UNIVERSITY TUNKU ABDUL RAHMAN

FACULTY OF SCIENCE

UDPS 2163 INVENTORY CONTROL AND DECISION ANALYSIS

ASSIGNMENT

TRIMESTER MAY 2019

LECTURER: MR LIEW KAH FAI

NO. NAME ID NUMBER YEAR STUDY COURSE

1 TENG YEN LIN 18ADB00579 Y2S2 SCOR
2 YEW WEN KHANG 17ADB06154 Y2S3 SCOR
Introduction

Library is a place, where documents containing knowledge and information are stored
technically and scientifically processed, properly preserved and made easily available to the
users when warranted without loss of time. Nowadays, electronic sources, networks, and the
World Wide Web represent a large portion of the library services. To produce quality services,
the librarian must manage staff, information in several supports, and technical activities.
Quality services means the resources and services provided by the library satisfy the users’
expectation and perceptions (Thakuria, 2007).

Throughout the year studying in the university, we discovered that library is an

important place for the university students. Students usually go to the library for revision when
final exam or mid-term exam is around the corner. Also, students go library to do assignments
or projects as library can provides the resources that they want but could not find at home. But,
we do not know whether the students are satisfied with the service quality provided by the
library staff. For instance, can the students get the information they want from the library?
Hence, this project is carried out to determine the satisfaction of Universiti Tunku Abdul
Rahman (UTAR) students on the UTAR library service quality in terms of affect of service,
information control, and library as place. Survey forms were distributed to 15 UTAR students
and the data collected is analysed using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) approach to
make decision with multi-criteria.

Problem Statement

To evaluate the library service quality, three factors are considered, which are affect of service,
information control, and library as place. Under each factor, there is many sub criteria that
might affect the final decision making. Hence, the objective of this study is to determine which
factor is the most important to achieve the satisfaction of UTAR students toward the library
service quality. Moreover, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) can be used to solve a multiple
objectives decision problem where each decision criterion has priority given by the decision
maker. Thus, AHP is used in this study to make decision in selection of factor of library service
quality based on different criteria.
Problem’s Hierarchy

Evaluation of library service quality

Affect of Service Information Control Library as Place

Locker
Willingness
facilities
to help users Updated books

Attitudes and Cleanliness

behaviour Variety of books and beauty

Duration of Computer facilities Desk and

service time seating
availability

Internet/ Wifi
Library facilities
opening Lighting
hours

Catalogue search/
OPAC
Guidance Temperature
from setting
librarians
Newspaper and
magazine collection

Online journal
collection
As shown in the problem’s hierarchy, the main objective is to evaluate the library service
quality. In our study, we have included three main decision criteria. Under each main decision
criteria, there is different number of sub criteria as shown in the problem’s hierarchy.

Literature Review

JOURNAL 1

Journal title:

Integrating factor analysis and analytic hierarchy process for library service quality

Objective:

To propose a methodology for identifying and prioritizing the user needs pertaining to library
services.

Data:

Questionnaire was administered to 220 users include students, faculty members, supporting
staff, and administrative staff. The users were asked to indicate the degree of importance of
service quality characteristics in terms of a five point Likert scale. 182 responses were received
from the respondents. There were 2 invalid responses as the respondents filled the
questionnaires not properly. Hence, 180 responses were considered for carry out the factor
analysis and AHP.

SI. No Library service quality dimension Priority Rating Rank

1 Adequate facilities (AF) 0.4033 1
2 Responsiveness (RES) 0.2598 2
3 Assurance (AS) 0.1191 4
4 Service reliability (SR) 0.1414 3
5 Compassion (CO) 0.0763 5
Table 1. Priority structure of the library service quality dimensions

Results:

From the Table 1., it is observed that highest priority is given to the adequate facilities,
responsiveness, and service reliability. The next priorities are given to quality dimensions
namely, assurance and compassion. To improve the facilities to meet the expectations of the
user community, the importance of the digital library should be emphasized. Moreover, to
enhance the responsiveness of the services, the library staff should be trained by conducting
staff development programs, workshops to get exposure on understanding the specific needs
of the users. Adopting the search strategy in tracing the information should be done to improve
the reliability in services. The implementation of Boolean logic and truncation imparts
assurance to the users. To attain empathy, harmonious, cordial, and good human relations
between the library staff and the users is needed. The library management has to allocate their
resources to impart qualitative services in the institution on the basis of the above suggestions.

