Key factors for efficiently implementing customized e-learning system in the service industry

Abstract

In recent years, e-learning system has been adopted as a training tool in many firms, as it can help employees to complete training in a short time and at a low cost. Within this context, since 2003 the Industrial Development Bureau (IDB) of the Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEA) in Taiwan sponsored more than 50 enterprises each year to help them implement customized e-learning systems. Past research on e-learning mostly focused on one criterion and adopted regression approach, such as examining the relationships between satisfaction or continued usage intentions and various antecedent factors. Although the regression method could uncover the significant factors of e-learning adoption, they can not show the can (weighting) of each factor, and thus firms cannot allocate the optimal levels of resources. To overcome this problem, this study collected factors related to firms implementing customized e-learning systems from a review of the literature and expert opinions, and then constructed a hierarchical factor table. Based on the appropriateness and independence of factors, and as assessed by experts in the project promotion office of the IDB, e-learning solution providers and project leaders of the IDB sponsored enterprises, this paper then designed an Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) format questionnaire and sent it to these same experts to gather their responses. The factor weightings were derived based on the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) method. Finally, analysis of key factors was performed and recommendations provided. Based on the results for this work, service industry firms with limited resources can achieve proper resource allocation and more quickly and successfully adopt customized e-Learning systems.

Keywords

E-learning / system platform / fuzzy AHP

References

[1] Aguarón J., Moreno-Jiménez J.M.. The geometric consistency index: approximated thresholds. European Journal of Operational Research, 2003, 147(1): 137-145.

[2] Alliger G.M., Janak E.A.. Kirkpatrick’s levels of training criteria: thirty years later. Personnel Psychology, 1989, 42(2): 311-341.

[3] ASTD. (2003). Available via DIALOG. http://www.astd.org/lc/glossary.htm

[4] Barbeite F.G., Weiss E.M.. Computer self-efficacy and anxiety scales for an Internet sample: testing measurement equivalence of existing measures and development of new scales. Computers in Human Behavior, 2004, 20(1): 1-15.

[5] Braverman B.. Trade groups ramp up online training for sales associates. National Jeweler, 2007, 101(3): 12-12.

[6] Buckley J.J.. Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1985, 17(3): 233-247.

[7] Buyukozkan G., Ruan D., Feyzioglu O.. Evaluating e-learning web site quality in a fuzzy environment. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 2007, 22(5): 567-586.

[8] Byman A., Jarvela S., Hakkinen P.. What is reciprocal understanding in virtual interaction?. Instructional Science, 2005, 33(2): 21-136.

[9] Chen C.M., Lee H.M., Chen Y.H.. Personalized e-learning system using item response theory. Computers & Education, 2005, 44(3): 237-255.

[10] Chen, S.J. & Hwang, C.L. (1992). Fuzzy Multiple Attributes Decision Making and Applications. Springer-Verlag

[11] Chiu C.M., Sun S.Y., Sun P.C., Ju T.L.. An empirical analysis of the antecedents of web-based learning continuance. Computers & Education, 2007, 49(4): 1224-1245.

[12] Cho V., Cheng T.C.E., Lai W.M.J.. The role of perceived user-interface design in continued usage intention of self-paced e-learning tools. Computers & Education, 2009, 53(2): 216-227.

[13] Choi D.H., Kim J.K., Kim S.H.. ERP training with a web-based electronic learning system: the flow theory perspective. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 2007, 65(3): 223-243.

[14] Clark, D. (2006). Blended learning. Available via DIALOG. http://www.epic.co.uk/content/about_us/downloads.htm. Cited November 19, 2006

[15] Crook C.W., Kumar R.L.. Electronic data interchange: a multi-industry investigation using grounded theory. Information and Management, 1998, 34(2): 75-89.

[16] Csutora R., Buckley J.J.. Fuzzy hierarchical analysis: the Lambda-Max method. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 2001, 120(2): 181-195.

[17] Davis, F.D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. Dissertation. Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

[18] Davis F.D.. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 1989, 13(3): 319-339.

[19] DeLone W.H., McLean E.R.. The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 2003, 19(4): 9-30.

[20] Dias A. Jr., Ioannou P.G.. Company and project evaluation model for privately promoted infrastructure projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 1996, 122(1): 71-82.

[21] Duke J.M., Aull-Hyde R.. Identifying public preferences for land preservation using the analytic hierarchy process. Ecological Economics, 2002, 42(1–2): 131-145.

[22] Elicker J.D., O’Malley A.L., Williams C.M.. Does an interactive web CT site help students learn?. Teaching of Psychology, 2008, 35(2): 126-131.

