See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/250613302

Customer Satisfaction Survey On Library Collection

Conference Paper · June 2011

CITATIONS READS
0 2,700

1 author:

A. Salmah
Universiti Putra Malaysia
9 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Training of librarians View project

All content following this page was uploaded by A. Salmah on 30 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 62

Customer Satisfaction Survey On Library Collection

SALMAH, ABDULLAH
Quality Assurance Unit, Perpustakaan Sultan Abdul Samad, Universiti Putra Malaysia,
43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
sal@putra.upm.edu.my

ABSTRACT

This paper aims to study the customer satisfaction level towards the library collection. The library collection
includes books, printed journals, online journals, online books and online databases. The research
developed to determine the satisfaction of the user who used the library collection. It also examine whether
any significant difference of satisfaction exist among library client towards the collection. Data gathered
through a self-administered survey given to random sampled 1,295 respondents inclusive of staffs and
students of Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM). The results obtained show that category of user and the
library collection status itself are the elements that have an impact on customer satisfaction. This paper
concludes that different categories of user have different level of satisfaction towards library collection.

Keywords: Customer satisfaction, Measurement, Survey, Library collection, Printed journals, Online
journals, Online books, Online databases, Academic libraries, Malaysia

INTRODUCTION

Satisfaction plays a particularly important role in competitive environments such as e-commerce

because of its impact on customer loyalty (Auh and Johnson, 1998; Soderlund, 1998). Thus it is
not surprising that many practical and theoretical models of customer retention have considered
satisfaction as a key determinant in consumer decisions to continue/discontinue their
relationship with a given product or service (Bolton, 1998; Lemon et al., 2002).
Researchers and managers in services marketing are often concerned with assessing
customer satisfaction and opinions (Bearden et al., 1998). Considering such trends, it is
particularly imperative for online marketers to understand and monitor customer satisfaction and
response (Mittal et al., 2001; Sultan and Henrichs, 2000). Typically, service firms monitor
customer satisfaction on an ongoing basis using Likert-type scales that measure customers'
level of satisfaction based on their last service encounter (Peterson and Wilson, 1992; Heskett
et al., 1997).
Achieving customer satisfaction is the primary goal for most service firms today.
Increasing customer satisfaction and customer retention leads to improved profits, positive
word-of-mouth, and lower marketing expenditures (Reichheld, 1996; Heskett et al., 1997).
Satisfaction for library users is a function of multiple sources — the customer's satisfaction with
the information product(s) received as well as satisfaction with the information system and
library services utilized to obtain the information product (Shi, X. et al., 2004).
Library collections are important to support teaching, learning, research and development
at the University. Information resources are acquired in a variety of format (print, audiovisual
and online) and through a variety of purchasing models. Perpustakaan Sultan Abdul Samad
collection includes books, audio visual materials, printed journals, online journals, online books
and online databases. In 2010 the University provided the sum of RM16,259,300.00 for the
purchase or subscription of information resources, which the Library has allocated as shown in
Table 1.

Table 1: Allocation and Expenditure of Library Collection in 2010

Total Allocation Total Expenditure Expenditure

Information resources
(RM) (RM) (%)
Monographs & AV materials 2,240,300.00 1,927,490.67 86.04
E-books 1,273,637.00 1,273,369.81 99.97
Printed journals 3,352,440.00 3,349,506.89 99.91
 63

Online journals/databases 9,392,923.00 9,393,684.88 99.99

Total 16,259,300.00 15,944,052.25 98.06

The library’s collection (inclusive of all branch libraries) today totals 606,761 volumes of print
books and bound journals, as well as a collection of maps, sound recordings, microforms, films,
videotapes and slides. The library also subscribed to 660 print journals and 70 online databases
which provide access to about 50,000 full text online journals and 930,000 titles of online theses
and dissertations.