JOURNAL 2

Journal title:

Service quality in University of Colombo libraries: an assessment

Objective:
1. To identify the underlying dimensions of service quality of the University of Colombo
Library System from user perspectives

2. To determine the best predictors of overall service quality of the University of Colombo
Library System

Data:

A user survey was conducted to determine the service quality factors of University of Colombo
Library System. The sample size was determined using Cochran’s sample size determination
equation and the study sample was selected randomly. A total of 855 questionnaire was printed
and distributed to the library users. The data collection via questionnaire was carried out from
May 2008 to end of June 2008.

Results:

Factor analysis was used to identify the underlying dimensions service quality of library.
Seven dimensions are appropriate to explain service quality from user. The seven dimensions
are service delivery by staff, collection and access, e resources and awareness, physical
facilities, information control, library catalogue and security. Based on the result from principal
component analysis and orthogonal rotation method, users think that the following factors are
important in a library: staff attitude, complete collection and ease of access, e-resources
available in the library and user awareness programs physical facilities provided by the library,
the library catalogue as well as the security status of the library when experiencing library
services.

The quality of the library service is mainly determined by six factors based on the
regression analysis. The six factors are are Collection and Access, Information Control, Service
Delivery by Staff, E-Resources and Awareness, Security and Library Catalogue. The analysis
showed that the “collection and access” was the best predictor of overall service quality of the
University of Colombo library system followed by Information Control, Service Delivery by
Staff, E-Resources and Awareness, Security and Library Catalogue. The remaining factor
which is physical facilities was relevant but less significant. This indicates that priority has to
be given to upgrading the quality of library collection and ease of access to the collection rather
than focusing on improving tangibles, the physical facilities.

Methodology

In this assignment, Microsoft Excel is used to analyse the data in order to evaluate
UTAR library service quality with main decision criteria by applying Analytic Hierarchy
Process (AHP) approach.

First of all, we identify the objectives and distinguish the main decision criteria and sub
criteria under each main decision criteria. The relationship between objective, main decision
criteria and sub decision criteria are illustrated by Problem’s Hierarchy. Next, from the survey
form (15 respondents), we obtain the data based on the relative scale of importance (Ratio scale
used for pairwise comparison matrix).

Scale Definition

1 A and B are of equal importance

3 A has a slightly higher importance than B

5 A has a strong importance than B

7 A has a very strong importance than B

9 A has an absolute importance than B

2,4,6,8 Intermediate importance

Table 2. Ratio scale used for pairwise comparison matrix

 All the data (score) with respect to each criterion from the survey form are keyed in
into Excel. For instance, if the respondent prefers “A” 7 times more than “B”, then the score
will be 7. In contrast, if the respondent prefers “B” 4 times more than “A”, then the score will
be 1/4.

Then, we develop a pairwise comparison matrix A based on the data. The geometric
mean is calculated to obtain the average score (in row) for each main criterion. After that, the
calculated geometric mean is transformed into the pairwise comparison matrix as follow:

aij represents the degree of preference of criterion i to criterion j.

Ck represents the main criteria where ‘affect of service’; k=1, ‘information control’; k=2,
‘library as place’; k=3,

C1 C2 C3

C1 1 a12 a13

C2 1/a12 1 a23

C3 1/a13 1/a23 1

After obtaining pairwise comparison matrix, we find the weight for each decision
criterion. We first obtain the normalized matrix A (matrix N) by obtaining the total degree of
criteria of each column. After that, we divide the degree of preference with the total degree of
criteria respectively.

