Search results

The purpose of this study is to compare the evaluation of search result lists and documents, in particular evaluation criteria, elements, association between criteria and elements, pre/post and evaluation activities, and the time spent on evaluation.

The study analyzed the data collected from 31 general users through prequestionnaires, think aloud protocols and logs, and post questionnaires. Types of evaluation criteria, elements, associations between criteria and elements, evaluation activities and their associated pre/post activities, and time were analyzed based on open coding.

The study identifies the similarities and differences of list and document evaluation by analyzing 21 evaluation criteria applied, 13 evaluation elements examined, pre/post and evaluation activities performed and time spent. In addition, the authors also explored the time spent in evaluating lists and documents for different types of tasks.

This study helps researchers understand the nature of list and document evaluation. Additionally, this study connects elements that participants examined to criteria they applied, and further reveals problems associated with the lack of integration between list and document evaluation. The findings of this study suggest more elements, especially at list level, be available to support users applying their evaluation criteria. Integration of list and document evaluation and integration of pre, evaluation and post evaluation activities for the interface design is the absolute solution for effective evaluation.

This study fills a gap in current research in relation to the comparison of list and document evaluation.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a multi‐criteria bidding evaluation model based on Istanbul 2010 PR selection problem to strike a balance among conflicting criteria and to aggregate opinions held by a group of decision makers.

In the study, analytic hierarchy process (AHP) methodology was used to settle the conflict properly. The evaluation criteria were transformed into a hierarchical form and their relative weights were calculated and synthesized for the final ranking of the bidders. Then a linear interpolation‐based spreadsheet model was combined with findings of the AHP to fairly select best bidders.

The paper demonstrates that the hierarchical structure of the AHP methodology can successfully resolve the conflict among evaluation criteria and measure relative importance of the criteria by taking into account the preference of the decision makers. Moreover, a linear interpolation methodology can evaluate quoted bid prices fairly and can help to make the best decision.

In all areas of business management, there is a great need for fair bid evaluation systems. The method presented in the paper will help future studies in designing more intriguing systems and resolving conflicts in the area of bid evaluation.

The aim of this paper is to improve the service quality of digital libraries (DLs) through an evaluation model for DLs' user interfaces. This evaluation model can provide a useful reference for existing DLs or relevant research.

Relevant literature was synthesized, an evaluation framework was established, and the Fuzzy AHP was employed to investigate the evaluation model for DLs' user interfaces, obtain the relative weights for the importance of the evaluation criteria, and establish the priority ranking for the criteria of DLs' user interfaces.

The top five criteria are ease of use, searching, language, presentation, and design, respectively. For users, an interface should be intuitive. Good interface presentation and design are critical when users evaluate a digital library.

All of the students, teachers and experts considered that the presentation and design of DL user interfaces were what users had had contact with in the very beginning, and they were critical influential factors in DL user interfaces. Furthermore, ease-of-use and searching were fundamental interface functions, as well as important evaluation criteria. Interfaces should also provide interactive functions to improve interaction, while tailor-made services should be taken into account to establish an excellent interface in order to meet each user's need.

The evaluation model for DLs' user interfaces employed in this study will help developers of DL user interfaces discover the criteria that they should aim for as a reference, perform comprehensive criteria evaluation according to their actual needs, and employ top criteria for evaluation.

The purpose of this research is to determinate the criteria weight in a fashion design scheme evaluation system.

The first stage is to use the fuzzy Delphi method (FDM) by fashion design experts of academia and industries for fashion design evaluation criteria. The second stage is based on the use of a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) to find the criteria weight. Finally, an empirical example is used to illustrate the procedure of obtaining the criteria weights for the evaluation of a fashion design scheme.

The result shows that there are eight evaluation criteria to be obtained for fashion design scheme selection. The evaluation characteristic weights of theme and innovation score almost 90 percent (88.93 percent), the criteria weights of the first five, fashion forecast theme story, best‐seller modification, new idea and product position, score almost 80 percent (79.96 percent) and the criteria weights of the first two, fashion forecast and theme story, score almost 40 percent (39.93 percent) when selecting a design scheme in the fashion design process.

