• 沒有找到結果。

Understanding e-learning service quality attributes of a commercial bank by using Kano’s model

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Understanding e-learning service quality attributes of a commercial bank by using Kano’s model"

Copied!
20
0
0

加載中.... (立即查看全文)

全文

(1)

Chen, L. -H. and Kuo, Y. -F. (2011) Understanding e-learning service quality attributes of a commercial bank by using Kano’s model, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 22(1), pp. 99-116.

Understanding E-learning Service Quality Attributes of a Commercial Bank by Using Kano’s Model

Abstract

To identify user requirements regarding e-learning services, this study applied Kano’s model to sort the e-learning service quality elements into various quality categories and calculate customer satisfaction index including the Better/Worse values, and also considered the importance weighting of each quality element for identifying the key elements for maximizing learner satisfaction and minimizing learner dissatisfaction based on investigation of a sample of 126 employees in a commercial bank. The analytical results of this study indicate that good user interface design is the basic requirement of e-learning system service and that useful content can attract users to use e-learning services. Moreover, users in different departments of the bank have different quality feature to e-learning services. This findings enable improved interpretation of e-learner satisfaction, and helping firms better understand user requirements and providing effective guidelines for enhancing e-learning service quality.

Keywords: Electronic learning (e-learning) service, service quality, Kano’s model

Introduction

The explosive growth of the Internet has been accompanied by rapid growth in e-services. E-learning, one type of e-services, has been one of the most significant recent developments in both schools and corporations. E-learning systems enable employees to access to up-to-date knowledge, find solutions for their work-related problems, contribute their experience and knowledge and ultimately increase their productivity and firm performance. To compete in the current radical business world, numerous companies have invested resources considerably in developing online e-learning service systems for their employees. Therefore, it is important for firms to evaluate e-learning service success. Several studies have shown that system usage and user satisfaction are considered the main determinants of information system (IS) success (DeLong & McLean, 1992, Taylor & Todd, 1995; Igbaria et al., 1997; Seddon, 1997; Gelderman, 1998; Rai et al., 2002; DeLong & McLean, 2003; Chiu et

al., 2005). Increased satisfaction leads to increased usage, reduced user complaints,

and thus improved individual performance (Patterson & Spreng, 1997; Van Riel et al., 2001). Consequently, practitioners must understand the determinants of satisfaction. Marketing studies have shown that customer satisfaction depends on perceptions of the quality of the goods or services provided (Gorst et al., 1998; Sirohi et al., 1998). IS researchers have proposed several models for measuring user satisfaction, and those models also depicted quality as a major influence on user satisfaction (DeLone & McLean, 1992; Seddon, 1997; McKinney et al., 2002; Rai et al., 2002; DeLone &

(2)

McLean, 2003). In the e-learning context, high e-learning service quality induces high user satisfaction and system usage (Chiu et al., 2005). E-learning service quality thus provides a clear basis for e-learning service success.

Service quality aims to know customers needs, meet their expectations and satisfy them by fulfilling their requirements, especially critical requirements. Previous research on customers (users) satisfaction assumed a linear relationship between customers (users) satisfaction and quality and proposed that satisfaction results from good performance in a specific quality element, and dissatisfaction resulting from the reverse situation. However, not all quality elements exert the same effect on customer satisfaction. For some quality elements customer take it for granted therefore its fulfillment will not increase customer satisfaction; some other quality element, customer satisfaction can be greatly improved even when the performance of the service has been little improved. Using the traditional one-way quality model to improve customer satisfaction, it is possible that customer will be satisfied with over-fulfilled or under-over-fulfilled on certain quality elements (Tan & Shen, 2000; Kuo, 2004), which may lead to wrong decisions about which attributes should be improved or offered to increase customer satisfaction. To achieve customer satisfaction and avoid waste of unnecessary costs and resources, it is important to understand the service quality attributes and their impact on customer satisfaction.

Kano et al. (1984) used the ‘Motivation-Hygiene Theory’ of Herzberg et al. (1959) to classify and show different types of quality that have different impacts on satisfaction in product/service development and improvement. In the context of e-learning services, e-e-learning system users are the ultimate customers, and different users have different requirements regarding quality elements. To satisfy different users, practitioners must first investigate user requirements on different types of quality attributes and fulfill those requirements to the maximum possible extent, especially those that are considered critical. It is important to identify different user requirements regarding quality elements, and thus this study uses Kano’s model to categorize quality elements for e-learning services and provide firms with suggestions for improving e-learning services.

Theoretical Background

Service Quality and User Satisfaction of Information Systems

Customer satisfaction is an exchange-specific affective response (Halstead et

al., 1994) derived from customer comparisons of service expectations with

perceptions of service received. Satisfaction results if their perceptions of the quality of the goods or services exceed expectations, while dissatisfaction results if the quality fails to exceed expectations (Parasuraman et al., 1985; Gorst et al., 1998; Sirohi et al., 1998). In the e-learning context, the user is the ultimate customer, since satisfaction with an educational product/service is one outcome of the exchanges between e-learning services and users (Wang, 2003). However, users of e-learning services are also IS users. Consequently, all customer satisfaction, information user satisfaction and web-customer satisfaction must be considered when assessing e-user satisfaction.

