Advertisement

Journal of Service Science Research

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 145–165 | Cite as

Developing a Discriminant Index to Determine Critical Service Attributes of Continuous Performance Improvement

  • Chun-Min Yu
  • Tsang-Chuan Chang
  • I-Hsiang Hu
Research Papers
  • 2 Downloads

Abstract

A performance evaluation matrix (PEM) presents the overall performance of an organization and provide reference for improvement strategies. PEMs are widely applied in the assessment of service performance in various organizations. Customer ratings of importance and satisfaction are used to calculate point estimates which are then plotted in PEMs. Their locations in the PEM show whether performance is good. Researchers have replaced these point estimates with the joint confidence interval of two indices to reduce the uncertainties caused by sampling errors and prevent misjudgment. However, this approach is quite complicated for practice application. For this reason, we defined a discriminant index based on PEM concepts. Our index uses the difference between the importance and satisfaction indices to solve the aforementioned issues in performance evaluation and help managers determine performance quality more easily. The joint confidence interval of the two indices serves as the feasible region, and we used linear programming to solve the upper confidence limit of the discriminant index, then performed statistical hypothesis testing using this upper confidence limit to determine whether a service item falls within the “needs improvement” zone. Finally, we present a case study to demonstrate the applicability of the proposed model by assessing a computer-assisted language learning (CALL) system.

