Using PEQUAL Methodology in Auction Platforms Evaluation Process

  • Jarosław Wątróbski
  • Paweł Ziemba
  • Jarosław Jankowski
  • Waldemar Wolski
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 277)

Abstract

Together with the growth of e-commerce sector, companies are focusing more and more attention on website quality evaluations. Evolution along with an ever-growing set of available methods are being observed for online shopping platforms, as well as auctions, and it is creating better representations of various characteristics and parameters. The following article presents a usability study of auction websites based on the PEQUAL methodology. The used method is based on the extended version of classical EQUAL method with taken into account different aspects of preference modelling and aggregation derived from Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). Presented empirical verification has been conducted out for top auction websites and results show significant practical possibilities of analysis of obtained results.

Keywords

Website usability Website evaluation Promethee II method 

References

  1. 1.
    Pinker, E.J., Seidmann, A., Vakrat, Y.: Managing online auctions: current business and research issues. Manage. Sci. 49(11), 1457–1484 (2003). doi:10.1287/mnsc.49.11.1457.20584 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bewsell, G.R.: Distrust, fear and emotional learning: an online auction perspective. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Comer. Res. 7(2), 1–12 (2012). doi:10.4067/S0718-18762012000200002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blum, A., Kumar, V., Rudra, A., Wu, F.: Online learning in online auctions. Theor. Comput. Sc. 324(2), 137–146 (2004). doi:10.1016/j.tcs.2004.05.012 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Paarsch, H.J., Hong, H.: An Introduction to the Structural Econometrics of Auction Data. MIT Press Books (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lucking-Reiley, D., Bryan, D., Prasad, N., Reeves, D.: Pennies from eBay: the determinants of price in online auctions. J. Ind. Econ. 55(2), 223–233 (2007). doi:10.1111/j.1467-6451.2007.00309.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ariely, D., Simonson, I.: Buying, bidding, playing, or competing? value assessment and decision dynamics in online auctions. J. Consum. Psychol. 13(1), 113–123 (2003). doi:10.1207/S15327663JCP13-1&2_10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yen, C.H., Lu, H.P.: Factors influencing online auction repurchase intention. Internet Res. 18(1), 7–25 (2008). doi:10.1108/10662240810849568 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Calisir, F., Elvan Bayraktaroglu, A., Altin Gumussoy, C., Ilker Topcu, Y., Mutlu, T.: The relative importance of usability and functionality factors for online auction and shopping web sites. Online Inform. Rev. 34(3), 420–439 (2010). doi:10.1108/14684521011037025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gregg, D.G., Walczak, S.: The relationship between website quality, trust and price premiums at online auctions. Electron. Commer. R. 10(1), 1–25 (2010). doi:10.1007/s10660-010-9044-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barnes, S.J., Vidgen, R.T.: Assessing the quality of auction web sites. In: Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 10. IEEE (2001). doi:10.1109/HICSS.2001.927087
  11. 11.
    Yen, C.H., Lu, H.P.: Effects of e-service quality on loyalty intention: an empirical study in online auction. Manag. Serv. Qual. Int. J. 18(2), 127–146 (2008). doi:10.1108/09604520810859193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hasan, L., Morris, A., Probets, S.: Using google analytics to evaluate the usability of e-commerce sites. In: Kurosu, M. (ed.) HCD 2009. LNCS, vol. 5619, pp. 697–706. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02806-9_81 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yadav, J., Mallick, B.: Web Mining: Characteristics and application in ecommerce. Int. J. IJECSE. 1(4), 2020–2025 (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wu, X., Bolivar, A.: Predicting the conversion probability for items on C2C ecommerce sites. In: Cheung, D., Song, I.-Y. (eds.) Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pp. 1377–1386. ACM, New York (2009). doi:10.1145/1645953.16461274567
  15. 15.