In the IS domain DeLone & McLean (1992) proposed an IS success model, which depicted system and information quality as affecting user satisfaction and IS use. Seddon (1997) also modeled system quality, information quality and perceived usefulness as the key determinants of user satisfaction. To amend Seddon’s model, Rai et al. (2002) proposed perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and

(3)

information quality as antecedents of satisfaction. To reflect the importance of information systems numerous IS researchers (Kettinger & Lee, 1994, 1997; Pitt et al., 1995, 1997; Van Dyke et al., 1997) also included service quality as an important factor affecting user satisfaction using the SERVQUAL measurement instrument from marketing (Parasuraman et al., 1988). Recently, DeLone & McLean (2003) proposed minor refinements to the IS success model as well as an updated model. In the updated IS success model, DeLone & McLean (2003) added ‘service quality’ as a key dimension of IS success in e-commerce environments.

To adapt to the challenges of the e-commerce world, academic research has identified numerous criteria used by customers to evaluate service quality delivery through websites. Recently Zeithaml et al. (2002) used a three-stage process employing exploratory focus groups and two phases of empirical data collection and analysis to develop the e-SERVQUAL for measuring e-retail service quality. E-SERVQUAL comprises seven dimensions: efficiency, reliability, fulfillment, privacy, responsiveness, compensation, and contact. Four dimensions –efficiency, reliability, fulfillment, and privacy - form the core e-SERVQUAL scale used to measure customer perceptions of service quality delivered by online retailers, and another three dimensions – responsiveness, compensation, and contact - become salient only when online customers have questions or encounter problems. McKinney et al. (2002) proposed a measurement of web-customer satisfaction that measured perceived performance in terms of quality, including both information quality and system quality. Previous studies on e-commerce service quality focused on the satisfaction factors in e-retail segment and rarely discussed e-service satisfaction factors.

In the context of e-learning, researchers measured e-learner satisfaction either adapted the teaching quality scales from educational psychology (e.g. Marsh, 1991; Cashin & Downey, 1992) or from IS satisfaction or human computer interaction. To emphasize specific aspects of e-learning context, Wang (2003) defined e-learner satisfaction (ELS) as ‘a summary affective response of varying intensity that follows e-learning activities, and is stimulated by several focal aspects’, and developed a general instrument containing four satisfaction factors (learner interface, learning community, content, and personalization) for measuring learner satisfaction with e-learning systems. The ELS model of Wang (2003) not only considers the traditional perspectives of information user satisfaction and web-customer satisfaction, but also includes the element in e-learning service context. Therefore, this study thus adopted the ELS model to capture extensive e-service elements available in e-learning services.

Kano’s Two-way Model on Quality

In the traditional expectation disconfirmation paradigm, the most common framework for satisfaction studies, proposes that customers maintain a standard of reference to which they compare perceived performance, and assumes a linear relationship between product/service performance and customer satisfaction (Fick & Ritchie, 1991; Brock & Sulsky, 1994; Bhuian & Menguc, 2002). However, increasing fulfillment of customer expectations does not always mean a proportional increase or decrease in customer satisfaction since this change also depends on the ‘type’ of expectation (Matzler et al., 1996). Different customer expectations affect customer satisfaction differently.

Kano et al. (1984) developed a two-way model (Figure 1) that distinguishes between different quality attribute types. This model divides product or service quality attributes into the following five distinct categories, each of which influences customer satisfaction differently.

(4)

Q uality elem ent dysfunctional Q uality elem ent fully functional C ustom er S atisfied

C ustom er D issatisfied

O ne-dim ensional Q uality

Indifferent Q uality

R everse Q uality A ttractive Q uality

M ust-be Q uality

Figure 1. Kano’s two-way model on quality (Kano et al., 1984).

1. Attractive quality: customer will be satisfied if this attribute present, but without dissatisfaction if absent. It can differentiate a product/service from competitors. 2. One-dimensional quality: this attribute is positively and linearly related to

customer satisfaction – that is, the greater the degree of fulfillment of this attribute, the greater the degree of customer satisfaction, and vice versa. Therefore, in the Kano’s model, customer reaction depends linearly on the level of fulfillment only for one-dimensional requirements.

3. Must-be quality: this is the basic criteria of a product/service, and customers will be extremely dissatisfied if it is absent. However the fulfillment of this attribute does not increase satisfaction since customers take it for granted.

4. Indifferent quality: an attribute whose presence or absence does not cause any customer satisfaction or dissatisfaction.

5. Reverse quality: an attribute whose presence causes customer dissatisfaction, and whose absence results in customer satisfaction.

Classifying customer requirements through the Kano’s model is beneficial in setting priorities for product/service development and improvement. For example, a general guideline for product/service development based on the survey results may be to fulfill must-be requirements, be competitive with one-dimensional requirements, and include differentiating attractive requirements. In competitive product/service analysis, improving performance in terms of must-be requirements that have already reached a satisfactory level is less productive than improving performance in one-dimensional or attractive requirements. Kano’s classification of customer expectations enables product/service developers to focus their efforts where the customer will notice their effect the most (Berger et al., 1993). The classified results can also provide valuable assistance in studying product/service development trade-off. If two or more requirements can not be met simultaneously due to technical or financial reasons, the requirement with the greatest influence on customer satisfaction is chosen. Based on the classification of customer requirements, customer-tailored solutions for specific problems can be elaborated, which can optimize satisfaction in different customer segments (Matzler et al., 1996). Understanding the category of the quality

(5)

elements is beneficial in improving the quality management, can select different strategies for different quality and focus on priorities for product/service development. The goal is enhancing customer satisfaction and loyalty, and minimizes the dissatisfaction.

