Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Supporting Decision Making in Quality Projects for Websites
Supporting Decision Making in Quality Projects for Websites
Supporting Decision Making in Quality Projects for Websites
Supporting Decision Making in Quality Projects for Websites
Supporting Decision Making in Quality Projects for Websites
Supporting Decision Making in Quality Projects for Websites
Supporting Decision Making in Quality Projects for Websites
Supporting Decision Making in Quality Projects for Websites
Supporting Decision Making in Quality Projects for Websites
Supporting Decision Making in Quality Projects for Websites
Supporting Decision Making in Quality Projects for Websites
Supporting Decision Making in Quality Projects for Websites
Supporting Decision Making in Quality Projects for Websites
Supporting Decision Making in Quality Projects for Websites
Supporting Decision Making in Quality Projects for Websites
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Supporting Decision Making in Quality Projects for Websites

119

Published on

Website quality evaluations projects require different approaches according to their goals.

Website quality evaluations projects require different approaches according to their goals.

Published in: Technology, Design
1 Comment
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total Views
119
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
1
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Supporting decision making in quality projects for Web sites: a framework for tourist destinations Luisa Mich, Mariangela Franch, Pier Luigi Novi Inverardi, Pietro Marzani Research group eTourism University of Trento, Italy
  • 2. Structure of the presentation • Context: role of Web sites for tourist destinations • Problem: ENTER 2004 Research Track Slide Number 2 • Problem: management and redesigning of the Web site of a tourist destination • Our approach: innovative decision support framework
  • 3. Role of Web sites for tourist destinations • Web sites can play the role of Destination Management Systems (DMS) (e.g., to gather information about services, attractions and tourist products) ENTER 2004 Research Track Slide Number 3 tourist products) • Web sites can be used to implement the strategies of the destination Increasing demand for quality in tourist Web sites: Web sites have to be realised taking into account the elements that are unique to a tourist destination and the needs and strategies of the various actors
  • 4. Management and redesigning of a destination’s Web site • Large number of models and frameworks to evaluate the quality of a tourist Web site (http://www.economia.unitn.it/etourism/wqresourc es.asp) ENTER 2004 Research Track Slide Number 4 es.asp) • Few tools and resources available to make targeted interventions: – difficulty of extracting information from the results of an evaluation focused on the quality of a Web site – 2 kinds of problems: • which data to collect • how to interpret them
  • 5. Our decision support framework • Two steps: – Choice of the “rightweight” Web site quality evaluation model – Application of suitable statistical techniques to ENTER 2004 Research Track Slide Number 5 – Application of suitable statistical techniques to analyse the results of the evaluation • To illustrate our approach we will refer to a project for the evaluation of the quality of Web sites of tourist destinations in the Alps (Mich et al., Enter 2003)
  • 6. Choice of the “rightweight” quality evaluation model • 2QCV2Q 2QCV3Q 7Loci – Allows for a flexible analysis ENTER 2004 Research Track Slide Number 6 – Allows for a flexible analysis – Takes into account the goals of the project – Optimises the use of resources needed for data collection
  • 7. Decision making and lightweight Web site quality evaluation • Lightweight version of the meta-model – 2QCV2Q 6 dimensions ENTER 2004 Research Track Slide Number 7 – 2QCV2Q 6 dimensions – 24 questions – Points from 0 to 4 – Score for each dimension = weighted average of points from the questions they contain
  • 8. Results of the lightweight evaluation ENTER 2004 Research Track Slide Number 8 Each branch represents a dimension, starting from Identity at the top and continuing clockwise with Content, Services, Location, Maintenance and Usability
  • 9. Indications for the decision maker from the lightweight evaluation • Dimensions to improve in order to augment the performance of the site with respect to other sites or a specific competitor ENTER 2004 Research Track Slide Number 9 other sites or a specific competitor • Do not provide specific indications about how to improve the performance of the site in these areas
  • 10. Decision making and heavyweight Web site quality evaluation • Heavyweight version of the meta-model – 7Loci 7 dimensions ENTER 2004 Research Track Slide Number 10 – 7Loci 7 dimensions – 97 questions – Boolean questions – Score for each dimension = number of requirements fulfilled
  • 11. Results of the heavyweight evaluation: Principal Components Analysis IIPC Content Identity Usability Canton Ticino Trentino Alto Adige Valle d'Aosta Piemonte Veneto Valais Tirol ENTER 2004 Research Track Slide Number 11 I PC Component weights Observations Services Location Veneto Zentralschw eiz Valais A Principal Components Analysis of the results obtained is undertaken in order to provide indications that are of use to managers when deciding how best to intervene in order to improve site performance and competitiveness
  • 12. Results of the heavyweight evaluation: Principal Components Analysis • Maintenance is uncorrelated to other dimensions: having high standards of maintenance does not guarantee high quality in the other dimensions • The first PC can be interpreted as a measure of the overall quality of a site • The second PC measures a contrast between Content, Identity and Usability on ENTER 2004 Research Track Slide Number 12 • The second PC measures a contrast between Content, Identity and Usability on one side and Services and Location on the other • An analysis of such a graphic can help managers of destinations to take decisions regarding possible interventions to apply to their Web sites • It is possible for site managers to identify their site’s position with respect to others in the area of overall quality (horizontal axis) and also which aspects of the site are outside the norm (vertical axis)
  • 13. Results of the heavyweight evaluation: Multiple Correspondence Analysis I - Evocation (8) - 6 I - Evocation (8) - 7 I - Characteristics (7) - 6 I - Characteristics (7) - 7 Bayern Berner Oberland Burgenland Canton Ticino Graubünden Niederösterreich Oberösterreich Provence Alpes-Côte d’AzurRhône-Alpes Steiermark ENTER 2004 Research Track Slide Number 13 Groups of homogeneous questions (subdimensions) were identified within each dimension; these questions dealt with a particular aspect of the dimension. The figure gives the results of a Multiple Correspondence Analysis for data corresponding to the Identity dimension: the 15 questions related to it have been grouped into two homogeneous categories (Evocation and Characteristics) I - Evocation (8) - 5I - Evocation (8) - 8 I - Characteristics (7) - 4 I - Characteristics (7) - 5 I - Characteristics (7) - 7 Alto Adige Canton de Vaud Friuli Venezia Giulia Graubünden Kärnten Lombardia Piemonte Riviera Côte - d’Azur Salzburger Land Slovenjia Tirol Trentino Valais Valle d'Aosta Veneto Voralberg
  • 14. Results of the heavyweight evaluation: Multiple Correspondence Analysis • It is possible to identify which sites have the best performance in this dimension (Kärnten, Trentino, Tirol, Vorarlberg, Alto Adige and Salzburgerland) • By analysing this graphic the manager of a site can identify ENTER 2004 Research Track Slide Number 14 • By analysing this graphic the manager of a site can identify specific points where intervention can result in significant improvements • At the same time the manager has a tool available whereby she can also monitor the site’s position relative to the other sites of Alpine RTBs
  • 15. Conclusions • An analysis of Web site quality, depending on the aims of the site manager, must be done at different levels, with different possible outcomes in terms of benchmarking and suggestions for site improvement or reengineering. • The initial decisions regarding these aims can be made ENTER 2004 Research Track Slide Number 15 • The initial decisions regarding these aims can be made by taking into account the human and financial resources available. • Our approach represents a first step toward the development of an integrated environment for the support of Web site quality evaluation projects that incorporate a logic of continuous improvement.

×