Table 2: Library Collection in 2010

Information resources Number of titles

Monographs & AV materials 606,761
E-books 21,582
Printed journals 660
Online databases 70
Online .journals 50,000
Online theses and dissertations 930,000
Total 1,609,073

Objective of the Study

Survey is one means through which the library can give a voice to their clients. This survey was
undertaken to document whether clients are satisfied or dissatisfied with the library collection.
This study also aimed to examine any significant difference of satisfaction among our library
client towards the collection. The ultimate goal is to provide an excellent library collection that
supports the teaching, learning, research and business needs of the UPM community. The
survey findings provide a sound basis for determining how the Library can focus its efforts to
enhance the library collection.

METHOD

Questionnaire for customer satisfaction survey were designed to obtain customer feedback on
library collections. Respondent were asked to answer six questions regarding satisfaction on
library collections. Respondent were asked to rank their answers on a scale of 1 to 5. A rank of
5 means “very satisfied”, a rank of 4 means “satisfied”, a rank of 3 means “less satisfied”, a rank
of 2 means “not satisfied” and a rank of 1 means “never use or not applicable”. Respondent is
free to give their opinions, suggestions or comments as an open ended question. To ensure the
integrity of the data collection instrument and the mode of administration, a pretest was
conducted. Pretest questionnaire were conducted with a convenience sample of ten graduate
students having various experience using the library or not using at all.
The survey solicited feedback from six client communities: academicians, researchers,
management and professional staffs, supporting staffs, undergraduate students and
postgraduate students. A random sample was drawn resulting in the distribution of 1295
questionnaires to users in the Library, mailed out to staffs at the faculty and to students staying
in the colleges from August 16, 2010 through October 08, 2010. The result was 1196 usable
and valid responses. The data were keyed into and analyzed using SPSS.
 64

FINDINGS

Survey received a 54.5% response rate from the randomly selected population that was asked
to complete the survey. This robust response rate increases the likelihood that these results
accurately represent the views of the University community. 69.4 percent of respondents were
undergraduates, 9.7 percent were postgraduates, 8.9 percent were academicians, 8.6 percent
were support staffs, 2.2 percent were management and professional staffs and 1.3 percent was
researchers.

Question 1

This question requested that respondents indicate whether they were very satisfied, satisfied,
less satisfied, not satisfied, never use or not applicable with the subject of book collection. One
thousand one hundred and ninety-six respondents addressed this question where 12.7 percent
were very satisfied with the subject of the book collection, 59.5 percent satisfied, 21.4 percent
less satisfied, 3.8 percent not satisfied and 2.5 percent never use or not applicable to them. The
distribution of responses was shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Satisfaction on the Subject of Book Collection

Satisfaction level towards subject of book collections differed among categories with the
management & professional staffs having the highest mean of satisfaction level at 3.92 followed
by the undergraduate / diploma student (3.83), postgraduate student (3.66), supporting staff
(3.54), academic staff (3.53) and research officer (3.47). The satisfaction level falls between
3.47 to 3.92 scales i.e. ranging from less satisfied to satisfied scales. The standard deviation
ranged from 0.560 to 1.203.

Table 3: Mean Satisfaction on Subject of Book Collection

Standard
Category N Mean
Deviation
Academic Staff 106 3.53 0.875
Research Officer 15 3.47 0.915
Management & Professional Staff 26 3.92 0.560
Supporting Staff 103 3.54 1.203
Undergraduate/Diploma Student 830 3.83 0.744
Postgraduate Student 116 3.66 0.780
Total 1196 3.76 0.815
 65

Further analysis using one-way ANOVA technique revealed that the difference was
significant at least at 0.05 levels, but the analysis did not tell us which categories differed from
the other categories. To detect this, the post hoc test was conducted and shown in Table 4.

Table 4 Satisfaction Mean Difference and Significance Level for

Book Collection Subject

Mean Significance
Category
Difference Level
Academic Staff and Management & Professional staff 0.395 0.026
Academic Staff and Undergraduate / Diploma Student 0.303 0.000
Supporting Staff and Management & Professional Staff 0.379 0.032
Supporting Staff and Undergraduate / Diploma Student 0.288 0.001
Undergraduate / Diploma Student and Postgraduate Student 0.168 0.037

In terms of book collection subject, at 0.05 levels, academic staff had significant mean
differences from management & professional staff and undergraduate / diploma student but no
significant mean differences with other categories. Supporting staff had significant mean
difference from the management & professional staff and undergraduate/ diploma student but
not with other categories. Finally, there is a significant mean difference between undergraduate/
diploma student and postgraduate student. Feedbacks received pertaining to open ended
questions was shown in Table 5.

Table 5: Feedbacks Pertaining Subject of Books

Number of Total
Statement
feedbacks feedbacks
Add books (general) 10 10
Add books in specific subject: 13
- engineering 4
- linguistics 2
- ethnic groups in Sabah and Sarawak 2
- environmental science 1
- computer science 1
- biotechnology 1
- aquaculture 1
- literature 1
Add books written in specific language: 7
- Malay language 6
- Arabic languages 1
More books published by the University and faculty 3 3

Question 2

This question requested that respondents indicate whether they were very satisfied, satisfied,
less satisfied, not satisfied, never use or not applicable with the number of book copies bought
by the Library. Not all respondents answered this question. Only one thousand one hundred
and eighty-six respondents addressed this question where 12.1 percent were very satisfied with
the number of book copies bought by the Library, 57.2 percent satisfied, 23.3 percent less
satisfied, 4.7 percent not satisfied and 2.8 percent never use or not applicable to them. The
distribution of responses was shown in Figure 2.
 66

Figure 2: Satisfaction on the Number of Book Copies

Table 6 showed that the satisfaction level towards number of book copies was differed
among categories with the management & professional staff having the highest satisfaction
level at 3.85 followed by the undergraduate/diploma student (3.76), postgraduate student (3.66),
supporting staff (3.58), academic staff (3.51) and research officer (3.40). The satisfaction level
falls between 3.40 to 3.85 scales i.e. ranging from less satisfied to satisfied scales. The
standard deviation ranged from 0.662 to 1.204.

Table 6: Mean Satisfaction on Number of Book Copies

Standard
Category N Mean
Deviation
Academic Staff 105 3.51 0.900
Research Officer 15 3.40 0.828
Management & Professional Staff 27 3.85 0.662
Supporting Staff 104 3.58 1.204
Undergraduate/Diploma Student 821 3.76 0.792
Postgraduate Student 114 3.66 0.739
Total 1186 3.71 0.842

Further analysis using one-way ANOVA technique revealed that the difference was
significant at least at 0.05 levels. To detect which categories differed from the other categories,
post hoc test was conducted and the related result is presented in Table 7. At 0.05 levels,
undergraduate / diploma student had significant mean differences from academic staff and
supporting staff but no significant mean differences with other categories.

Table 7: Satisfaction Mean Difference and Significance Level for Number of Book Copies

Mean Significance
Category
Difference Level
Academic staff and Undergraduate/Diploma Student 0.246 0.005
Supporting staff and Undergraduate/Diploma Student 0.183 0.036

Feedbacks received for open ended question for number of book copies was displayed in
Table 8; where fifteen feedbacks suggesting in adding number of book copies and eight
feedbacks asking for more copies of reference books.
 67

Table 8: Feedbacks Pertaining Number of Book Copies

Number of
Statement
feedbacks
Add number of book copies 15
Add more copies of reference books 8

Question 3

This question requested that respondents indicate whether they were very satisfied, satisfied,
less satisfied, not satisfied, never use or not applicable with the subject of printed journals
subscribed by the Library. The distribution of responses in Figure 3 shown that 11.7 percent
were very satisfied with the subject of printed journals, 59.3 percent satisfied, 18.7 percent less
satisfied, 3.1 percent not satisfied and 7.2 percent never use or not applicable to them.

Figure 3: Satisfaction on the Subject of Printed Journals

Analysis of the data as displayed in Table 9 showed that the satisfaction level towards
subject of printed journals differed among categories with the management & professional staff
having the highest satisfaction level at 3.81 followed by the postgraduate student (3.70),
undergraduate/diploma student (3.68), academic staff (3.62), supporting staff (3.41), and
research officer (3.40). The satisfaction level falls between 3.40 to 3.81 scales i.e. ranging from
less satisfied to satisfied scales. The standard deviation ranged from 0.694 to 1.242.