Keywords

Performance evaluation matrix Sampling error Discriminant index Upper confidence limit CALL system 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ali A & Ahmad I (2011) Key factors for determining students’ satisfaction in distance learning courses: A study of Allama Iqbal Open University. Contemporary Educational Technology 2(2):118–134.Google Scholar
  2. Allen IE & Seaman J (2003) Sizing the opportunity: The quality and extent of online education in the United States, 2002 and 2003. Retrieved from. https://doi.org/www.sloanc.org/publications/survey/pdf/sizing_opportunity.pdf.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson T, Rourke L, Garrison DR, & Archer W (2001) Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. The Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5:1–17.Google Scholar
  4. Arbaugh JB (2002) Managing the on–line classroom: a study of technological and behavioral characteristics of web–based MBA courses. Journal of High Technology Management Research 13:203–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arbaugh JB & Duray R (2002) Technological and structural characteristics, student learning and satisfaction with web–based courses: An exploratory study of two on–line MBA programs. Management Learning 33(3):331–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bhuasiri W, Xaymoungkhoun O, Zo H, Rho JJ, & Ciganek AP (2012) Critical success factors for e–learning in developing countries: a comparative analysis between ICT experts and faculty. Computers & Education 58(2):843–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buckley JJ (2005) Fuzzy statistics: hypothesis testing. Soft Computing 9(2):512–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chang SH & Smith RA (2008) Effectiveness of personal interaction in a learner–centered paradigm distance education class based on student satisfaction. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 40(4):407–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen HC, Chang TC, Lin YT, Cheng HY, & Chang HL (2013) Application of DMAIC process to enhance health effects in caring institution. Quality & Quantity 47(4):2065–2080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen HC, Chen KS, Chang TL, & Hsu CH (2010) An application of six sigma methodology to enhance leisure service quality. Quality & Quantity 44(6):1151–1164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen KS, Chang HT, & Yu CM (2017a) Development and application of performance improvement verification model: a case study of an e–learning system. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence. (In press)Google Scholar
  12. Chen KS, Huang CF, & Chang TC (2017b) A mathematical programming model for constructing the confidence interval of process capability index Cpm in evaluating process performance: An example of five–way pipe. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers 40(2):126–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chen SH (2013) Devising appropriate service strategies for customers of different value: an integrated assessment model for the banking industry. International Journal of Human Resource Management 24(21):3939–3956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chiou WC, Lin CC, & Perng C (2011) A strategic website evaluation of online travel agencies. Tourism Management 32(6):1463–1473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, & Warsaw PR (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science 35(8):983–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DeVellis RF (2003) Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. DiRamio D & Wolverton M (2006) Integrating learning communities and distance education: Possibility or pipedream?. Innovative Higher Education 31:99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Global Market Insights (2017) E–Learning Market Size By Application (SMBs, Large Enterprises, Education), By Technology (Online e–learning, Learning Management System (LMS), Mobile e–learning, Rapid e–learning, Virtual Classroom), By Provider (Service, Content), Industry Analysis Report, Regional Outlook (U.S., Canada, UK, Germany, France, Italy, Russia, Spain, China, India, Japan, Australia, Brazil, Mexico, GCC, South Africa), Growth Potential, Price Trends, Competitive Market Share & Forecast, 2017–2024. Retrieved from https://doi.org/www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/%20elearning-market-size.Google Scholar
  19. Hooper D, Coughlan J, & Mullen MR (2008) Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods 6(1):53–60.Google Scholar
  20. Hossain MJ & Ahmed SMZ (2013) Developing a service performance assessment system to improve service quality of academic libraries. Business Information Review 30(4):210–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hsia TC, Chen SC, & Chen KS (2009) Enhancement of service quality in internet–marketing through application of the six sigma process. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Industrial Engineers 26(1):11–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hughes M, Ventura S, & Dando M (2007) Assessing social presence in online discussion groups: A replication study. Innovations in Education and Teaching International,44:17–29.Google Scholar
  23. Hung YH, Huang ML, & Chen KS (2003) Service quality evaluation by service quality performance matrix. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 14(1):79–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lambert DM & Sharma A (1990) A customer–based competitive analysis for logistics decisions. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 20(1):17–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lee Y & Choi J (2011) A review of online course dropout research: Implications for practice and future research. Educational Technology Research and Development 59:593–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lin YT (2017) Constructing service sabotage management grid: An effective tool to reduce service sabotage behavior in service industry. Journal of Service Science Research 91(1):73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Liu X, Magjuka RJ, Bonk CJ, & Lee S (2007) Does sense of community matter?. Quarterly Review of Distance Education 8:9–24.Google Scholar
  28. Lock JV (2002) Laying the groundwork for the development of learning communities within online courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education 3:395–408.Google Scholar
  29. Markovic S & Jankovic SR (2013) Exploring the relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction in Croatian hotel industry. Tourism and Hospitality Management 19(2):149–164.Google Scholar
  30. Martínez–Caro E, Cegarra–Navarro JG, & Cepeda–Carrión G (2015) An application of the performance–evaluation model for e–learning quality in higher education. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence 26(5–6):632–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Murday K, Ushida E, & Chenoweth NA (2008) Learners’ and teachers’ perspectives on language online. Computer Assisted Language Learning 21(2):125–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Noel–Levitz (2011) National online learners priorities report. Retrieved from. https://doi.org/www.noellevitz.com/upload/Papers_and_Research/2011/PSOL_report%202011.pdf.Google Scholar
  33. Pigliapoco E & Bogliolo A (2008) The effects of psychological sense of community in online and face–to–face academic courses. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning 3:60–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shee DY & Wang YS (2008) Multi–criteria evaluation of the web–based e–learning system: A methodology based on learner satisfaction and its applications. Computers & Education 50(3):894–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Snyder MM (2009) Instructional–design theory to guide the creation of online learning communities for adults. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning 53:48–56.Google Scholar
  36. Sun PC, Tsai RJ, Finger G, Chen YY, & Yeh D (2008) What drives a successful e–Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & Education 50(4):1183–1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tang E & Lam C (2014) Building an effective online learning community (OLC) in blogbased teaching portfolios. The Internet and Higher Education 20:79–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wang KJ, Chang TC, & Chen KS (2015) Determining critical service quality from the view of performance influence. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 26(3–4):368–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wang TH (2014) Developing an assessment–centered e–learning system for improving student learning effectiveness. Computers & Education 73:189–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wang YS (2003) Assessment of learner satisfaction with asynchronous electronic learning systems. Information & Management 41(1):75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Welsh ET, Wanberg CR, Brown KG, & Simmering MJ (2003) E–learning: emerging uses, empirical results and future directions. International Journal of Training and Development 7(4):245–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Willging PA & Johnson SD (2009) Factors that influence students’ decision to dropout of online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 13:115–127.Google Scholar
  43. Wu WH, Jim Wu YC, Chen CY, Kao HY, Lin CH, & Huang SH (2012) Review of trends from mobile learning studies: A meta–analysis. Computers & Education 59(2):817–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yoon SW & Johnson SD (2008) Phases and patterns of group development in virtual learning teams. Educational Technology Research and Development 56:595–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yu CM, Chang HT, & Chen KS (2018) Developing a performance evaluation matrix to enhance the learner satisfaction of an e–learning system. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 29(7–8):727–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yuan J & Kim C (2014) Guidelines for facilitating the development of learning communities in online courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 30(3):220–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yukselturk E & Yildirim Z (2008) Investigation of interaction, online support, course structure and flexibility as the contributing factors to students’ satisfaction in an online certificate program. Educational Technology & Society 11(4):51–65.Google Scholar
  48. Zacharis NZ (2015) A multivariate approach to predicting student outcomes in webenabled blended learning courses. Internet and Higher Education 27:44–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zare M, Pahl C, Rahnama H, Nilashi M, Mardani A, Ibrahim O, & Ahmadi H (2016) Multicriteria decision making approach in E–learning: A systematic review and classification. Applied Soft Computing 45:108–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zhang D & Nunamaker JF (2003) Powering e–learning in the new millennium: an overview of e–learning and enabling technology. Information Systems Frontiers 5(2):207–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Service Science and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Liberal Education CenterNational Chin-Yi University of TechnologyTaichungTaiwan
  2. 2.Metal Industries Research and Development CentreKaohsiungTaiwan
  3. 3.General Education CenterOpen University of KaohsiungKaohsiungTaiwan

Personalised recommendations