Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Ho, William; Higson, Helen E.; Dey, Prasanta K.; Xu, Xiaowei; Bahsoon, Rami
Languages: English
Types: Article
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to measure the performance of commercial virtual learning environment (VLE) systems, which helps the decision makers to select the appropriate system for their institutions. Design/methodology/approach – This paper develops an integrated multiple criteria decision making approach, which combines the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and quality function deployment (QFD), to evaluate and select the best system. The evaluating criteria are derived from the requirements of those who use the system. A case study is provided to demonstrate how the integrated approach works. Findings – The major advantage of the integrated approach is that the evaluating criteria are of interest to the stakeholders. This ensures that the selected system will achieve the requirements and satisfy the stakeholders most. Another advantage is that the approach can guarantee the benchmarking to be consistent and reliable. From the case study, it is proved that the performance of a VLE system being used at the university is the best. Therefore, the university should continue to run the system in order to support and facilitate both teaching and learning. Originality/value – It is believed that there is no study that measures the performance of VLE systems, and thus decision makers may have difficulties in system evaluation and selection for their institutions.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Aytaç, A., Deniz, V., 2005. Quality function deployment in education: a curriculum review. Quality & Quantity 39, 507-514.
    • Badri, M.A., Abdulla, M.H., 2004. Awards of excellence in institutions of higher education: an AHP approach. International Journal of Educational Management 18 (4), 224-242.
    • Chin, P., 2004. Using C&IT to Support Teaching. RoutledgeFalmer, London.
    • Chou, S.M., 2004. Evaluating the service quality of undergraduate nursing education in Taiwan - using quality function deployment. Nurse Education Today 24, 310-318.
    • Denton, J.W., Kleist, V.F., Surendra, N., 2005. Curriculum and course design: a new approach using quality function deployment. Journal of Education for Business 81 (2), 111-117.
    • Duffuaa, S.O., Al-Turki, U.M., Hawsawi, F.M., 2003. Quality function deployment for designing a basic statistics course. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 20 (6), 740-750.
    • Ho, W., Higson, H.E., Dey, P.K., 2006. Multiple criteria decision-making techniques in higher education. International Journal of Educational Management 20 (5), 319-337.
    • Ho, W., Dey, P.K., Higson, H.E., 2007. An integrated multiple criteria decision making approach for resource allocation in higher education. International Journal of Innovation and Learning 4 (5), 471-486.
    • Heizer, J., Render, B., 2006. Operations Management. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article