Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

An integrated framework of HoQ and AHP for the QOE improvement of network-based ASP services

  • Published:
annals of telecommunications - annales des télécommunications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The application service provider (ASP) industry provides an essential infrastructure for Internet-based e-business transactions. First, we introduce the House of Quality (HoQ) framework, which provides the best way to not only arrange and evaluate voice of customers (VoC) and voice of engineers (VoE) but also combine VoC and VoE, thereby presenting explicit directions for quality of experience (QoE) enhancement. However, there have been few studies on HoQ for developing and improving telecom services. Here, we employ the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) method to evaluate VoC, VoE, and their relationships so that qualitative measurement, which is the weakest point of the traditional HoQ approach, can be substituted by quantitative and interactive estimation. The case study discussed here serves as an illustration of the applicability and usefulness of the integrated HoQ/AHP approach to the ASP industry. The proposed integrated framework successfully finds key functional elements, such as business customization and security/failure management, to reengineer the service delivery process, thereby helping service providers develop better ASP services to improve QoE effectively and efficiently.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Since VoC is an equivalent concept of quality of experience (QoE), those two terms are interchangeable. However, according to the convention in quality management, VoC will be used mainly in this article.

  2. The major modification is as follows. We added one layer, the management layer, on top of the application layer in order to explicitly incorporate the service management function. Due to this change, a minor rearrangement of some detailed features in the generic version of Sun Microsystems, Inc. was necessary. This modification was conducted through a literature survey and consultation with experts (refer Section 4.1). The final outcome led us to the resulting key functional elements.

  3. The original version of the SERVQUAL model assumes that a service experience consists of multiple dimensions such as reliability, responsiveness, assurance, visibility (or tangibles), and empathy. Thus, based on the SERVQUAL model, the level of QoS in each dimension is defined by the gap score between the customer's expectation and his/her perception. For this reason, SERVQUAL is also called a gap model.

  4. For example, it is typically assumed that different experts have the same information on the subject and the same capability for evaluation. If this assumption seems unrealistic, one may assume there is no prior method of distinguishing the evaluative capabilities of different surveyors, which eventually leads to the assignment of the same weight to each surveyor.

  5. [29, 31] provide other ways for combining survey outcomes. However, it is asserted in [29] that different methods for combining pairwise-comparison matrices result in hardly any difference.

  6. This fact also implies that the architecture suggested in Section 2.2 is well-defined.

  7. The most recent term for this generalization could be SaaS (Software as a Service). Since it is not easy to define a label such as SaaS, in this paper, we restrict ourselves to a rather classical definition of ASP services.

References

  1. Akao Y (1990) QFD integrating customer requirements into product design. Productivity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  2. Asubonteng P, McCleary KJ, Swan JE (1998) SERVQUal revisited: a critical review of service quality. J Serv Mark 10(6):62–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Burris AM (2001) Service provider strategy. Prentice Hall, New York

    Google Scholar 

  4. Carrillat FA, Jaramillo F, Mulki JP (2007) The Validity of the SERVQUAL and SERVPERF scales: a meta-analytic view of 17 years of research across five continents. Int J Serv Ind Manag 18(5):472–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chen X, Sorenson P (2007) Towards TQM in IT services. Proceedings of the international conference on automated software engineering. Atlanta, Georgia, pp 42–47

    Google Scholar 

  6. Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13:319–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR (1989) User acceptance of computer technology. Manage Sci 35:982–1003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. DeLone WH, McLean ER (1992) Information systems success. Inf Syst Res 3:60–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Desisto RP, Holincheck J, Alvarez G, Lheureux BJ (2006) Predicts 2007: Software as a service provides a viable, gartner group report (November)

  10. Factor A (2002) Analysing application service providers. Sun Microsystems Press, Palo Alto, CA

    Google Scholar 

  11. Fitzsimmons J, Fitzsimmons M (2007) Service management: operations, strategy, information technology (6th ed). McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  12. Franceschini F, Rossetto S (1995) QFD the problem of comparing technical engineering design requirements. Res Eng Design 7:270–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Franceschini F, Rossetto S (1998) QFD how to improve its use. TQM 9:491–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Franceschini F, Rupil A (1999) Rating scales and prioritization in QFD. Int J Quality Reliability Manage 16:85–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Fraser NM (1994) Ordinal preference representations. Theor Decis 36:45–67

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Harney J (2002) Application service providers. Addison-Wesley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hauser JR, Clausing D (1988) The house of quality. Harvard business review, pp. 63–73 (May)

  18. Kettinger JW, Lee CC (1997) Pragmatic perspectives on the measurement of information systems service quality. MIS Quarterly 21:223–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kim D (under submission) Mathematical Analysis on the Structure of HoQ Matrix (in Korean)

  20. Kim D (2003) QFD and principal component regression analysis (in Korean). Kyung Hee Manage Rev 9:19–30

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kim D (2003) An explanatory approach to the ASP industry evolution where IT services move from p-service to e-service. In: Gupta JND, Sharma SK (eds) Creating knowledge based organizations. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, pp 127–147

    Google Scholar 

  22. Korean IT Rental Association (2008) A survey on ASP industry in Korea 2007 (in Korean), National Information Agency, Report No. NIA-II-07097

  23. Lee JJ, Ben-Natan R (2002) Integrating service level agreements. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lu MH, Madu CN, Kuei C, Winokur D (1994) Integrating QFD. AHP and benchmarking in strategic marketing. J Bus Ind Mark 9:41–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Mazur GH (1993) QFD for service industries. Proceedings of the 5th symposium on QFD, pp. 1–17, Novi, MI (June)

  26. Parasuraman A, Zeithaml VA, Berry LL (1988) SERVQUAL: a multi item scale for measuring consumer perception of service quality. J Retail 64:12–40

    Google Scholar 

  27. Pitt LF, Watson RT, Kavan CB (1995) Service quality: a measure of information systems effectiveness. MIS Quarterly 19:209–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Pring B (2003) ASP hype cycle: Hype? What hype? Gartner group report

  29. Ramanathan R, Ganesh LS (1994) Group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP. Eur J Oper Res 79:249–264

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Saaty TL (1995) The analytical network process: planning, priority setting. Resource allocation. RWS Publishing, New York

    Google Scholar 

  31. Saaty TL, Vargas LG (1980) Hierarchical analysis of behaviour in competition: prediction in chess. Behav Sci 25:180–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sparrow E (2003) Successful IT outsourcing. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  33. Sturm R, Morris W, Jander M (2000) Foundations of service level management, SAMS

  34. Sullivan LP (1986) Quality function deployment. Qual Prog 19(6):39–50

    Google Scholar 

  35. Toigo JW (2001) The essential guide to application service providers, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  36. Wan HA (2000) Opportunities to enhance a commercial website. Inf Manage 38:15–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Yoon S, Suh H (2004) Ensuring IT consulting SERVQUAL and user satisfaction: a modified measurement tool. Inf Syst Frontiers 6(4):341–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Business Administration, Kyung Hee University, Hoegi-dong 1, Dongdaemoon-gu, Seoul, 130-701, South Korea

    Dohoon Kim

Authors
  1. Dohoon Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dohoon Kim.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kim, D. An integrated framework of HoQ and AHP for the QOE improvement of network-based ASP services. Ann. Telecommun. 65, 19–29 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12243-009-0143-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12243-009-0143-9

Keywords