Table 9: Mean Satisfaction on Subject of Printed Journals

Standard
Category N Mean
Deviation
Academic Staff 102 3.62 0.965
Research Officer 15 3.40 1.183
Management & Professional Staff 26 3.81 0.694
Supporting Staff 101 3.41 1.242
Undergraduate/Diploma Student 831 3.68 0.962
Postgraduate Student 119 3.70 0.839
Total 1194 3.65 0.978
 68

Using one-way ANOVA technique revealed that the difference was significant at least at
the 0.05 level. To detect which categories differed from the other categories, the post hoc test
was conducted and the result is presented in Table 10. At 0.05 levels, supporting staff had
significant mean differences from undergraduate/diploma student and postgraduate student, but
no significant mean differences with other categories.

Table 10: Satisfaction Mean Difference and Significance Level for

Subject of Printed Journals

Mean Significance
Category
Difference Level
Supporting staff and Undergraduate/Diploma Student 0.274 0.008
Supporting staff and Postgraduate Student 0.292 0.027

Six feedbacks received related to subject of printed journals were displayed in Table 11.

Table 11: Feedbacks on Subject of Printed Journals

Number of Total
Statement
feedbacks feedbacks
Add journals in specific subject: 6
- biomedical sciences 2
- economy 1
- linguistics 1
- biotechnology 1
- Malay literature 1

Question 4

This question requested that respondents indicate whether they were very satisfied, satisfied,
less satisfied, not satisfied, never use or not applicable with the currentness of printed journals
subscribed by the Library. The distribution of responses was shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Satisfaction on the Currentness of Subscribed Printed Journals

Only one thousand one hundred and ninety respondents addressed this question where
11.8 percent were very satisfied with the currentness of subscribed printed journals, 56.3
percent satisfied, 24.4 percent less satisfied, 5.0 percent not satisfied and 2.5 percent never use
or not applicable to them.
 69

Analysis of the data showed that the satisfaction level towards how current the journal
was were differed among categories with the management & professional staff having the
highest satisfaction level at 3.92 followed by the postgraduate student (3.70), undergraduate /
diploma student (3.65), academic staff (3.59), supporting staff (3.41) and research officer (3.20).
The satisfaction level falls between 3.20 to 3.92 scales i.e. ranging from less satisfied to
satisfied scales. The standard deviation ranged from 0.640 to 1.221 as presented in Table 12.

Table 12: Mean Satisfaction on the Currentness of Subscribed Printed Journals

Standard
Category N Mean
Deviation
Academic Staff 100 3.59 0.922
Research Officer 15 3.20 1.082
Management & Professional Staff 25 3.92 0.640
Supporting Staff 99 3.41 1.221
Undergraduate/Diploma Student 832 3.65 0.943
Postgraduate Student 119 3.70 0.839
Total 1190 3.63 0.957

One-way ANOVA technique revealed that the difference was significant at least at 0.05
levels, but did not show categories differentiation. Post hoc test was conducted and the result is
presented in Table 13. At 0.05 levels, management & professional staff had significant mean
differences from research officer and supporting staff but no significant mean differences with
other categories. Meanwhile, supporting staff had significant mean difference from the
undergraduate / diploma student and postgraduate student but not with other categories.

Table 13: Satisfaction Mean Difference and Significance Level for

Currentness of Printed Journals

Mean Significance
Category
Difference Level
Research officer and Management & professional staff 0.720 0.021
Supporting staff and Management & professional staff 0.506 0.018
Supporting staff and Undergraduate/Diploma Student 0.231 0.023
Supporting staff and Postgraduate Student 0.283 0.029
.
Five feedbacks received pertaining to this matter were to have latest printed journals in
the collection.