Several studies have used Kano’s model to develop manufactured product quality and empirically confirmed the applicability of this model to quality attributes of TV and other manufactured goods (Kano et al., 1984). Schvaneveldt et al. (1991) applied Kano’s two-way quality model to four mass-market services such as retail banking, cleaning services, family restaurants and supermarkets. Applying motivation-hygiene theory online, Zhang & von Dran (2000) argued that ‘hygiene features’ are those necessary but insufficient to ensure user satisfaction with a web user interface while ‘motivational features’ contribute to user satisfaction and continued use of a website. Zhang & von Dran (2002) used Kano’s model on website design quality to examine cognitive outcomes and enjoyment as exciting qualities, information content, privacy, visual appearance, technical support, organization of information content, and credibility, as performance qualities, and navigation and impartiality as basic qualities. Tan & Shen (2000) applied the Kano model to defining and designing ‘good web pages’. Kuo (2004) also applied Kano’s model into Web-community service quality. This study thus applies Kano’s model on e-learning service to categorize different quality elements based on user perceptions.

Research Methodology The Questionnaire

The questionnaire is designed based on the e-learner satisfaction (ELS) instrument (Wang, 2003) since it is adequate reliability and validity across various enterprise e-learning services, and is modified to Kano’s two-way quality measurement. The ELS instrument includes four quality dimensions that can affect user satisfaction, including learner interface, learning community, content, and personalization. The dimension of ‘learner interface’ indicates that system interface should make user access e-learning service and find information easily and quickly. The ‘content’ dimension is that e-learning service can provide organized, well-structured, and understandable content. Essentially, these two dimensions are the same as ‘ease of use’, ‘system quality’, and ‘information quality’ in terms of information user satisfaction. The dimension of ‘personalization’ is becoming increasingly important to online service quality, and refers to users personal attention, understanding specific user needs, and providing service related to convenience. This dimension is the same as ‘customization’ in web-customer satisfaction. The ‘learning community’ dimension is a special factor in the context of e-learning environment, and learning community is a communication platform that users can discuss or share knowledge with other users.

Once the initial questionnaire was developed, an iterative personal interview process was conducted to refine the instrument. First, we interviewed faculty members and EMBA students who had experiences in this area. Twenty-seven e-learning system users and three domain experts were then interviewed. These interviews enabled the researchers to gauge the clarity of the tasks, assess whether the instrument was capturing the desired phenomena, and verify that important aspects had not been omitted. The process was continued until no further modification to the questionnaire was found. The quality dimensions and the elements of the examined e-learning service are shown in Table 1. The questionnaire comprises four parts. Parts one and two are the pairs of functional and defunctional questions regarding each

(6)

potential user requirement. That is, the first question concerns the customer reaction to the service offering specific features (functional form of the question); the second question concerns the customer reaction if the service lacks that feature (defunctional form of the question). In examining the service quality requirement, users respond by selecting one of five different options: (1) I like it that way; (2) It is a basic necessity; (3) I am neutral; (4) I can live with it that way; (5) I dislike it that way. In part three, the importance weight of each quality element is assessed on a 1-9 Likert scale. In the last part, the users’ basic information was investigated.

Table 1. E-learning service satisfaction dimensions and their elements Quality dimension Quality element ID Content Learner Interface (LI)

LI1 The CL is easy to use. LI2 The CL is user friendly.

LI3 The content provided by the CL is easy to understand LI4 The operation of the CL is stable.

LI5 The CL makes it easy for you to find knowledge you need. Learning

Community (LC)

LC1 The CL makes it easy for you to discuss questions with other users.

LC2 The CL makes it easy for you to access the shared content from the learning community. LC3 The CL makes it easy for you to discuss questions with experts.

LC4 The CL makes it easy for you to share what you learn with the learning community. Content (CO)

CO1 The CL provides up-to-date content.

CO2 The CL provides content that exactly fitted your needs. CO3 The CL provides sufficient content.

Personalization (PER)

PER1 The CL enables you to choose what you want to learn. PER2 The CL enables you to control your learning progress. PER3 The CL records your learning progress and performance.

Sample and Procedure

Sample data were collected from the staff who worked in a commercial bank which has 101 branches in Taiwan. This bank launched an e-learning system, CAN-LEARN (CL), in 1999. This system demonstrates a variety of recent information such as economic trends and news as well as teaching advanced skills and knowledge about customer service to employees. The CL also provides a community platform for users to share and discuss knowledge. To be consistent with the exchange-specific nature of ELS conceptualization, respondents were restricted to those who had used the e-learning service for more than three months. The advantage of using a single firm over multiple firms can both minimize possible contingencies common in multi-firm studies and provide better control for contextual effects (Singh et al., 1994). A total of 200 questionnaires were distributed to the staff and the analysis employed 126 usable questionnaires, representing a valid response rate of 63%.

Research Results Sample Characteristics

The respondent’s demographic characteristics are shown in Table 2. Table 2 indicates that most respondents (43.7%) work in the Human Resource Department, and 60.3% of respondents are female. Most of the respondents have tenures of no more than 5 years (51.6%).

(7)

Table 2. Demographic characteristics of the sample

Item No. %

Gender Male 50 39.7

Female 76 60.3

Department Human Resource (HR) 55 43.7

Operations (OP) 23 18.3 Personal Banking (PB) 24 19.0 Business Banking (BB) 24 19.0 Tenure 1-5 years 65 51.6 6-10 years 49 38.9 11year or above 12 9.5

Analysis of the Two-way Quality Model

By combining the two answers in the Kano evaluation table (Table 3), the e-learning service quality elements can be classified into one of six categories: attractive quality (A), one-dimensional quality (O), must-be quality (M), indifferent quality (I), reverse quality (R) or questionable result (Q).

Table 3. Kano’s evaluation table (Kano et al., 1984) Defunctional Customer requirement Like Basic

Necessary Neutral Live with Dislike Functional Like Q A A A O Basic Necessary R I I I M Neutral R I I I M Live with R I I I M Dislike R R R R Q

Notes: A: Attractive; O: One-dimensional; M: Must-be; I: Indifferent; R: Reverse; Q:

Questionable

If the user answers, for example, ‘I like it that way’ as regards ‘If the CL is user friendly, how do you feel?’ in the functional form of the question, and answers ‘It is a basic necessity’ as regards ‘If the CL is not user friendly, how do you feel?’ in the dysfunctional form of the question, the combination of the questions in the evaluation table finds an ‘A’, indicating that a user friendly interface in an e-learning service is an attractive quality element from the perspective of users. Category Q indicates that there is a contradiction in customer’s answers to the questions. For each quality element, placement in this classification within this scheme is determined by the category having the highest response frequency. To illustrate, if a quality element is judged to belong to the ‘must-be’ category by the largest number of respondents, then that category is assigned to the must-be category. If two or more Kano categories

(8)

are tied for a given quality element, we consider selecting the classification that would have the greatest impact on the service (use the following ordering: M>O>A>I) (Berger et al., 1993).

(1) Kano Category for E-learning Service Quality

Commercial banks include numerous different departments, responsible for different functions, and thus users have different requirements regarding the same quality element. This study thus categorized the quality elements for both users of different department and all users based on Kano’s model, as shown in Table 4. Table 4 indicates, for whole samples, among the fifteen service quality elements, three are attractive, ten are one-dimensional, and two are indifferent. Based on responses of users in different departments, the Human Resource Department includes ten attributes categorized as attractive, and five elements classified as one-dimensional. However, to users in the Operations Department, just one element is classified as attractive, four are one-dimensional, seven are must-be, and three are indifferent elements. To users in the Personal Banking Department, one element is one-dimensional, ten are must-be, and four are indifferent. In term of Business Banking, nine elements are one-dimensional, two are must-be and four are indifferent.

Table 4. Kano category for e-learning service quality Quality dimensiona Quality elementa Whole samples Human Resource Operations Personal Banking Business Banking LI LI1 O A M M M LI2 O A O M M LI3 O A O M O LI4 O O O M I LI5 A A M M O LC LC1 A A I I O LC2 I A O I I LC3 O O I I I LC4 I A I I I CO CO1 O A M O O CO2 O O M M O CO3 O O M M O PER PER1 O A M M O PER2 A A A M O PER3 O O M M O a

The names of quality dimension and quality elements are listed in Table 1.

Notes: A: Attractive; O: One-dimensional; M: Must-be; I: Indifferent (2) Customer Satisfaction Index

This study follows the guidelines of Kano to classify each user requirement into one of the categories based on most the responses. However, many of the responses tended to be spread over several categories (A, O, M, and I). In this situation, simply using the mode statistic to classify the users’ requirements seems inadequate. This study thus calculated the customer satisfaction index including the “Better” value and the “Worse” value (Berger et al., 1993) to find out which quality elements can influence customer satisfaction, and elements with intensive influences are the places we should pay attention to. The Better value (satisfaction increment index) states whether satisfaction can be increased by providing quality elements, and

(9)

it is calculated by adding the number of Attractive and One-dimensional responses and dividing by the total number of Attractive, One-dimensional, Must-be and Indifferent responses. The Worst value (dissatisfaction decrement index) states whether fulfilling quality elements only prevents the customer from being dissatisfied, and it involves adding the number of One-dimensional and Must-be responses dividing by the total number of Attractive, One-dimensional, Must-be and Indifferent responses, and putting a minus sign in front of the result emphasize its negative influence on customer satisfaction if this quality element is not fulfilled. These formulas are shown below:

I M O A O A Better + + + + = (1) I M O A M O Worse + + + + − = (2) The Better value ranges from 0 to1, while that of the Worst value ranges from -1 to 0. If the Better value is close to 0, the effect is low. When it is close to 1, the element has a positive effect on increases user satisfaction and higher the Better value the stronger the effect of user satisfaction on this element. On the other hand, the higher Worst value (close to -1) the more user satisfaction will decrease if this element is not fulfilled. Thus the influences of individual elements on user satisfaction can be identified, and it is possible to pay attention to the elements that increase user satisfaction or prevent user dissatisfaction. The Better and the Worst values of quality elements of the e-learning service are shown in Table 5.

In Table 5, to whole samples, if improvements are achieved in terms of ‘ease of discussion with experts’, ’ease of understanding content’, ‘provision of up-to-date content’, ‘provision of exactly fitted content’, and ‘ease of finding needed knowledge’, user satisfaction can be maximized. If improvements are provided in terms of ‘ease of finding needed knowledge’, ‘provision of sufficient content’, ‘provision of the exactly fitted content’, ‘provision of up-to-date content’, and ‘ease of use’ they can decrease user dissatisfaction markedly. To users in the Human Resource Department improving ‘up-to-date content’ can increase user satisfaction markedly; if e-learning service can ‘operate stably’ then user dissatisfaction can be reduced. To users working in the Operations Department, ‘user-friendliness’ can both increase their satisfaction and decrease their dissatisfaction markedly. To increase satisfaction in the Personal Banking Department, the best course is to provide the exactly fitted content, and improving the ‘provision of up-to-date content’ can maximize the reduction in user dissatisfaction. In terms of users in the Business Banking Department, improving ‘ease of understanding content’ can maximize user satisfaction while ‘ease of use’ element can more effectively decrease user dissatisfaction.

