Page 166 - Proceedings-edit-2021_09_20-final

© Proceedings of the Ruhuna Quality Assurance Sessions 2021 (RUQAS 2021)
st
21 September 2021

opportunities from these changes and reconfigure the resources and capabilities to implement the
innovations and modifications to face the changes of user requirements.

Moreover, the model considered the organization’s agility capabilities because just having the

resources cannot complete the performance. Activation of dynamic capabilities is difficult if the library

has no agile setup to face the unpredictable turbulence. For this, the library should have agility
capabilities such as robust strategies to respond to the market needs, a flexible structure capable of

adapting quickly to the changes, and a cohesive team guided by an efficient leadership to use the
resources to fulfil the market needs.

Quality is a psychological concept and it is necessarily related to the customer perception of
satisfaction. Therefore the model considers the user’s point of view regarding the library service.

Here, the perception of the service provider as well as the perception of the service user is important.
Therefore, the model concentrated on the evaluation of three key service factors of the university

library viz. service effect, information control, and library as place in both points of view of the use as
well as the librarian. This includes the conditions of staff support, access to information resources, and

the physical space and facilities of the library. Accordingly, the librarian’s perception of how good

they provide the services is considered while considering the user’s perception of how good the
services they receive. Overall perceived service quality is determined in both aspects (service provider

and service user) and this balances the impact of the provider-user perception gap towards the quality.

Based on the conceptual model, the survey instrument which consisted of five questionnaires was

constructed. All the five key variables were measured through the survey instrument and results were
averaged to integrate resource capabilities and perceived service quality (objective 2). The proposed

index indicates the overall quality level of each library as an indicator. It can be used to measure the
service quality level of a particular university library and identify the development needs and areas for

ensuring service quality. This study concentrated on the service quality in multiple aspects associated
with the personalized perception of quality as well as the perception of resource capabilities of the

library. The author adheres that just asking the customer how service is good is not enough to measure

the service quality. Service quality should go beyond satisfaction and personalization, but on the
overall environmental condition of the library. This may also address the limitation of the

benchmarking strategy such as arbitrarily copying the other organization's criteria without localization.
Benchmarking might be incomplete if the resource-capability gap between the developing countries

and developed countries is wide. This model also may address the cultural, localization, and socio-
economic impact on service quality.

149