The next step is to find the weight of each criterion. The weight is obtained by
calculating the arithmetic mean average for each row of matrix N. The weights calculated are
transformed into a matrix w which is the priorities of the criteria. The weight with the highest
value will be ranked as 1 while the weight with the lowest value will be ranked as 3.

The steps above are repeated for calculation of AHP model for sub criteria under each
main decision criteria,

Matrix A for sub criteria under each main decision criteria:

Affect of service:

SC1 SC2 SC3 SC4 SC5

SC1 1 a12 a13 a14 a15

SC2 1/a12 1 a23 a24 a25

SC3 1/a13 1/a23 1 a34 a35

SC4 1/a14 1/a24 1/a34 1 a45

SC5 1/a15 1/a25 1/a35 1/a45 1

Information control:

SC6 SC7 SC8 SC9 SC10 SC11 SC12

SC6 1 a12 a13 a14 a15 a16 a17

SC7 1/a12 1 a23 a24 a25 a26 a27

SC8 1/a13 1/a23 1 a34 a35 a36 a37

SC9 1/a14 1/a24 1/a34 1 a45 a46 a47

SC10 1/a15 1/a25 1/a35 1/a45 1 a56 a57

Sc11 1/a16 1/a26 1/a34 1/a46 1/a56 1 a67

SC12 1/a17 1/a27 1/a35 1/a47 1/a57 1/a67 1

Library as place:

SC13 SC14 SC15 SC16 SC17

SC13 1 a12 a13 a14 a15

SC14 1/a12 1 a23 a24 a25

SC15 1/a13 1/a23 1 a34 a35

SC16 1/a14 1/a24 1/a34 1 a45

SC17 1/a15 1/a25 1/a35 1/a45 1

 The most important main decision criteria and sub criteria under each main decision
criteria are identified from the ranking of row in each matrix w.

Last but not least, checking consistency (CI) is very important as it avoids a certain
level of inconsistency in the pairwise comparison matrix. If there is any inconsistency, the AHP
result is not acceptable and re-evaluation for the preferences of the element is required for
obtaining acceptable result. We start by obtaining the AwT where matrix A is the pairwise
1 𝑖 𝑡ℎ 𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑦 𝑖𝑛 𝐴𝑤 𝑇
comparison matrix. After that, we compute 𝜆𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝑛 ∑𝑖=𝑛
𝑖=1 where n
𝑖 𝑡ℎ 𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑦 𝑖𝑛 𝑤 𝑇
𝜆𝑚𝑎𝑥−𝑛
represents number of decision criteria. We substitute the result into 𝐶𝐼 = . Then, we
𝑛−1

find the value of Random Index (RI) for the value of n based on Random Index Table. After
that, CI is divided by RI. If the value is less than 0.10, then the degree of consistency is
satisfactory, indicating that the AHP result is acceptable. In contrast, if the value is more than
0.10, there might be serious inconsistencies and the AHP result might not yield meaningful
results. This step was repeated to test the consistency of the AHP model for the main decision
criteria and the sub criteria under each main decision criteria.

Result and Discussion

Pairwise comparison for the main decision criteria.

Based on Appendix 1, 𝑎12 = 0.7820 indicating affect of service is 0.7820 times

important than the information control (C1 = 0.782*C2), which mean C1 is less preferable than
C2. 𝑎13 = 1.2024 indicating affect of service is 1.2024 times important than library as place
(C1 = 1.2024*C3), which mean C1 is more preferable than C3. In addition, 𝑎23 = 1.5952
indicates that information control is 1.5952 times important than library as place (C2 =
1.5952*C3), which mean C2 is more preferable than C3.