Question 5

Respondents were asked to indicate whether they were very satisfied, satisfied, less satisfied,
not satisfied, never use or not applicable with the subject of online journals / books / databases
subscribed by the Library. The distribution of responses was shown in Figure 5. Total 12.7
percent were very satisfied with the subject of online journals / books / databases, 64.9 percent
satisfied, 14.0 percent less satisfied, 1.8 percent not satisfied and 6.6 percent never use or not
applicable to them.
Satisfaction level towards subject of online journals / books / databases were differed
among categories with the academic staff having the highest satisfaction level at 3.81 followed
by the postgraduate student (3.80), undergraduate / diploma student (3.80), research officer
(3.73), management & professional staff (3.59), and supporting staff (1.207). The satisfaction
level falls between 3.38 to 3.81 scales i.e. ranging from less satisfied to satisfied scales.
Standard deviation ranged from 0.872 to 1.217. These were displayed in Table 14.
 70

Figure 5: Satisfaction on the Subject of Online Journals / Books / Databases

Table 14: Mean Satisfaction on Subject of Online Journals / Books / Databases

Standard
Category N Mean
Deviation
Academic Staff 113 3.81 0.912
Research Officer 15 3.73 1.033
Management & Professional Staff 27 3.59 1.217
Supporting Staff 119 3.38 1.207
Undergraduate/Diploma Student 832 3.80 0.872
Postgraduate Student 119 3.80 0.917
Total 1225 3.75 0.934

Differences among categories were significant at least at 0.05 levels shown by one-way
ANOVA. Post hoc test was conducted to display the exact differences of satisfaction among
categories as shown in Table 15. At 0.05 levels, supporting staff had significant mean
differences from academic staff, undergraduate / diploma student and postgraduate student but
no significant mean differences with other categories.

Table 15: Satisfaction Mean Difference and Significance Level on

Subject of Online Journals / Books / Databases

Category Mean Significance

Difference Level
Supporting staff and Academic staff 0.436* 0.000
Supporting staff and Undergraduate/Diploma Student 0.418* 0.000
Supporting staff and Postgraduate Student 0.420* 0.000

Seven feedbacks received pertaining subject of online resources were to subscribe more
online resources.

Question 6

Respondents were to indicate whether they were very satisfied, satisfied, less satisfied, not
satisfied, never use or not applicable with the content and coverage year of online journals /
books / databases subscribed by the Library. Total 12.2 percent were very satisfied with the
 71

content and coverage year of online journals / books / databases, 64.7 percent satisfied, 14.5
percent less satisfied, 1.8 percent not satisfied and 6.8 percent never use or not applicable to
them. The distribution of responses was shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6: : Satisfaction on the Content & Coverage Year of

Online Journals / Books / Databases

Table 16 showed that the satisfaction level towards the content and coverage year of
online journals / books / databases were differed among categories with the postgraduate
student having the highest satisfaction level at 3.84 followed by the undergraduate / diploma
student (3.77), academic staff (3.74), management & professional staff (3.56), research officer
(3.47), and supporting staff (3.42). The satisfaction level falls between 3.42 to 3.84 scales i.e.
ranging from less satisfied to satisfied scales.

Table 16: Mean Satisfaction on the Content & Coverage Year

of Online Journals / Books / Databases

Standard
Category N Mean
Deviation
Academic Staff 113 3.74 0.904
Research Officer 15 3.47 0.990
Management & Professional Staff 27 3.56 1.188
Supporting Staff 118 3.42 1.172
Undergraduate/Diploma Student 835 3.77 0.896
Postgraduate Student 120 3.84 0.907
Total 1228 3.74 0.941

Further analysis using one-way ANOVA technique revealed that the difference was
significant at least at 0.05 levels, but the analysis did not tell us which categories differed from
the other categories. To detect this, the post hoc test was conducted and the result is presented
in Table 7. At 0.05 levels, supporting staff had significant mean differences from academic staff,
undergraduate / diploma student and postgraduate student but no significant mean differences
with other categories.
 72

Table 17: Satisfaction Mean Difference and Significance Level for

Content & Coverage Year of Online Journals / Books / Databases

Mean Significance
Category
Difference Level
Supporting staff and Academic staff 0.320 0.010
Supporting staff and Undergraduate/Diploma Student 0.351 0.000
Supporting staff and Postgraduate Student 0.418 0.001