[23] Fernandez-Breis J.T., Castellanos-Nieves D., Valencia-Garcia R.. Measuring individual learning performance in group work from a knowledge integration perspective. Information Sciences, 2009, 179(4): 339-354.

[24] Fu H.P., Chu K.K., Lin S.W., Chen C.R.. A study on factors for retailers implementing CPFR — a fuzzy AHP analysis. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 2010, 19(2): 192-209.

[25] Fu H.P., Chao P., Chang T.H., Chang Y.S.. The impact of market freedom on the adoption of third-party electronic marketplaces: a fuzzy AHP analysis. Industrial Marketing Management, 2008, 37(6): 698-712.

[26] Fu H.P., Ho Y.C., Chen R.C.Y., Chang T.H., Chien P.H.. Factors affecting the adoption of electronic marketplaces: a fuzzy AHP analysis. International Journal of Operational Production Management, 2006, 26(12): 1301-1324.

[27] IDB. Report of investigation on E-learning industry promotion and development program-focusing on enterprises internal e-learning implementation, 2006, Taiwan: Industrial Development Bureau, Ministry of Economic Affairs

[28] Ivergard T., Hunt B.. Towards a learning networked organization: human capital, compatibility and usability in e-learning systems. Applied Ergonomics, 2005, 36(2): 157-164.

[29] Johnson R.D., Hornik S., Salas E.. An empirical examination of factors contributing to the creation of successful e-learning environments. Human-Computer Studies, 2008, 66: 356-369.

[30] Jonassen D.H., Howland J., Moore J., Marre R.M.. Learning to Solve Problems with Technology: a Constructivist Perspective, 2003, 2nd edition Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education

[31] Kumar R.L., Smith M.A., Bannerjee S.. User interface features influencing overall ease of use and personalization. Information & Management, 2004, 41(3): 289-302.

[32] Lee J.K., Lee W.K.. The relationship of e-learner’s self-regulatory efficacy and perception of e-learning environmental quality. Computers in Human Behavior, 2008, 24(1): 32-47.

[33] Liaw S.S., Chen G.D., Huang H.M.. Users’ attitudes toward Web-based collaborative learning systems for knowledge management. Computers & Education, 2008, 50(3): 950-961.

[34] Nah F.F.H., Delgado S.. Critical success factors for enterprise resource planning implementation and upgrade. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 2006, 46(1): 99-113.

[35] Naish, R. (2008). An in-house initiative. E-learning Age, November: 8–9

[36] Ndubisi N.O., Gupta O.K., Massoud S.. Organizational learning and vendor support quality by the usage of application software packages: a study of Asian entrepreneurs. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 2003, 12(3): 314-331.

[37] Ngai E.W.T., Poon J.K.L., Chan Y.H.C.. Empirical examination of the adoption of Web CT using TAM. Computers & Education, 2007, 48(2): 250-267.

[38] Ozok A.A., Salvendy G.. Twenty guidelines for the design of web-based interfaces with consistent language. Computers in Human Behavior, 2004, 20(2): 149-161.

[39] Rabak L., Cleveland-Innes M.. Acceptance and resistance to corporate e-learning: a case from the retail sector. Journal of Distance Education, 2006, 21(2): 115-134.

[40] Rau D., Haerem T.. Applying an organizational learning perspective to new technology deployment by technological gatekeepers: a theoretical model and key issues for future research. Information Systems Frontiers, 2010, 12(3): 287-297.

[41] Rogers E.M.. Diffusion of Innovations, 1983, 3rd edition New York: Free Press

[42] Saaty T.L.. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, 1980, McGraw-Hill, New York: Resource Allocation..

[43] Shee D.Y., Wang Y.S.. Multi-criteria evaluation of the web-based e-learning system: a methodology based on learner satisfaction and its applications. Computers & Education, 2008, 50(3): 894-905.

[44] Sun P.C., Tsai R.J., Finger G., Chen Y.Y., Yeh D.. What drives a successful e-learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computer & Education, 2008, 50(4): 1183-1202.

[45] Tornatzky, L.G. & Fleischer, M. (1990). The Process of Technological Innovation. Lexington Books

[46] Tung F.C., Chang S.C.. Nursing students’ behavioral intention to use online courses: a questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 2008, 45(9): 1299-1309.

[47] Van Laarhoven P.J.M., Pedrycz W.. A fuzzy extension of Saaty’s priority theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1983, 11(1–3): 199-227.

[48] Wang Y.S., Wang H.Y., Shee D.Y.. Measuring e-learning systems success in an organizational context: scale development and validation. Computers in Human Behavior, 2007, 23(4): 1792-1808.