From Appendix 3, weightage of each criteria was calculated and ranked from the
highest to the lowest, higher weightage indicating more preferable criteria and vice versa. As
illustrated by Figure 3, information control has the highest ranking among the 3 main decision
criteria, followed by affect of service and library as place. In other word, students preferred
UTAR library to have a good information control compared to the service provided by the
librarians and the facilities and comfortableness of the library.
Pairwise comparison matrix for the sub criteria under affect of service.

Based on Appendix 4, 𝑎12 = 0.8391 indicating ‘willingness to help users’ is 0.8391

times important than ‘attitude and behaviour’ (SC1 = 0.8391*SC2), which mean SC1 is less
preferable than SC2. 𝑎13 = 1.4614 indicates that ‘willingness to help users’ is 1.4614 times
important than ‘duration of service time’ (SC1 = 1.4614*SC3), which mean SC1 is more
preferable than SC3. Furthermore, 𝑎14 = 1.3199 , indicating ‘willingness to help users’ is
1.3199 times important than ‘library opening hours’ (SC1 = 1.3199*SC4), which mean SC1 is
more preferable than SC4. 𝑎15 = 1.0027, indicating ‘willingness to help users’ is 1.0027 times
important than ‘guidance from librarians’ (SC1 = 1.0027*SC5), which mean SC1 is more
preferable than SC5.

Besides, 𝑎23 = 2.6665 indicating ‘attitude and behaviour’ is 2.6665 times more
important than ‘duration of service time’ (SC2 > SC3). 𝑎24 = 1.3022 indicating ‘attitude and
behaviour’ is 1.3022 times more important than ‘library opening hours’ (SC2 > SC4). 𝑎25 =
1.7626 indicating ‘attitude and behaviour’ is 1.7626 times more important than ‘guidance from
librarians’ (SC2 > SC5). 𝑎34 = 0.9517 indicating ‘duration of service time’ is 0.9517 times
important than ‘library opening hours’ (SC3 < SC4). 𝑎35 = 0.7538 indicating ‘duration of
service time’ is 0.7538 times important than ‘guidance from librarians’ (SC3 < SC5). Lastly,
note that 𝑎45 = 0.8772 tell us that students think ‘library opening hours’ is 0.8772 times
important than ‘guidance from librarians’ (SC4 < SC5).

From Appendix 6, weightage of each criteria was calculated and ranked from the
highest to the lowest, higher weightage indicating more preferable criteria and vice versa. As
illustrated in Figure 6, ‘Attitudes and behaviour’ is ranked as 1 as it has the highest weightage
compared with other sub criteria, followed by ‘willingness to help users’, ‘guidance from
librarians’, ‘library opening hours’ and lastly ‘duration of service time’. In other word, students
preferred librarians to have a good attitudes and behaviour as compared to other sub criteria
while the durations of service time is the criteria that has least concern by the students. In short,
SC2 > SC1 > SC5 > SC4 > SC3.
Pairwise comparison matrix for the sub criteria under information control.

Based on Appendix 7, 𝑎12 = 0.4088 indicating ‘updated books’ is 0.4088 times

important than ‘variety of books’ (SC6 = 0.4088*SC7), which mean SC6 is less preferable than
SC7. 𝑎13 = 0.4665 indicating ‘updated books’ is 0.4665 times important than ‘computer
facilities’ (SC6 = 0.4665*SC8), which mean SC6 is less preferable than SC8. 𝑎14 = 0.4498 ,
indicating ‘updated books’ is 0.4498 times important than ‘Internet/ Wifi facilities’ (SC6 =
0.4498*SC9), which mean SC6 is less preferable than SC9. 𝑎15 = 0.9390, indicating ‘updated
books’ is 0.9390 times important than ‘Catalogue search/ OPAC’ (SC6 = 0.9390*SC10), which
mean SC6 is less preferable than SC10. 𝑎16 = 1.2699 , indicating ‘updated books’ is 1.2699
times important than ‘Newspaper and magazine collections’ (SC6 = 1.2699*SC11), which
mean SC6 is more preferable than SC11. 𝑎16 = 0.4403, indicating ‘updated books’ is 0.4403
times important than ‘Online journals collection’ (SC6 = 0.4403*SC12), which mean SC6 is
less preferable than SC12.