This paper proposes the vital characteristic and criteria for the selection of the fashion design scheme. In selecting fashion design scheme, this study uncovers that the marketing is less important than theme and innovation characteristics. Additionally, the results of this study, indicate the important five criteria, offered designer a set of useful indicators in preparing fashion design scheme and improving the quality of fashion design decision.

Companies have to assess the benefit of supplier innovation before realization. The specific situation of supplier innovation differs from conventional innovation evaluation because a supplier innovation refers to a subproduct for which the supplier is responsible. To date, supplier innovation evaluation has not been comprehensively discussed in the literature. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to focus on how supplier innovation should be evaluated.

For this purpose, a case study based on expert interviews has been conducted to identify how supplier innovation is evaluated in practice. On the basis of the empirical findings the specific situation of supplier innovation is discussed in relation to theoretical basics about the object, objective, time, reference, person, recipient, criteria, and methods of evaluation as well as the evaluation and selection process.

Results are recommendations for the special situation of supplier innovation evaluation before their realization in the purchasing company.

Based on the recommendations, a systematic and comprehensive approach with evaluation criteria and methods should be developed. Future research should address useful evaluation criteria and methods.

Managers can use the recommendations to evaluate supplier innovation in practice and to establish a systematic evaluation and selection process for supplier innovation.

The research findings contribute to the literature about innovation management and supplier management research by providing insights into the special situation of supplier innovation evaluation; in particular, this is the first paper which provides a systematic and comprehensive discussion about supplier innovation evaluation.

The roles recommendation systems play in health care have become crucial in achieving effective care and in meeting the needs of modern care giving. As a result, efforts have been geared toward using recommendation systems in the management of chronic diseases. Effectiveness of these systems is determined by evaluation following implementation and before deployment, using certain metrics and criteria. The purpose of this study is to ascertain whether consideration of criteria during the design of a recommendation system can increase acceptance and usefulness of the recommendation system.

Using survey-style requirements gathering method, the specific health and technology needs of people living with chronic diseases were gathered. The result was analyzed using quantitative method. Sets of harmonized criteria and metrics were used along with requirements gathered from stakeholders to establish relationship among the criteria and the requirements. A matching matrix was used to isolate requirements for prioritization. These requirements were used in the design of a mobile app.

Matching criteria against requirements highlights three possible matches, namely, exact, inferential and zero matches. In any of these matches, no requirement was discarded. This allows priority features of the system to be isolated and accorded high priority during the design. This study highlights the possibility of increasing the acceptance rate and usefulness of a recommendation system by using metrics and criteria as a guide during the design process of recommendation systems in health care. This approach was applied in the design of a mobile app called Recommendations Sharing Community for Aged and Chronically Ill People. The result has shown that with this method, it is possible to increase acceptance rate, robustness and usefulness of the product.

Inability to know the evaluation criteria beforehand, inability to do functional analysis of requirements, lack of well-defined requirements and often poor cooperation from people living with chronic diseases during requirements gathering for fear of stigmatization, confidentiality and privacy breaches are possible limitations to this study.

The result has shown that with this method, it is possible to isolate more important features of the system and use them during the design process, thereby speeding up the design and increasing acceptance rate, robustness and usefulness of the system. It also helps to see in advance the likely features of the system that will enhance its usefulness and acceptance, thereby increasing the confidence of the developers in their ability to deliver a system that will meet users’ needs. As a result, developers know beforehand where to concentrate their efforts during system development to ascertain the possibility of increasing usefulness and acceptance rate of a recommendation system. In addition, it will also save time and cost.

This paper demonstrates originality by highlighting and testing the possibility of using evaluation criteria and metrics during the design of a recommender system with a view to increasing acceptance and enhancing usefulness. It also shows the possibility of using the metrics and criteria in system’s development process for an exercise other than evaluation.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an insight to the outsourcing decision-making through investigating if the old evaluation/selection criteria and methods still fit with current business priorities or not and, therefore, to identify the appropriate criteria and methods to develop a new selection framework. Since the economic recession of 2008, logistics outsourcing decisions have become more prominent to avoid high fixed costs and heavy investment requirements and to achieve competitive advantages.

