Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating perceived and estimated data quality for Web 2.0 applications: a gap analysis

  • Published:
Software Quality Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To increase user satisfaction and enhance a positive image, the quality of software needs to be continuously improved. This study empirically investigates the importance of 15 quality characteristics and evaluates how well the Web 2.0 applications perform on those characteristics from a data quality perspective. Based on questionnaire responses from 279 participants and the results of importance–performance analysis, the performance of all data quality characteristics was found to be below the end user expectation. Confidentiality showed the greatest discrepancy between importance and performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abalo, P. J., Varela, M. J., & Rial, B. A. (2006). Importance-performance analysis for services management. Psicothema, 18(4), 730–737.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alton, Y. K., & Goh, D. H. (2010). A study of Web 2.0 applications in library websites. Library & Information Science Research, 32(3), 203–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, J., & Overton, T. (1997). Estimating non-response bias in mail survey. Journal of Marketing Research, 15(2), 396–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bacon, D. R. (2003). A comparison of approaches to importance-performance analysis. International Journal of Market Research, 45(1), 55–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, S., Petersen, K., Svahnberg, M., Aurum, A., & Barney, H. (2012). Software quality trade-offs: a systematic map. Information and Software Technology, 54(7), 651–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behkamal, B., Kahani, M., & Akbari, M. K. (2009). Customizing ISO 9126 quality model for evaluation of B2B applications. Information and Software Technology, 51(3), 599–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehm, B. W., Brown, J. R., Kaspar, J. R., Lipow, M. L., & MacCleod, G. (1978). Characteristics of software quality. New York: North-Holland Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caro, A., Calero, C., Caballero, I., & Piattini, M. (2008). A proposal for a set of attributes relevant for Web portal data quality. Software Quality Journal, 16(4), 513–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caro, A., Calero, C., & Moraga, M. A. (2011). Are web visibility and data quality related concepts? IEEE Internet Computing, 15(2), 43–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chu, R. K. S., & Choi, T. (2000). An importance-performance analysis of hotel selection factors in the Hong Kong hotel industry: a comparison of business and leisure travellers. Tourism Management, 21(4), 363–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, S. D., Couper, M. P., & Lamias, M. J. (2001). Web surveys: perception of burden. Social Science Computer Review, 19(2), 146–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desharnais, J.-M., Abran, A., & Suryn, W. (2011). Identification and analysis of attributes and base measures within ISO 9126. Software Quality Journal, 19(2), 447–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillman D.A., Tortora, R.D. & Bowker, D. (1998). Influence of plain vs. fancy design on response rates for Web surveys. Joint Statistical Meeting of the American Statistical Association.

  • Dromey, R. G. (1995). A model for software product quality. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 21(2), 146–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckerson, W.W. (2002). Data quality and the bottom line: achieving business success through a commitment to high quality data. The Data Warehousing Institute, http://download.101com.com/pub/tdwi/Files/DQReport.pdf.

  • Gillette, F., (2011). The rise and inglorious fall of myspace, Bloomberg businessweek, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-06-22/the-rise-and-inglorious-fall-of-myspace.

  • Gousios, G., Karakoidas, V., Stroggylos, K., Louridas, P., Vlachos, V. & Spinellis, D. (2007). Software quality assessment of open source software, Proceedings of the 11th Panhellenic Conference on Informatics.

  • Grady, R. B., & Caswell, D. L. (1987). Software metrics: establishing a company-wide program. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Upper Saddle River.

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO/IEC 14598 (1999). Information technology—software product evaluation -- Part 1: general overview.

  • ISO/IEC 25000 (2014). Software engineering–software product quality requirements and evaluation (SQuaRE)—guide to SQuaRE.

  • ISO/IEC 25012 (2008). Software engineering—software product quality requirements and evaluation (SQuaRE)—data quality model.

  • ISO/IEC 25022 (2016). Systems and software engineering—systems and software quality requirements and evaluation (SQuaRE)—measurement of quality in use.

  • ISO/IEC 25023 (2016). Systems and software engineering—systems and software quality requirements and evaluation (SQuaRE)—measurement of system and software product quality.

  • ISO/IEC 9126 (2001). Software engineering—product quality—Part 1: quality model.

  • Jones, C., Subramanyam, J., & Bonsignour, O. (2011). The economics of software quality. Boston: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juran, J. M. (1988). Juran on planning for quality. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kannabiran, G., & Sankaran, K. (2011). Determinants of software quality in offshore development—an empirical study of an Indian vendor. Information and Software Technology, 53(11), 1199–1208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kawamura, T., & Takano, K. (2014). Factors affecting project performance of IS development: evidence from Japanese IT vendors. Journal of Information Processing, 22(4), 689–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, D. J., Yue, K., Hall, S. P., & Gates, T. (2009). Global diffusion of the Internet XV: Web 2.0 technologies, principles, and applications: a conceptual framework from technology push and demand pull perspective. Communications of AIS, 24(1), 657–672.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitchenham, B., & Pfleeger, S. L. (1996). Software quality: The elusive target. IEEE Software, 13(1), 12–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitchenham, B., & Walker, J. (1989). A quantitative approach to monitoring software development. Software Engineering Journal, 4(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang, S. K., & Lien, C. T. (2007). Selecting the optimal ERP software by combining the ISO 9126 standard and fuzzy AHP approach. Contemporary Management Research, 3(1), 23–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martilla, J. A., & James, J. C. (1977). Importance-performance analysis. Journal of Marketing, 10(1), 13–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCall, J. A., Richards, P. K., & Walters, G. F. (1977). Factors in software quality. Griffiths Air Force Base: Rome Air Development Center Air Force Systems Command.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moraga, C., Moraga, M.A., Caro, A., Calero, C. (2009). SQuaRE-aligned data quality model for web portals. The 9th International Conference on Quality Software, 117–122.

  • Murdy, S., & Pike, S. (2012). Perceptions of visitor relationship marketing opportunities by destination marketers: an importance-performance analysis. Tourism Management, 33(5), 1281–1285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orehovački, T., Granić, A., & Kermek, D. (2013). Evaluating the perceived and estimated quality in use of Web 2.0 applications. Journal of Systems and Software, 86(12), 3039–3059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedram, H., Moghaddam, D. K., & Asheghi, Z. (2012). Applying the ISO 9126 model to the evaluation of an E-learning system in Iran. Information Sciences and Technology, 27(2), 496–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivera, B., et al. (2016). Quality views and strategy patterns for evaluating and improving quality: usability and user experience case studies. Journal of Web Engineering, 15(5–6), 433–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigala, M., Christou, E., & Gretzel, U. (2012). Investigating the exploitation of Web 2.0 for knowledge management in the Greek tourism industry: an utilisation–importance analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 800–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Standish Group (2013). CHAOS Manifesto 2013, The Standish Group International.

  • Tsai, W. H., Hsu, W., & Chou, W. C. (2011). A gap analysis model for improving airport service quality. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 22(10), 1025–1040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westland, J. C. (2002). The cost of errors in software development: evidence from industry. Journal of Systems and Software, 62(1), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Management, Takming University of Science and Technology, 56, Sec. 1, Huanshan Rd, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China

    Wen-Ming Han

Authors
  1. Wen-Ming Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wen-Ming Han.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Han, WM. Evaluating perceived and estimated data quality for Web 2.0 applications: a gap analysis. Software Qual J 26, 367–383 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-017-9365-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-017-9365-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation