The questionnaire was consisted of four parts, which were user’s willingness of using MLBS, user’s preference toward MLBS, billing mode, and demographics. All of the respondents are Taiwanese therefore their mother language should be mandarin.
In order to make every respondent understand the questionnaire, the context was written in mandarin.
The first part was user’s willingness of using MLBS with the purpose of figuring out users’ or potential users’ using willingness and their cognitive about the reasons of not willing to use MLBS for publics. The questions are described as the following.
First, we ask a question for the purpose of figuring out how many percentages that publics understand what MLBS are. If the respondents knew what MLBS are, the questionnaires further ask how did they receive such information, and in which way did they prefer to receive MLBS information. If the respondents did not know what MLBS are, even they have never heard about MLBS, they would be asked to read the explanations about MLBS. After reading the explanations, the respondents would be further asked about their willingness about applying MLBS. In the last section of this part, the respondents would be asked about their opinions toward the reasons for
26
publics who might not will to apply MLBS. The importance of each item was measured by Likert five-point scale. According to literatures, MLBS challenges were listed in the literature part (chapter 2.3), which were lack of transmission speed, lack of accuracy (higher accuracy would need more costs), lack of rich contents, billing issue, no concrete value chain, protocols are not united, related legislations are not established, difficult to integrate hardware and software, high power consumption of mobile devices, cost long time during positioning, privacy issues, annoyed by inappropriate contents, and user resistance. In order to let respondents understand the questionnaire easily, the challenges were described in Chinese, as the following:
1. Do not know the exact MLBS billing issue;
2. In order to operate some MLBS, users might have to buy new devices;
3. Users have to suffer the risk of their location privacy while using MLBS;
4. Related legislations are not established, and might not able to protect MLBS users’ rights;
5. Users might be annoyed by inappropriate contents or advertisements;
6. MLBS contents transmission speed are not fast enough;
7. Device’s power might cost more while using MLBS;
8. Positioning process might cost much time;
9. Too many protocols which might cause users unable to get various services in one protocol;
10. Do not know much about MLBS companies, dealers, and their cooperative companies;
11. Positioning sometimes might not accurate;
12. Users are not used to use MLBS;
13. Relevant MLBS content categories are not various enough;
Therefore, possible reasons of resisting applying MLBS were listed in the
27
questionnaire to fulfill the purpose of understanding the influence level of the challenges.
In the second part of this questionnaire, pairwise comparison was applied to discover user’s preference toward MLBS. There were two main sections, which were category comparison and service comparison. In the first section, user’s preference for each category would be compared. As which had been mentioned in the previous section, MLBS were divided into five categories, which were entertainment, information, navigation, commerce, and security and tracking. In the second section, each service, which was belong to different categories, would be operated with pairwise comparison either. For the attached services to the categories were also mentioned in the previous section. For entertainment, there are two services, which are MLBS community/friend-finder and gaming. For information, there are four services, which are nearby location checking, entertainment information, local weather report, and finding taxi. For navigation, there are three services, which are traffic information, navigation, and Map. For commerce, there are two services, which are nearby stores’ coupons/sales information, and mobile transaction/billing. For security and tracking, there are three services, which are emergency rescue, road side assistance, and tracking elders/children/pets/car/property.
The purpose of the third part was hoping to understand respondents’ preference toward billing modes. There were two sections in this part, which were user’s preference toward charging solutions, and user’s preference toward every service’s billing mode. The first section was user’s preference toward charging solutions which had the purpose of understanding respondents’ preference about charging solutions. In this section, respondents would be asked to read three charging solutions, which were charge for each service independently, charge for packages, and all-you-can-apply.
The explanations are as the following: For charge for each service independently
28
solution, each service charge independently and listed in user’s monthly bills. Charge for packages solution contains several services in one package. Users only have to pay once in a month for the package rather than paying for each service independently.
The all-you-can-apply solution contains all services which service provider has provided. After asking respondent reading the charging solutions and explanations, they would write the order of the solutions based on their preference. The second section was user’s preference toward each service billing mode which had the purpose of figuring out respondents’ preference toward billing mode for each service and package solution. Before the respondents filling the blank for each item, they were asked to read five billing modes and their explanations. The first were fixed charging.
Users needed to pay a fixed amount, after that, they can use the service without limitation. The second mode was charging based on using time, which meant the charge was based on the length of using time. Third, charging based on frequency, which meant the charge was based on how much times that users had used. The forth mode was the combination of charging fixed fee and charging based on frequency.
Users paid a monthly fee, if they over used, they would be charged based on their using frequency. The last one was the combination of charging fixed fee and charging based on time. Users paid a monthly fee, if they over used, they would be charged based on the length of their using time. While finishing reading explanations, respondents would write their preferred mode for each service and package.
The forth part was demographics with the purpose of generalizing respondents’
profiles. Moreover, the differences among respondents could be also generalized. This part contained: sex, age, education, profession, income, spending money, spend on voice communication (mobile phone), willing quotas of expenditure on MLBS, charging way, and method of getting MLBS.
29