e0154071.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154071 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tsai SB, Xue Y, Zhang J, Chen Q et al (2016b) Models for forecasting growth trends in renewable energy. Renew Sustain Energy Rev.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.06.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tsai SB, Xue Y, Zhang J, Chen Q, Liu Y, Zhoug J, Don W (2017) Models for forecasting growth trends in renewable energy. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017(77):1169–1178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tsai SB, Yu J, Ma L, Luo F, Zhou J, Chen Q, Xu L (2018) A study on solving the production process problems of the photovoltaic cell industry. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018(82):3546–3553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tseng ML (2009) A causal and effect decision making model of service quality expectation using grey-fuzzy DEMATEL approach. Expert Syst Appl 36(4):7738–7748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Tzeng GH, Chiang CH, Li CW (2007) Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning programs: a novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL. Expert Syst Appl 32(4):1028–1044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wu WW, Lee YT (2007) Developing global managers’ competencies using fuzzy DEMATEL method. Expert Syst Appl 32(2):499–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wu WW, Lan LW, Lee YT (2011) Exploring decisive factors affecting an organization’s SaaS adoption: a case study. Int J Inf Manage 31(6):556–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wu WW, Lan LW, Lee YT (2013) Factors hindering acceptance of using cloud services in university: a case study. Electron Libr 31(1):84–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Yang JL, Tzeng GH (2011) An integrated MCDM technique combined with DEMATEL for a novel cluster-weighted with ANP method. Expert Syst Appl 38(3):1417–1427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Yang YP, Shieh HM, Leu JD, Tzeng GH (2008) A novel hybrid MCDM model combined with DEMATEL and ANP with applications. Int J Oper Res 5(3):160–168Google Scholar
  78. Zhang Q, Luo C, Li M, Deng Y, Mahadevan S (2015) Tsallis information dimension of complex networks. Phys A 419:707–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Zhang YL, Bi RF, Xiao M (2017) Studying on enhancing readers’ satisfaction model of electronic service quality in library based on LibQUAL+ and Kano. Procedia Eng 174:260–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Zhou Q, Huang W, Zhang Y (2011) Identifying critical success factors in emergency management using a fuzzy DEMATEL method. Saf Sci 49(2):243–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Zhou J, Wang Q, Tsai SB et al (2016) How to evaluate the job satisfaction of development personnel. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.2016.2519860 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Service Industries and ManagementMinghsin University of Science TechnologyHsinchuTaiwan
  2. 2.College of Economics and ManagementZheJiang Normal UniversityZhejiangChina
  3. 3.Zhongshan InstituteUniversity of Electronic Science and TechnologyZhongshanChina
  4. 4.Research Center for Environment and Sustainable Development of China Civil AviationCivil Aviation University of ChinaTianjinChina

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options