(10)

Table 5. Better and Worse Values of e-learning quality elements. Quality dimension a Quality elementa

Whole samples Human Resource Operations Personal Banking Business Banking

BV WV BV WV BV WV BV WV BV WV LI LI1 0.48 -0.60 0.69 -0.38 0.39 -0.78 0.17 -0.63 0.42 -0.88 LI2 0.55 -0.55 0.76 -0.25 0.57 -0.83 0.21 -0.67 0.38 -0.83 LI3 0.65 -0.56 0.82 -0.35 0.52 -0.74 0.21 -0.67 0.67 -0.63 LI4 0.60 -0.80 0.78 -0.75 0.48 -0.83 0.29 -0.83 0.42 -0.42 LI5 0.63 -0.56 0.84 -0.25 0.52 -0.78 0.33 -0.83 0.54 -0.33 LC LC1 0.58 -0.38 0.78 -0.25 0.43 -0.43 0.38 -0.42 0.48 -0.57 LC2 0.59 -0.40 0.78 -0.36 0.48 -0.52 0.42 -0.38 0.38 -0.42 LC3 0.67 -0.58 0.80 -0.49 0.33 -0.38 0.43 -0.35 0.46 -0.33 LC4 0.54 -0.30 0.80 -0.27 0.29 -0.38 0.33 -0.33 0.39 -0.26 CO CO1 0.65 -0.61 0.85 -0.36 0.48 -0.83 0.50 -0.90 0.46 -0.71 CO2 0.65 -0.64 0.69 -0.58 0.48 -0.78 0.52 -0.83 0.46 -0.75 CO3 0.59 -0.66 0.56 -0.64 0.43 -0.74 0.50 -0.79 0.58 -0.63 PER PER1 0.59 -0.52 0.73 -0.27 0.43 -0.65 0.36 -0.83 0.63 -0.67 PER2 0.53 -0.48 0.76 -0.29 0.68 -0.16 0.33 -0.71 0.43 -0.65 PER3 0.52 -0.54 0.75 -0.44 0.26 -0.65 0.33 -0.71 0.43 -0.52 a

The names of quality dimension and quality elements are listed in Table 1.

Notes: BV: the Better value; WV: the Worse value. (3) Important Weight of Quality Elements

The most useful applications of Kano’s model are in product and service development and improvement. Sometimes two or more service requirements cannot be met simultaneously for technical or financial reasons, making a trade-off necessary. For example, in Table 5, to whole samples the ‘ease of understanding content’, ‘provision of up-to-date content’ and ‘provision of exactly fitted content’ have the same Better value. Under this situation, firms must consider the quality element that has the greatest influence on user satisfaction. Typically, the influence on customer satisfaction of a specific quality element is closely related to the degree of importance attached to it by users (Kristensen et al., 1992). Therefore, this study considers the importance of each quality element and calculates the importance weight for each quality element (Table 6). The weighted Better value is the Better value multiple by important weight of the quality element and vice versa. The weighted Better and Worse values are shown in Table 7.

(11)

Table 6. Important weight of each quality element. Quality dimensiona Quality elementa Whole samples Human Resource Operations Personal Banking Business Banking LI LI1 8.03 8.15 7.91 8.03 7.8 LI2 7.98 8.11 7.83 7.97 7.73 LI3 8.04 7.93 8.13 8.26 7.87 LI4 8.16 8.04 8.26 8.39 8.00 LI5 7.83 8.09 7.57 7.71 7.53 LC LC1 7.29 7.89 6.91 6.90 6.47 LC2 7.31 7.84 6.96 6.90 6.80 LC3 7.18 7.75 6.87 6.87 6.20 LC4 7.35 7.82 6.78 7.13 6.93 CO CO1 8.04 8.05 7.96 8.26 7.67 CO2 8.06 8.16 7.91 8.26 7.47 CO3 7.93 8.09 7.75 8.00 7.73 PER PER1 8.04 8.00 8.00 8.32 7.67 PER2 7.70 7.93 7.35 7.94 6.93 PER3 7.73 7.93 7.52 7.94 6.93 a

The names of quality dimension and quality elements are listed in Table 1.

According to Table 7, the quality category for each element in different quality dimensions is explained below. For whole samples, if improvements are provided in the areas of ’ease of understanding content’, ‘ease of finding needed knowledge’, ‘ease of discussion with experts, ‘up-to-date content’, and ‘exactly fitted content’ then user satisfaction can be maximized. If improvements are provided in the areas of ‘ease of use’, ‘stable’, ‘up-to-date content’, ‘exactly fitted content’, and ‘sufficient content’ they can decrease user dissatisfaction markedly. To the users in Human Resource Department, improvements in ‘provision of up-to-date content’ can increase user satisfaction markedly; stable e-learning service operations can minimize user dissatisfaction. To users working in the Operations Department, ‘user-friendliness’ can both increase their satisfaction and decrease their dissatisfaction markedly. To increase satisfaction in the Personal Banking Department, the best approach is to provide precisely fitted content, and an approach that can also maximize the reduction of user dissatisfaction. In terms of users in the Business Banking Department, improving the user experience by providing ‘ease of understanding content’ can maximize user satisfaction, while increasing ‘ease to use’ can decrease user dissatisfaction.