Besides, second row of the pairwise comparison matrix shows that ‘variety of books’
is more preferable than ‘Catalogue search/ OPAC’ and ‘Newspaper and magazine collections’
while having less priority than ‘computers facilities’, ‘Internet/ Wifi facilities’ and ‘Online
journals collection’. Third row illustrates ‘computers facilities’ is more important than
‘newspaper and magazine collection’. However, ‘computer facilities’ is less important than
‘Internet/ Wifi facilities’, ‘Catalogue search/ OPAC’ and ‘Online journals collection’. Forth
row explains ‘Internet/ WIFI facilities’ is less important than ‘Online journals collection’ but
more important than ‘catalogue search/ OPAC’ and ‘Newspaper and magazine collections’.
Fifth row shows than ‘catalogue eaarch/ OPAC’ is more important than ‘Newspaper and
magazine collections’ while having less importance than ‘Online journals collection’. Sixth
row tells us ‘Newspaper and magazine collections’ is less important than ‘Online journals
collection’.

From Appendix 9, weightage of each sub criteria was calculated and ranked from the
highest to the lowest, higher weightage indicating more preferable criteria and vice versa. As
illustrated by Figure 9, ‘online journal collection’ is ranked as 1 as it has the highest weightage
among the 7 sub criteria, followed by ‘Internet/ Wifi facilities’, ‘computer facilities’, ‘variety
of books’, ‘catalogue search/ OPAC’, ‘updated books’ and lastly ‘newspaper and magazine
collection’. In other word, students preferred library to have a wide range collection of online
journals as compared to other sub criteria while newspaper and magazine collection is the
criteria that has least concern by the students. In short, SC12 > SC9 > SC8 > SC7 > SC10 >
SC6 > SC11.

Pairwise comparison matrix for the sub criteria under library as place.

Based on first row of the pairwise comparison matrix in Appendix 10, ‘locker facilities’
is less preferable than ‘cleanliness and beauty’, ‘desk and seating availability’, ‘lighting’ and
‘temperature setting’. Second row illustrates ‘cleanliness and beauty’ are more important than
‘desk and seating availability’, ‘lighting’ and ‘temperature setting’. Moreover, third row
explains ‘desk and seating availability’ is more important than ‘lighting’ and ‘temperature
setting’. Fifth row shows that ‘lighting’ is more important than ‘temperature setting’.

From Appendix 12, weightage of each sub criteria was calculated and ranked from the
highest to the lowest, higher weightage indicating more preferable criteria and vice versa. As
illustrated by the tables above, ‘cleanliness and beauty’ is ranked as 1 as it has the highest
weightage among the 5 sub criteria, followed by ‘desk and seating availability’, ‘lighting’,
‘temperature setting’, and lastly ‘locker facilities’. In other word, students preferred library to
have a clean and neat environment as compared to other sub criteria while locker facilities is
the criteria that has least concern by the students. In short, SC14 > SC15 > SC16 > SC17 >
SC13.

Consistency of the pairwise comparison matrix for the main decision criteria.

Appendix 13 illustrate the consistency index, random index and consistency ratio. Since
the consistency ratio is 0.000129 which is below 0.10. Thus, we can conclude that the degree
of consistency in the pairwise comparison matrix for the main decision criteria is satisfactory.
The AHP model is acceptable.

Consistency of the pairwise comparison matrix for the sub criteria.

Consistency for the sub criteria under affect of service

Appendix 14 illustrate the consistency index, random index and consistency ratio. Since
the consistency ratio is 0.009526 which is below 0.10. Thus, we can conclude that the degree
of consistency in the pairwise comparison matrix for the sub criteria under affect of service is
satisfactory. The AHP model is acceptable.
Consistency for the sub criteria under information control

Appendix 15 illustrate the consistency index, random index and consistency ratio. Since
the consistency ratio is 0.02003 which is below 0.10. Thus, we can conclude that the degree of
consistency in the pairwise comparison matrix for the sub criteria under information control is
satisfactory. The AHP model is acceptable.