    Srinivasan, S.S., Anderson, R., Ponnavolu, K.: Customer loyalty in e-commerce: an exploration of its antecedents and consequences. J. Retailing. 78(1), 41–50 (2002). doi:10.1016/S0022-4359(01)00065-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Manchala, D.W.: E-commerce trust metrics and models. IEEE Internet Comput. 4(2), 36–44 (2000). doi:10.1109/4236.832944 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Koohang, A., Paliszkiewicz, J.: E-Learning courseware usability: building a theoretical model. J. Comput. Inform. Syst. 56(1), 55–61 (2016). doi:10.1080/08874417.2015.11645801 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ziemba, E., Papaj, T., Żelazny, R.: A model of success factors for e-government adoption–the case of Poland. Issues Inf. Syst. 14(2), 87–100 (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cao, M., Zhang, Q., Seydel, J.: B2C e-commerce web site quality: an empirical examination. Ind. Manage. Data Syst. 105(5), 645–661 (2005). doi:10.1108/02635570510600000 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ghosh, A.K.: E-commerce Security and Privacy. Springer, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sohaib, O., Kang, K.: The importance of web accessibility in Business to-Consumer (B2C) websites. In: 22nd Australasian Software Engineering Conference (ASWEC 2013) (2013)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lituchy, T.R., Barra, R.A.: International issues of the design and usage of websites for e-commerce: Hotel and airline examples. J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 25(1), 93–111 (2008). doi:10.1016/j.jengtecman.2008.01.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sohaib, O.: Usability and cultural issues in global e-commerce. J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 25(1), 156–166 (2012)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Belanche, D., Casaló, L.V., Guinalíu, M.: Website usability, consumer satisfaction and the intention to use a website: the moderating effect of perceived risk. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 19(1), 124–132 (2012). doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2011.11.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jankowski, J., Kolomvatsos, K., Kazienko, P., Wątróbski, J.: Fuzzy modeling of user behaviors and virtual goods purchases in social networking platforms. J. Univers. Comput. Sci. 22(3), 416–437 (2016)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Koohang, A., Paliszkiewicz, J.: Empirical validation of an learning courseware usability model. Issues Inf. Syst. 15(2), 270–275 (2014)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ziemba, P., Jankowski, J., Wątróbski, J., Wolski, W., Becker, J.: Integration of domain ontologies in the repository of website evaluation methods. In: Ganzha, M., Maciaszek, L., Paprzycki, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems. ACSIS, vol. 5, pp. 1585–1595. (2015). doi:10.15439/2015F297
  28. 28.
    Wątróbski, J., Ziemba, P., Jankowski, J., Wolski, W.: PEQUAL-E-commerce websites quality evaluation methodology. In: Ganzha, M., Maciaszek, L., Paprzycki M. (eds.) Proceedings of the Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems. ACSIS, vol. 8, pp. 1317–1327 (2016). doi:10.15439/2016F46
  29. 29.
    Nielsen, J.: Usability Engineering. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1993)MATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
  31. 31.
  32. 32.
  33. 33.
    Fernandez, A., Insfran, E., Abrahão, S.: Usability evaluation methods for the web: a systematic mapping study. Inform. Softw. Tech. 53(8), 789–817 (2011). doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2011.02.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Albert, B., Tullis, T., Tedesco, D.: Beyond The Usability Lab: Conducting Large-scale Online User Experience Studies. Morgan Kaufmann, Elsevier, Amsterdam (2010)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
  36. 36.
    Rubin, J., Chisnell, D.: Handbook of Usability Testing, How to Plan, Design, and Conduct Effective Tests. Wiley, Hoboken (2008)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Holzinger, A.: Usability engineering methods for software developers. Commun. ACM 48(1), 71–74 (2005). doi:10.1145/1039539.1039541 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jankowski, J., Kazienko, P., Wątróbski, J., Lewandowska, A., Ziemba, P., Zioło, M.: Fuzzy multi-objective modeling of effectiveness and user experience in online advertising. Expert Syst. Appl. 65, 315–331 (2016). doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2016.08.049 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Jankowski, J., Ziemba, P., Wątróbski, J., Kazienko, P.: Towards the tradeoff between online marketing resources exploitation and the user experience with the use of eye tracking. In: Nguyen, N.T., Trawiński, B., Fujita, H., Hong, T.-P. (eds.) ACIIDS 2016. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9621, pp. 330–343. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-662-49381-6_32 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ziemba, P., Piwowarski, M., Jankowski, J., Wątróbski, J.: Method of criteria selection and weights calculation in the process of web projects evaluation. In: Hwang, D., Jung, J.J., Nguyen, N.-T. (eds.) ICCCI 2014. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8733, pp. 684–693. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-11289-3_69 Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ziemba, P., Wątróbski, J., Jankowski, J., Wolski, W.: Construction and restructuring of the knowledge repository of website evaluation methods. In: Ziemba, E. (ed.). LNBIP, vol. 243, pp. 29–52. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-30528-8_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Barnes, S.J., Vidgen, R.: Measuring web site quality improvements: a case study of the forum on strategic management knowledge exchange. Ind. Manage. Data Syst. 103(5), 297–309 (2003). doi:10.1108/02635570310477352 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Barnes, S.J., Vidgen, R.T.: Data triangulation and web quality metrics: a case study in e-government. Inform. Manage. 43(6), 767–777 (2006). doi:10.1016/j.im.2006.06.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ahn, T., Ryu, S., Han, I.: The impact of the online and offline features on the user acceptance of Internet shopping malls. Electron. Commer. R. A. 3(4), 405–420 (2005). doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2004.05.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Webb, H.W., Webb, L.A.: Business to consumer electronic commerce website quality: integrating information and service dimensions. In: Association for Information Systems AIS Electronic Library. AMCIS 2001 Proceedings, vol. 111, pp. 559–562 (2001)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Elling, S., Lentz, L., Jong, M.: Website evaluation questionnaire: development of a research-based tool for evaluating informational websites. In: Wimmer, M.A., Scholl, J., Grönlund, Å. (eds.) EGOV 2007. LNCS, vol. 4656, pp. 293–304. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-74444-3_25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Yang, Z., Cai, S., Zhou, Z., Zhou, N.: Development and validation of an instrument to measure user perceived service quality of information presenting web portals. Inform. Manage. 42(4), 575–589 (2005). doi:10.1016/j.im.2004.03.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ping Zhang, G.M.: User expectations and rankings of quality factors in different web site domains. Int. J. Electron. Comm. 6(2), 9–33 (2001)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Malhotra, A.: ES-QUAL a multiple-item scale for assessing electronic service quality. J. Serv. Res-US. 7(3), 213–233 (2005). doi:10.1177/1094670504271156 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Demchak, C.C., Friis, C., La Porte, T.M.: Webbing governance: national differences in constructing the face of public organizations. In: Garson, G.D. (ed.) Handbook of Public Information Systems, pp. 179–196. Marcel Dekker, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Shih, H.P.: Extended technology acceptance model of Internet utilization behaviour. Inform. Manage. 41(6), 719–729 (2004). doi:10.1016/j.im.2003.08.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Seddon, P.B.: A respecification and extension of the DeLone and McLean model of IS success. Inform. Syst. Res. 8(3), 240–253 (1997). doi:10.1287/isre.8.3.240 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ahn, T., Ryu, S., Han, I.: The impact of Web quality and playfulness on user acceptance of online retailing. Inform. Manage. 44(3), 263–275 (2007). doi:10.1016/j.im.2006.12.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Suh, B., Han, I.: Effect of trust on customer acceptance of Internet banking. Electron. Commer. R. A. 1(3), 247–263 (2003). doi:10.1016/S1567-4223(02)00017-0 Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Jafari, S.M., Ali, N.A., Sambasivan, M., Said, M.F.: A respecification and extension of DeLone and McLean model of IS success in the citizen-centric e-governance. In: 2011 IEEE International Conference on Information Reuse and Integration, pp. 342–346. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Wang, R.Y., Strong, D.M.: Beyond accuracy: What data quality means to data consumers. J. Manage. Inform. Syst. 12(4), 5–33 (1996). doi:10.1080/07421222.1996.11518099 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Muylle, S., Moenaert, R., Despontin, M.: The conceptualization and empirical validation of web site user satisfaction. Inform. Manage. 41(5), 543–560 (2004). doi:10.1016/S0378-7206(03)00089-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L.: SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. J. Retailing. 64, 12–40 (1988)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Zenebe, A., Zhou, L., Norcio, A.F.: User preferences discovery using fuzzy models. Fuzzy Set. Syst. 161(23), 3044–3063 (2010). doi:10.1016/j.fss.2010.06.006 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Ziemba, P., Jankowski, J., Wątróbski, J., Piwowarski, M.: Web projects evaluation using the method of significant website assessment criteria detection. In: Nguyen, N.T., Kowalczyk, R. (eds.). LNCS, vol. 9655, pp. 167–188. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-662-49619-0_9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Kim, S., Stoel, L.: Dimensional hierarchy of retail website quality. Inform. Manage. 41(5), 619–633 (2004). doi:10.1016/j.im.2003.07.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Lee, Y., Kozar, K.A.: Investigating the effect of website quality on e-business success: an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach. Decis. Support Syst. 42(3), 1383–1401 (2006). doi:10.1016/j.dss.2005.11.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Chmielarz, W., Zborowski, M.: Comparative analysis of electronic banking Websites in selected banks in Poland in 2014. Ann. Comput. Sci. Inf. Syst. 5, 1499–11504 (2015). doi:10.15439/2015F43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Chmielarz, W.: Evaluation of selected mobile applications stores from the user’s perspective. Online J. Appl. Knowl. Manag. 3, 21–36 (2015)Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Sun, C.C., Lin, G.T.: Using fuzzy TOPSIS method for evaluating the competitive advantages of shopping websites. Expert Syst. Appl. 36(9), 11764–11771 (2009). doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2009.04.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Del Vasto-Terrientes, L., Valls, A., Slowinski, R., Zielniewicz, P.: ELECTRE-III-H: an outranking-based decision aiding method for hierarchically structured criteria. Expert Syst. Appl. 42(11), 4910–4926 (2015). doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2015.02.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Lin, H.F.: An application of fuzzy AHP for evaluating course website quality. Comput. Educ. 54(4), 877–888 (2010). doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Kong, F., Liu, H.: Applying fuzzy analytic hierarchy process to evaluate success factors of e-commerce. Int. J. Inf. Syst. Sci. 1(3–4), 406–412 (2005)MATHGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Bilsel, R.U., Büyüközkan, G., Ruan, D.: A fuzzy preference-ranking model for a quality evaluation of hospital web sites. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 21(11), 1181–1197 (2006). doi:10.1002/int.20177 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Kaya, T.: Multi-attribute evaluation of website quality in E-business using an integrated fuzzy AHPTOPSIS methodology. Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst. 3(3), 301–314 (2010). doi:10.1080/18756891.2010.9727701 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Huang, J., Jiang, X., Tang, Q.: An e-commerce performance assessment model: Its development and an initial test on e-commerce applications in the retail sector of China. Inform. Manage. 46(2), 100–108 (2009). doi:10.1016/j.im.2008.12.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
  73. 73.
    Mobile and Tablet e-Commerce: Is Anyone Really Ready? https://www.mitx.org/files/zmags-top100-web.pdf
  74. 74.
    Wątróbski, J., Ziemba, P., Jankowski, J., Zioło, M.: Green energy for a green city—A multi-perspective model approach. Sustain. 8(8), 702 (2016). doi:10.3390/su8080702 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Brans, J.P., Vincke, P., Mareschal, B.: How to select and how to rank projects: The PROMETHEE method. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 24(2), 228–238 (1986). doi:10.1016/0377-2217(86)90044-5 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Wątróbski, J., Jankowski, J.: An ontology-based knowledge representation of MCDA methods. In: Nguyen, N.T., Trawiński, B., Fujita, H., Hong, T.-P. (eds.) ACIIDS 2016. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9621, pp. 54–64. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-662-49381-6_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Brans, J.P., Mareschal, B.: PROMETHEE methods. In: Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol. 78, pp. 163–186. Springer, New York (2005). doi:10.1007/0-387-23081-5_5
  78. 78.
    Brans, J.P., Mareschal, B.: The PROMETHEE methods for MCDM; the PROMCALC, GAIA and BANKADVISER software. In: Bana e Costa, C.A. (ed.) Readings in Multiple Criteria Decision Aid, pp. 216–252. Springer, Heidelberg (1990). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-75935-2_10

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jarosław Wątróbski
    • 1
  • Paweł Ziemba
    • 2
  • Jarosław Jankowski
    • 1
  • Waldemar Wolski
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Computer ScienceWest Pomeranian University of Technology in SzczecinSzczecinPoland
  2. 2.The Jacob of Paradyż University of Applied Science in Gorzów WielkopolskiGorzów WielkopolskiPoland
  3. 3.University of SzczecinSzczecinPoland

Personalised recommendations