(12)

Table 7. Weighted Better and Worse values

Quality dimensiona

Quality elementa

Whole samples Human

Resource Operations Personal Banking Business Banking WBV WWV WBV WWV WBV WWV WBV WWV WBV WWV LI LI1 3.85 -4.82 5.62 -3.10 3.08 -6.17 1.37 -5.06 3.28 -6.86 LI2 4.37 -4.39 6.16 -2.03 4.46 -6.50 1.67 -5.34 2.94 -6.42 LI3 5.21 -4.50 6.50 -2.78 4.23 -6.02 1.73 -5.53 5.27 -4.96 LI4 4.92 -6.53 6.27 -6.03 3.96 -6.86 2.43 -6.96 3.36 -3.36 LI5 4.91 -4.35 6.80 -2.02 3.94 -5.90 2.54 -6.40 4.07 -2.48 LC LC1 4.26 -2.74 6.15 -1.97 2.97 -2.97 2.62 -2.90 3.11 -3.69 LC2 4.29 -2.96 6.12 -2.82 3.34 -3.62 2.90 -2.62 2.58 -2.86 LC3 4.79 -4.14 6.20 -3.80 2.27 -2.61 2.95 -2.40 2.85 -2.05 LC4 4.00 -2.21 6.26 -2.11 1.97 -2.58 2.35 -2.35 2.70 -1.80 CO CO1 5.19 -4.93 6.84 -2.90 3.82 -6.61 4.13 -7.43 3.53 -5.45 CO2 5.22 -5.16 5.63 -4.73 3.80 -6.17 4.30 -6.86 3.44 -5.60 CO3 4.66 -5.22 4.53 -5.18 3.33 -5.74 4.00 -6.32 4.48 -4.87 PER PER1 4.72 -4.21 5.84 -2.16 3.44 -5.20 3.00 -6.91 4.83 -5.14 PER2 4.07 -3.70 6.03 -2.30 5.00 -1.18 2.62 -5.64 2.98 -4.50 PER3 4.02 -4.21 5.95 -3.49 1.96 -4.89 2.62 -5.64 2.98 -3.60 Mean 4.57 -4.27 6.06 -3.16 3.44 -4.87 2.75 -5.22 3.49 -4.24 a

The names of quality dimension and quality elements are listed in Table 1.

Notes: WBV: weighted Better value; WWV: weighted Worse value.

To identify the most critical quality elements, this study plotted a two-dimensional graph to represent the pairs of weighted Better value (WBV) and weighted Worse value (WWV) for each quality element. The horizontal axis shows the degree of WWV (the minus sign has been left off on this graph), and the vertical axis shows the degree of WBV. By using a central tendency (i.e. mean) , the WBV and WWV of each element are ordered and classified into high/low categories; then by pairing these two sets of rankings, each element is placed into one of the four areas of the WWV-WBV grid. The placements of elements on these two-dimensional graphs for the whole samples and departments (namely human resource, operations, personal banking and business banking department) are shown in Figures 2 to 6. The quality elements located in Area I are ranked high both in WBV and WWV. That is, the improvement of these quality elements can add the most user satisfaction and prevent the most user dissatisfaction. Therefore, these elements are the most important requirements to users. Managers and e-learning system developers should first focus on these critical elements to enhance the benefit of the systems. As shown in Figures 2 to 6, for whole sample, users’ most important requirements are the learner interface is stable, ease of understanding content and ease of finding needed knowledge, and the content is up-to-date, fitted and sufficient. E-learning service can operate stably and easy to discuss questions with experts are the most critical elements for the users in Human Resource Department. For users in Operations Department, the learner interface is with user friendly, easy of understanding, stable and easy to find needed knowledge, and up-to date and fitted content are the most important requirements. In terms of users in Personal Banking Department, up-to-date, fitted and sufficient content and enabling to choose what you want to learn are the elements fall into Area I. Up-to date and sufficient content and enabling to choose what you want to learn are the most focused elements for the users in Business Banking Department. The quality elements in Area II are high in WBV but rated substandard in WWV. These quality elements can increase users’ satisfaction but have little effect on decreasing users’ dissatisfaction when their performance is improved. The quality elements in Area III indicate those rated low in both WBV and WWV. Because of their low effects on users’ satisfaction and dissatisfaction, these

(13)

elements are considered low priority if having cost and financial considerations. The quality elements in Area IV are rated high in WWV, but low in WBV. These quality elements have little effect on increasing users’ satisfaction but have significant effect on decreasing users’ dissatisfaction when their performance is improved. These quality elements are the essential (“hygiene”) requirements to users.

Figure 2 Two dimensional representation of quality elements -Whole sample

Notes: The names of quality dimension and quality elements are listed in Table 1.

WBV: weighted Better value; WWV: weighted Worse value.

2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 W WW WWVWVWVWV 3.80 4.00 4.20 4.40 4.60 4.80 5.00 5.20 LI1 LI2 LI3 LI4 LI5 LC1 LC2 LC3 LC4 CO1 CO2 CO3 PER1 PER2 PER3 4.57 4.27

I

II

III

IV

W W W WBVBVBVBV

(14)

Figure 3 Two dimensional representation of quality elements - Human Resource Department

Notes: The names of quality dimension and quality elements are listed in Table 1.

WBV: weighted Better value; WWV: weighted Worse value.

2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 W W W WWVWVWVWV 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 W W W WBVBVBVBV LI1 LI2 LI3 LI4 LI5 LC1 LC2 LC3 LC4 CO1 CO2 CO3 PER1 PER2 PER3 3.16 6.06

IV

I

II

III

(15)

Figure 4 Two dimensional representation of quality elements – Operations Department

Notes: The names of quality dimension and quality elements are listed in Table 1.

WBV: weighted Better value; WWV: weighted Worse value.

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 W W W WWVWVWVWV 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 W WW WBVBVBVBV LI1 LI2 LI3 LI4 LI5 LC1 LC2 LC3 LC4 CO1 CO2 CO3 PER1 PER2 PER3 4.87 3.44

III

IV

I

II

(16)

Figure 5 Two dimensional representation of quality elements – Personal Banking Department

Notes: The names of quality dimension and quality elements are listed in Table 1.

WBV: weighted Better value; WWV: weighted Worse value.