Consistency for the sub criteria under library as place

Appendix 16 illustrate the consistency index, random index and consistency ratio. Since
the consistency ratio is 0.0317 which is below 0.10. Thus, we can conclude that the degree of
consistency in the pairwise comparison matrix for the sub criteria under library as place is
satisfactory. The AHP model is acceptable.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the highest priority of main decision criteria to evaluate library service quality
is information control. Under the information control, the highest priority of sub criteria is
internet or WIFI facilities. In order to improve the library service quality, UTAR should
improve the strength of the WIFI so that the students can connect easily and use for searching
the information that they want without any concern. Besides, the second-high priority of main
decision criteria is affect of service and the most concerned sub criteria under this main decision
criteria is attitudes and behaviour. UTAR should provide proper training for the librarians to
enhance their service quality. Last but not least, the lowest priority of main decision criteria is
library as place. The highest priority of sub criteria for library as place is cleanliness and beauty.
UTAR should hire more cleaner to make sure that the library is always clean and neat. By
doing this, UTAR could provide a whole new environment for the students to concentrate and
feel comfortable when using the library. The results for both main decision criteria and sub
criteria are quite consistent. Hence, the conclusion obtained from the evaluation is acceptable.
References

Thakuria, P. K. (2007). CONCEPT OF QUALITY IN LIBRARY SERVICES: AN

OVERVIEW. 5th Convention PLANNER, Gauhati University. Retrieved 8 August,
019, from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ab65/f2df95a89f0f090e3eac38e2dbbb
7f79df46.pdf

Subbaiah, K. V., Prasad, K.G. D., Bharathi, M. U., & Rao, K. S. S. (2011). INTEGRATING
FACTOR ANALYSIS AND ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS FOR LIBRARY
SERVICE QUALITY. International Journal for Quality Research. Vol 5, No 3.
Retrieved 10 August, 2019, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/25637637
6293_ INTEGRATING_FACTOR_A NALYSIS_AND_ANALYTIC_HIERARCHY
_PROCESS_FOR_LIBRARY_SERVI CE_QUALITY

Sajeewanie D & Colin N. (2011). Service quality in University of Colombo libraries: an

assessment. Annals of Library and Information Studies. Vol. 58. Retrieved 26
August, 2019, from http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/12188/4
/ALIS%2058%282%29%20170-183.pdf
Section B
Let:
R = replace at the beginning of current period
NR = do not replace during current period
E = excellent G = good A = average B = bad
(a)
(i) State space = {E, G, A, B}
(ii) Decision set:
D(E) = {NR}
D(G) = D(A) = D(B) = {R, NR}
(iii)
Transition probabilities: P(j | i, d)
- NR – do not replace during current period
P(E|E, NR) = 0.6 P(G|E, NR) = 0.4 P(A|E, NR) = 0 P(B|E, NR) = 0
P(E|G, NR) = 0 P(G|G, NR) = 0.6 P(A|G, NR) = 0.4 P(B|G, NR) = 0
P(E|A, NR) = 0 P(G|A, NR) = 0 P(A|A, NR) = 0.7 P(B|A, NR) = 0.3
P(E|B, NR) = 0 P(G|B, NR) = 0 P(A|B, NR) = 0 P(B|B, NR) = 1
- R – replace at the beginning of current period
P(E|G, R) = P(E|A, R) = P(E|B, R) = 0.75
P(G|G, R) = P(G|A, R) = P(G|B,R) = 0.25
P(A|G, R) = P(A|A, R) = P(A|B, R) = 0
P(B|G, R) = P(B|A, R) = P(B|B, R) = 0
(iv) Expected reward
If the machine is not replaced:
rE,NR =$100, rG,NR =$80, rA,NR =$70, and rB,NR =$10
If the machine is replaced:
rE, R=rG,R =rA,R =rB,R = $100 - $150 = -$50
(b)
Min z = VE + VG + VA + VB
s.t.
VE ≥ 100 + 0.85(0.6VE + 0.4VG) (NR in E)
VG ≥ 80 + 0.85(0.6VG + 0.4VA) (NR in G)
VG ≥ -50 + 0.85(0.75VE + 0.25VG) (R in G)
VA ≥ 70 + 0.85(0.7VA + 0.3VB) (NR in A)
VA ≥ -50 + 0.85(0.75VE + 0.25VG) (R in A)
VB ≥ 10 + 0.85VB (NR in B)
VB ≥ -50 + 0.85(0.75VE + 0.25VG) (R in B)