CONCLUSION

The results have indicated that Sultan Abdul Samad Library of Universiti Putra Malaysia is not
lacking a quality in library collection. The user can always change the direction, form and
character of any service depending on his/her needs. The provider’s responsibility to the user is
to adapt to such need. The service therefore should always be tailor-made to accommodate the
needs and wants of the customer. Library could not make everybody happy, but Library had to
prioritize customer’s segments / needs.
As summarized in Table 18, in many cases management and professional staff found to
be most satisfied on the book collection and printed journals compared to other category.
Academic staff, undergraduate/diploma and postgraduate students have higher satisfaction
level on the subject of online resources compared to other category. However, postgraduate
student most satisfied with the content and coverage of the online resources. Research officer
always showed lowest satisfaction level in book and journal collection, whilst supporting staff
showed lowest rating in online resources.

Table 18: Mean Satisfaction for Books, Printed Journals and Online Resources

Mean Satisfaction
Printed Printed Online –
Category Book – Book – Online -
journal - journal - content,
subject copies subject
subject currentness coverage
Academic Staff 3.53 3.51 3.62 3.59 3.81 3.74
Research Officer 3.47 3.40 3.40 3.20 3.73 3.47
Management &
3.92 3.85 3.81 3.92 3.59 3.56
Professional Staff
Supporting Staff 3.54 3.58 3.41 3.41 3.38 3.42
Undergraduate/Diploma
3.83 3.76 3.68 3.65 3.80 3.77
Student
Postgraduate Student 3.66 3.66 3.70 3.70 3.80 3.84
Total 3.76 3.71 3.65 3.63 3.75 3.74

Referring to earlier discussion, supporting staff always have significance difference of

satisfaction with other categories for book, printed journal and online resources. Information
needs may have great differentiation with other categories since library collection was more to
cater the needs of the students, academicians and researchers. The results obtained show that
category of user and the library collection status itself are the elements that have an impact on
customer satisfaction.
This paper concludes that there are significant difference of satisfaction level among the
various category of UPM staffs and students towards library collection.

REFERENCES

Johnson, M.D., Auh, S. (1998). Customer satisfaction, loyalty, and the trust environment.
Advances in Consumer Research, 25(1), 15-20.
Bearden, W.O., Malhotra, M.K. & Usca´tequi, K.H. (1998). Customer contact and the evaluation
of service experiences: propositions and implications for the design of services.
Psychology and Marketing, 15(8), 793-809.
 73

Bolton, R.N. (1998). A dynamic model of the duration of the customer’s relationship with a
continuous service provider: the role of satisfaction. Marketing Science, 17(1), 45-65.
Hernon, P. & Altman, E. (1998). Assessing service quality: satisfying the expectations of library
customers. Chicago: American Library Association.
Hernon, P. & Whitman, J.R. (2001). Delivering satisfaction and service quality: a customer-
based approach for libraries. Chicago: American Library Association.
Heskett, J.L., Sasser, W.E. Jr & Schlesinger, L.A. (1997). The service-profit chain. New York:
Free Press.
Lemon, K.N., White, T.B. & Winer, R.S. (2002). Dynamic customer relationship management:
incorporating future considerations into the service retention decision. Journal of
Marketing, 66(1), 1-14.
Mittal, V., Katrichis, J.M. & Kumar, P. (2001). Attribute performance and customer satisfaction
over time: evidence from two field studies. Journal of Services Marketing, 15(5), 343-
356.
Peterson, R.A. & Wilson, W.R. (1992). Measuring customer satisfaction: fact and artifact.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20(1), 61-71.
Reichheld, F.F. (1996). The Loyalty Effect. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Shi, X., Holahan, P.J., Jurkat, M.P (2004). Satisfaction formation processes in library users:
understanding multisource effects. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 30(2), 122-131.
So¨derlund, M. (1998). Customer satisfaction and its consequences on customer behavior
revisited: the impact of different levels of satisfaction on word-of-mouth, feedback to the
supplier and loyalty. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 9(2), 169-188.
Sultan, F. & Henrichs, R.B. (2000). Consumer preferences for Internet service over time: initial
explorations. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17(5), 386-402.

View publication stats