2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 W WW WWVWVWVWV 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 W W W WBVBVBVBV LI1 LI2 LI3 LI4 LI5 LC1 LC2 LC3 LC4 CO1 CO2 CO3 PER1 PER2 PER3 5.22 2.75

II

IV

III

I

(17)

Figure 6 Two dimensional representation of quality elements – Business Banking Department

Notes: The names of quality dimension and quality elements are listed in Table 1.

WBV: weighted Better value; WWV: weighted Worse value.

Conclusions and Suggestions

This study used Kano’s model to categorize quality elements for e-learning service in a commercial bank and to provide improvement suggestions to e-learning service planners. This study calculated the Bette/Worse value and took into account the importance weight of each quality element in identifying the key elements that can maximize user satisfaction and minimize user dissatisfaction. Generally, users might not express complaints because they do not have any choice regarding the service they use or may not know which service is better (Kuo, 2004). Kano’s model and the Better/Worse value can help firms categorize user needs and provide appropriate action or investment in user satisfaction improvement in the context of e-learning service. Firm e-learning service planners must fulfill all Must-be or high Worse value elements to prevent user dissatisfaction, improve on one-dimensional and high Better value of quality elements, and provide attractive quality elements.

The analytical results indicate that, for whole samples, if e-learning service cannot provide stable, easy to use and sufficient content, users will not be interested in the service; user satisfaction will increase when this service provides fitted and up-to-date content; meanwhile, if e-learning service can provide a easy way to help learners

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 W WW WWVWVWVWV 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 W W W WBVBVBVBV LI1 LI2 LI3 LI4 LI5 LC1 LC2 LC3 LC4 CO1 CO2 CO3 PER1 PER2 PER3 4.26 3.49

II

IV

III

I

(18)

identify their needs, while also allowing users to discuss with experts when they need help, then users will happy to use this service. Users in different departments have different quality categories to e-learning service. This study also provides a guideline for firm e-learning service planners in optimizing satisfaction level for different users. For users in the Human Resource and Operations Departments, higher quality user interface design (such as ease of understanding content and stable) is associated with higher user satisfaction and greater user willingness to use e-learning service. Meanwhile, for users in the Personal and Business Banking Departments, a well designed user interface is the basic requirement, and only e-learning service can provide fitted (work-related) and up-to-date knowledge that can help them enhance their performance, resulting in users of these two departments being happy to use e-learning service. Over the passage of time the features of quality elements change, and attractive quality elements might become dimensional, then must-be, or one-dimensional elements may become must-be, and must-be elements may become indifferent. Therefore further effort is necessary to identify key influences on user change, and it is necessary to continue modifying e-learning service to fulfill user requirements and optimize user satisfaction. This study only categorized types of quality elements in e-learning service. Further research is recommended to examine the effects of different quality elements and dimensions on e-learner satisfaction. Due to the limitation of time, cross-sectional data collection method was adopted. Thus, follow-up studies can collect longitudinal data to re-verify the proposed model or find out whether there is any difference when applied to different industries or organizations.

References

Berger, C., Blauth, R., Boger, D., Bolster, C., Burchill, G., DuMouchel, W., Pouliot, F., Richter, R., Rubinoff, A., Shen, D., Timko, M. & Walden, D. (1993) Kano's methods for understanding customer-defined quality, Center for Quality

Management Journal, 2(4), pp. 3-35.

Bhuian, S. & Menguc, B. (2002) An extension and evaluation of job characteristics, organizational commitment and job satisfaction in an expatriate, guest worker, sales setting, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 22(1), pp. 1-11. Brock, D. B. & Sulsky, L. M. (1994) Attitude toward computers: construct validation

and relations to computer use, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(1), pp. 17-35.

Cashin, W. E. & Downey, R. G. (1992) Using global student rating items for summative evaluation, Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), pp. 563-572. Chiu, C. M. Hsu, M. H., Sun, S. Y., Lin, T. C. & Sun, P. C. (2005) Usability, quality,

value and e-learning continuance decisions, Computers and Education, 45(4), pp. 399-416.

DeLong, W.H. & McLean, E.R. (1992) Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable, Information Systems Research, 3(1), pp. 60-95.

DeLong, W. H. & McLean, E. R. (2003) The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update, Journal of Management

Information Systems, 19(4), pp. 9-30.

Fick, G. R. & Ritchie, Jr. B. (1991) Measuring service quality in the travel and tourism industry, Journal of Travel Research, 30(2), pp. 2-9.

Gelderman, M, (1998) The relation between user satisfaction, usage of information systems, and performance, Information and Management, 34(1), pp. 11-18.

(19)

Gorst, J, Kanji, G. & Wallace, W. (1998) Providing customer satisfaction, Total

Quality Management, 9(4/5), pp. 100-103.

Halstead, D., Hartman, D. & Schmidt, S. L. (1994) Multisource effects on the satisfaction formation process, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(2), pp. 114-129.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. & Snyderman, B. B. (1959) The Motivation to Work (New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons).

Igbaria, M., Zinatelli, N., Cragg, P. & Cvaye, A. (1997) A personal computing acceptance factors on small firms: a structural equation model, MIS Quarterly, 21(3), pp. 279-302.

Kano, N., Seraku, N., Takahashi, F. & Tsuji, S. (1984) Attractive quality and must-be quality, Journal of Japanese Society for Quality Control, 14(2), pp. 39-48.

Kettinger, W. J. & Lee, C. C. (1994) Perceived service quality and user satisfaction with the information services function, Decision Science, 25(5), pp. 737-766. Kettinger, W. J., & Lee, C. C. (1997) Pragmatic perspectives on the measurement of

information systems service quality, MIS Quarterly, 21(2), pp. 223-239.