This is a focused literature review prepared after analyzing 56 articles related to the logistics service provider (LSP) evaluation and selection methods and criteria during 2008-2013. The academic articles are analyzed based on research focus/area, evaluation and selection methodology/methods and evaluation and selection criteria. Then reviewed result is compared with previous literature studies for the periods (1991-2008) to identify any possible shifts.

The review reveals that: several problems in current LSPs literature have been identified; the reviewed papers can be categorized into seven groups, the usage and importance of evaluation and selection criteria fluctuate during different periods; 12 crucial criteria have been identified, increasing the importance of specific selection methods and the integrated models and fuzzy logic in logistics literature. Then, a comprehensive LSPs’ evaluation and selection framework has been developed.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first focused logistics outsourcing study that reviews the 2008-2013 period in detail, comparing results with previous literature studies, identifies current LSPs literature problems/gaps, new trends and shifts in the way that LSPs are evaluated and selected, identifies crucial selection criteria and proposes a new holistic LSPs evaluation and selection framework. In addition, it identifies important issues for future research.

Important evaluation criteria as they are perceived by quality managers in American and US‐based Japanese firms are examined. For this study, three different groups of companies contained within four industries were considered. They included American firms using a traditional approach to manufacturing management, Japanese firms operating in the United States, and American firms attempting a Japanese approach to manufacturing management. This study identified price, on‐time delivery, and the supplier′s product quality as the three major criteria for evaluating vendors. The attitudes of quality managers concerning the importance of these variables were counter to the impressions portrayed in the academic and managerial press. Also differing from the literature was how much the managers in these different types of firms linked the evaluation criteria and overall organisational performance.

This paper aims to address the reporting of validation and evaluation criteria in qualitative management accounting studies, which is a topic of critical debate in qualitative social science research. The objective of this study is to investigate the ways researchers have reported the use of evaluation criteria in qualitative management accounting studies and whether they are associated with certain paradigmatic affiliations.

Building on the work of Eriksson and Kovalainen [Eriksson and Kovalainen (2008) Qualitative Methods in Business Research. London, Sage], the following three approaches are examined: the adoption of classic concepts of validity and reliability, the use of alternative concepts and the abandonment of general evaluation criteria. Content analysis of 212 case and field studies published during 2006 to February 2015 was conducted to be able to offer an analysis of the most recent frontiers of knowledge.

The key empirical results of this study provide partial support for the theoretical expectations. They specify and refine Eriksson and Kovalainen’s (2008) classification system, first, by identifying a new approach to evaluation and validation and, second, by showing mixed results on the paradigmatic consistency in the use of evaluation criteria.

This paper is not necessarily exhaustive or representative of all the evaluation criteria developed; the authors focused on the explicit reporting of criteria only and the findings cannot be generalized. Somewhat different results might have been obtained if other journals, other fields of research or a longer period were considered.

The findings of this study enhance the knowledge of alternative approaches and criteria to validation and evaluation. The findings can aid both in the evaluation of management accounting research and in the selection of appropriate evaluation approaches and criteria.

This paper presents a synthesis of the literature (Table I) and new empirical findings that are potentially useful for both academic scholars and practitioners.

This paper aims to provide a criteria-based evaluation framework for assessing knowledge management system (KMS) development methodologies.

The evaluation criteria have been elicited based on the features expected from a successful KMS. Furthermore, a number of prominent KMS development methodologies have been scrutinized based on the proposed evaluation framework.

It was demonstrated that the proposed evaluation framework is detailed and comprehensive enough to reveal the strengths and weaknesses of KMS development methodologies. It was also revealed that even though the evaluated methodologies possess certain strong features, they suffer from several shortcomings that need to be addressed.

The evaluation framework has not been applied to all existing KMS development methodologies; however, the evaluation does cover the most comprehensive methodologies which exist in the research context.

The results of this research can be used for the following purposes: organizational goal-based selection of KMS development methodologies, evolution of existing KMS development methodologies and engineering of tailored-to-fit KMS development methodologies.

The proposed evaluation framework provides a comprehensive and detailed set of criteria for assessing general, area-specific and context-specific features of KMS development methodologies. KMS developers can select the methodology which best fits their requirements based on the evaluation results. Furthermore, method engineers can extend existing methodologies or engineer new ones so as to satisfy the specific requirements of the project at hand.