(c)

Figure 17. Result from LINGO

From the result,
D(E) = NR
D(G) = NR
D(A) = NR
D(B) = R
VE = 513.34, VG = 445.70, VA = 407.04, VB = 371.97
Thus, the optimal policy is to replace a bad machine and not to replace an excellent, good,
and average machine.
Appendix

Appendix 1

Pairwise comparison matrix for main decision criteria

C1 C2 C3
C1 1 0.7820 1.2024
C2 1.278804039 1 1.5952
C3 0.831679576 0.6269 1
TOTAL 3.110483616 2.408864 3.797579

Appendix 2

Normalized Matrix for main decision criteria

C1 C2 C3
C1 0.321493415 0.324626298 0.316619
C2 0.411127078 0.415133421 0.420055
C3 0.267379507 0.260240281 0.263326

Appendix 3

Priorities for main decision criteria

Average Rank
C1 0.320913 2 Affect of Service
C2 0.415439 1 Information Control
C3 0.263648 3 Library as Place

Appendix 4

Pairwise comparison matrix for the sub criteria of Affect of Service

SC1 SC2 SC3 SC4 SC5

SC1 1 0.8391 1.4614 1.3199 1.0027
SC2 1.19173 1 2.6665 1.3022 1.7626
SC3 0.684266 0.375027 1 0.9517 0.7538
SC4 0.757633 0.767932 1.050706179 1 0.8772
SC5 0.997282 0.567359 1.326689266 1.140052 1
TOTAL 4.630911 3.549434 7.505292387 5.713892 5.396186

Appendix 5

Normalized matrix for the sub criteria of Affect of Service

 SC1 SC2 SC3 SC4 SC5
SC1 0.21594 0.236408 0.194719 0.230998 0.185821
SC2 0.257342 0.281735 0.35528 0.2279 0.326629
SC3 0.147761 0.105658 0.133239 0.166566 0.139683
SC4 0.163603 0.216353 0.139995 0.175012 0.16255
SC5 0.215353 0.159845 0.176767 0.199523 0.185316

Appendix 6

Priorities for sub criteria of Affect of Service

Average Rank
SC1 0.212777 2 Willingness to help users
SC2 0.289777 1 Attitudes and behavior
SC3 0.138581 5 Duration of service time
SC4 0.171503 4 Library opening hours
SC5 0.187361 3 Guidance from librarians

Appendix 7

Pairwise comparison matrix for sub criteria of Information Control

SC6 SC7 SC8 SC9 SC10 SC11 SC12

SC6 1 0.4088 0.4665 0.4498 0.9390 1.2699 0.4403
SC7 2.446264 1 0.5552 0.7272 1.0836 1.9791 0.4732
SC8 2.143436 1.801016 1 0.7820 0.9451 2.4291 0.4530
SC9 2.222976 1.375228 1.278804039 1 1.7497 2.4475 0.8953
SC10 1.064989 0.922872 1.05808297 0.5715 1 2.0806 0.4629
SC11 0.787481 0.505269 0.411679475 0.4086 0.48063 1 0.4687
SC12 2.271018 2.113477 2.207416143 1.116891 2.160333 2.133541 1
TOTAL 11.93616 8.126649 6.977765349 5.055979 8.358315 13.33973 4.1934