Kristensen, K., Kanji, G. K. & Dahlgaard, J. J. (1992) On measurement of customer satisfaction, Total Quality Management, 3(2), pp. 123-128.

Kuo, Y. F. (2004) Integrating Kano’s Model into Web-community service quality,

Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 15(7), pp. 925-939.

Marsh, H. W. (1991) Multidimensional students’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness: a test of alternative higher-order structures, Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(2), pp. 285-296.

Matzler, K., Hinterhuber, H. H., Bailom, F. & Sauerwein, E. (1996) How to delight your customers, Journal of Product and Brand Management, 5(2), pp. 6-18. McKinney, V., Yoon, K. & Zahedi, F. M. (2002) The measurement of web-customer

satisfaction: an expectation and disconfirmation approach, Information Systems

Research, 13(3), pp. 296-315.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. & Berry, L. L. (1985) A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research, Journal of Marketing, 49(4), pp. 41-50.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. & Berry, L.L. (1988) SERVQUAL: a multi-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions for service quality, Journal of Retailing, 64(1), pp. 12-40.

Patterson, P. G. & Spreng, R. A. (1997) Modeling the relationship between perceived value, satisfaction and repurchase intentions in a business-to-business, services context: An empirical examination, International Journal of Service Industry

Management, 8(5), pp. 414-434.

Pitt, L. F., Watson, R. T. & Kavan, C. B. (1995) Service quality: A measure of information systems effectiveness, MIS Quarterly, 19(2), pp. 173-185.

Pitt, L. F., Watson, R. T. & Kavan, C. B. (1997) Measuring information systems service quality: concerns for a complete canvas, MIS Quarterly, 21(2), pp. 209-221.

Rai, A., Liang, S. S. & Welker, R. B. (2002) Assessing the validity of IS success models: an empirical test and theoretical analysis, Information Systems Research, 13(1), pp. 50-69.

Schvaneveldt, S. J., Enkawa, T. & Miyakawa, M. (1991) Consumer evaluation perspectives of service quality: evaluation factors and two-way model of quality,

(20)

Seddon, P. B. (1997) A respecification and extension of the Delone and McLean model of IS success, Information Systems Research, 8(3), pp. 240-253.

Singh, J., Goolsby, J. & Rhoads, G. (1994) Behavioral and psychological consequences of boundary spanning burnout for customer service representatives,

Journal of Marketing Research, 31(4), pp. 558-569.

Sirohi, H., Mclaughin, E. W. & Wittink, D. R. (1998) A model of consumer perceptions and store loyalty intentions for a supermarket retailer, Journal of

Retailing, 74(2), pp. 223-245.

Tan, K. C. & Shen, X. X. (2000) Integrating Kano’s model in the planning matrix of quality function deployment, Total Quality Management, 11(8), pp. 1141-1151. Taylor, S. & Todd, P. A. (1995) Understanding information technology usage: a test

of competing models, Information Systems Research, 6(2), pp. 144-176.

Van Dyke, T. P., Kappelman, L. A. & Prybutok, V. R. (1997) Measuring information systems service quality: concerns on the use of the SERVQUAL questionnaire,

MIS Quarterly, 21(2), pp. 195-208.

Van Riel, A. C. R., Liljander, V. & Jurriens, P. (2001) Exploring customer evaluations of e-services: a portal site, International Journal of Service Industry

Management, 12(3-4), pp. 359-377.

Wang, Y. S. (2003) Assessment of learner satisfaction with asynchronous electronic learning systems, Information and Management, 41(1), pp. 75-86.

Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A. & Malhotra, A. (2002) Service quality delivery through Web sites: a critical review of extant knowledge, Journal of the Academy

of Marketing Science, 30(4), pp. 362-375.

Zhang, P. & von Dran, G. M. (2000) Satisfiers and dissatisfiers: a two-factor model for Website design and evaluation, Journal of the American Society for

Information Science, 51(14), pp. 1253-1268.

Zhang, P. & von Dran, G. M. (2002) User expectations and rankings of quality factors in different Web site domains, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6(2), pp. 9-33.

數據

Figure 1. Kano’s two-way model on quality (Kano et al., 1984).
Table 1. E-learning service satisfaction dimensions and their elements  Quality  dimension  Quality element ID Content  Learner  Interface (LI)
Table 2. Demographic characteristics of the sample
Table 4. Kano category for e-learning service quality  Quality  dimension a Quality elementa Whole  samples  Human  Resource  Operations  Personal Banking  Business Banking  LI  LI1  O  A  M  M  M LI2 O A O M M LI3 O A O M O  LI4  O  O  O  M  I  LI5  A  A
+7

參考文獻

相關文件

Thus, both of two-dimensional Kano model and IPGA mode are utilized to identify the service quality of auto repair and maintenance plants in this study, furthermore,

Keyword: Cyberytutor SiteServer, Quality improvement index, Kano model, Analytic Hierarchy Process, Quality Function

This paper uses learning motivation, educational service quality, learning satisfaction and behavioral intention as scheme and uses one private university students as

This study aims to explore whether the service quality and customer satisfaction have a positive impact on the organizational performance of the services and whether the

Keywords: Standard Hotels, Service Quality, Kano’ s Model, Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL), Importance-Performance Analysis

The study combined the concepts of Kano’s two-dimensional quality model and IPGA to classify online service quality factors for online sporting goods stores and

This study focuses on the consumer’s impression in exploring the quality attributes of digital photo frame (DPF), in which the Kano’s model is used to classify the quality

This paper uses a model consisting of three dimensions, including knowledge creation introduced by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), e-learning platform quality, and learning