Search results

Open and Distance Learning (ODL) has been widely discussed by academicians and Information Technology (IT) personnel's in recent years. In an ODL system, ELearning Delivery Platform (ELDP) plays an integral part that ensures learning materials delivered to users in the most effective and efficient manner. Identifying the selection criteria's is very important and vital for a suitable ELDP system that will enhance and enrich the ODL. At the same time, evaluation formats or check-sheets can be developed using the criteria's to evaluate various ELDP providers by the ODL provider. The criteria's can also be used to help the ELDP developer or provider to develop new systems and make further improvements from time to time. This paper gives a brief summary of the criteria's to select an ELDP system for delivering education via ODL environment. The criteria's are required to satisfy the requirements for courses such as arts, social science, business, management, IT, engineering, science, and so on. It also represents the multiple perspectives of the course developer, the course learning-ware developer, the course lecturer/tutor, the course e-learning administrative staff, the technical support staff, the student and the university administration.

This paper aims to explore the relationship between the students' perceptions of service performance and the service gaps. The main objective is to investigate whether the relationship can be used for the mapping of quality attributes into four service quality factors.

Using a 37‐item questionnaire developed from Grönroos' Perceived Service Quality model, a survey was carried out to collect primary data to measure the students' perceptions of service quality in a local private higher education institution. Service gaps were computed from the differences between students' perceptions of the services they received and their expectations of the same services. The perception scores were plotted vertically and the service gaps plotted horizontally on a graph with the overall mean perception score as the horizontal axis and the overall mean service gap as the vertical axis.

It appears that the relationship can be used to map the quality attributes into four quality factors, namely satisfier, critical, dissatisfier, and neutral, consistent with the model developed by Johnston and Heineke.

This is an alternative method to classify quality attributes using the service gaps data obtained from customer satisfaction surveys through the SERVQUAL instrument or modified versions. Together with the expectation‐service gap grid, both can be used for identifying service shortfalls and prioritisation of service improvement.

This paper aims to be a balance of mixed management and engineering concepts that aims to fuse classical engineering methodologies into a systems engineering framework to assess and compare systematically and comprehensively services rendered by engineering systems.

An auditing framework is developed to assess the performance of engineering services in the context of engineering services found within a facility. As a result of a system heterogeneity factor, an approach to remove this confounding issue is developed to provide a different insight into the performance of engineering services.

The output of the audit exercise serves as an input to the second methodology, direct age‐adjusted failure, which overcomes systems attributes confounding issues when comparison is made between different systems populations of the same class type. This method allows management to identify areas in which extra resources are needed to improve maintenance performance.

The proposed standardization technique, which can be applied to system attributes other than age, overcomes the systems heterogeneity issue between localities. This research work is positioned in the context of building engineering services, as they are the most important in terms of socio‐economical impact. A case study based on an actual facilities assessment in Singapore is used to demonstrate the usefulness of such an integrated systems approach.

This paper presents a qualitative‐quantitative assessment framework that consists of two major methodologies to help in identifying and prioritising engineering system services in order to allocate limited resources to the appropriate engineering service so as to improve its performance.