Appendix 8

Normalized matrix for sub criteria of Information Control

SC6 SC7 SC8 SC9 SC10 SC11 SC12

SC6 0.083779 0.050302 0.066861 0.088973 0.11234 0.095195 0.10500469
SC7 0.204946 0.123052 0.079573 0.14382 0.12964 0.148365 0.11283189
SC8 0.179575 0.221619 0.143312 0.154665 0.113074 0.182093 0.10803018
SC9 0.186239 0.169225 0.183268 0.197786 0.209336 0.183474 0.21351023
SC10 0.089224 0.113561 0.151636 0.11304 0.119641 0.15597 0.11038463
SC11 0.065974 0.062174 0.058999 0.080811 0.057503 0.074964 0.11177081
SC12 0.190264 0.260067 0.31635 0.220905 0.258465 0.159939 0.23846756

Appendix 9

Priorities for sub criteria of Information Control

 Average Rank
SC6 0.086065 6 Updated books
SC7 0.134604 4 Variety of books
SC8 0.157481 3 Computer facilities
SC9 0.191834 2 Internet/WIFI facilities
SC10 0.121923 5 Catalog search/OPAC
SC11 0.073171 7 Newspaper and magazine collection
SC12 0.234923 1 Online journal collection

Appendix 10

Pairwise comparison matrix for sub criteria of Library as Place

SC13 SC14 SC15 SC16 SC17

SC13 1 0.3588 0.3014 0.3461 0.4022
SC14 2.787346 1 1.6684 2.0717 2.0953
SC15 3.318277 0.599381 1 1.3542 1.8103
SC16 2.889325 0.482702 0.738421862 1 2.4862
SC17 2.486236 0.477266 0.552392166 0.402214 1
TOTAL 12.48118 2.918114 4.260562665 5.174226 7.7940

Appendix 11

Normalized matrix of sub criteria for Library as Place

SC13 SC14 SC15 SC16 SC17

SC13 0.080121 0.122944 0.070733 0.06689 0.051605
SC14 0.223324 0.342687 0.391589 0.400383 0.26883
SC15 0.265862 0.2054 0.234711 0.261728 0.232269
SC16 0.231494 0.165416 0.173316 0.193266 0.318992
SC17 0.199199 0.163553 0.129652 0.077734 0.128303

Appendix 12

Priorities for sub criteria of Library as Place

Average Rank
SC13 0.078458 5 Locker facilities
SC14 0.325362 1 Cleanliness and beauty
SC15 0.239994 2 Desk and seating availability
SC16 0.216497 3 Lighting
SC17 0.139688 4 Temperature setting

Appendix 13

Consistency ratio for main decision criteria

 Consistency
A X wt= 0.962785
1.246394
0.790977

lambda max= 3.00015

CI= 7.51E-05
RI= 0.58

Consistency Ratio= 0.000129 (<0.10)

Appendix 14

Consistency ratio for the sub criteria under affect of service

Consistency
A X wt= 1.072698 lambda max= 5.042674
1.466439
0.697303 CI= 0.010669
0.865192 RI= 1.12
0.943345
Consistency Ratio= 0.009526 (<0.10)

Appendix 15

Consistency ratio for the sub criteria under information control

Consistency
A X wt= 0.611701 lambda max= 7.158634
0.960157
1.133782 CI= 0.026439
1.372402 RI= 1.32
0.875053
0.520877 Consistency Ratio= 0.02003 (<0.10)
1.69625

Appendix 16

Consistency ratio for the sub criteria under library as place

 Consistency
A X wt= 0.398626 lambda max= 5.142014
1.685651
1.241424 CI= 0.035504
1.124757 RI= 1.12
0.709688
Consistency Ratio= 0.0317 (<0.10)

Appendix 17

Coding for LINGO