Asia pacific journal of information systems

The Korea Society of Management Information Systems (한국경영정보학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Key Quality of Service Attributes of Digital Platforms

  • Nandakishore K N (International Institute of Information Technology Bangalore) ;
  • V Sridhar (International Institute of Information Technology Bangalore) ;
  • T K Srikanth (International Institute of Information Technology Bangalore)
  • Received : 2019.03.26
  • Accepted : 2019.11.22
  • Published : 2020.03.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Digital platforms characterized by network effects enable provisioning of various types of services and provide a mechanism for linking producers and consumers. Identifying the key Quality of Service attributes of such platforms is vital for their continued success and growth. In this paper, a set of quality attributes for platforms is first extracted from different extant quality models. Then actual user feedback data from three platform providers are analysed and mapped against the set of quality attributes to determine the key attributes that are relevant. These findings are corroborated with qualitative data from interviews of different stakeholders. The results show that service quality characteristics are important to the success of platforms. Functional characteristics of platforms assume importance where the digital contributions of the platform is higher. Apart from these, 'fitness for use' as a major determinant of quality is also important in digital platforms.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

The help provided by UpGrad in making available the feedback data from their education platform, is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. Allahbakhsh, M., Benatallah, B., Ignjatovic, A., Motahari-Nezhad, H. R., Bertino, E., and Dustdar, S. (2013). Quality control in crowdsourcing systems: Issues and directions. IEEE Internet Computing, 17(2), 76-81.  https://doi.org/10.1109/MIC.2013.20
  2. Axelsson, J., and Skoglund, M. (2016). Quality assurance in software ecosystems: A systematic literature mapping and research agenda. Journal of Systems and Software, 114, 69-81.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2015.12.020
  3. Behkamal, B., Kahani, M., and Akbari, M. K. (2009). Customizing ISO 9126 quality model for evaluation of B2B applications. Information and Software Technology, 51(3), 599-609.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2008.08.001
  4. BusinessDictionary.com. Website. Accessed April 09, 2018, at http://www.businessdictionary.com 
  5. Cavano, J. P., and McCall, J. A. (1978, January). A framework for the measurement of software quality. In ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review (Vol. 7, No. 3-4, pp. 133-139). ACM.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1007775.811113
  6. Changing Gears 2020. (2017) Retrieved 18-May-2017 from http://www.bain.com/publications/articles/changinggears-2020.aspx 
  7. Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (pp. 146-166). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 
  8. Crosby, P. B. (1980). Quality is free: The art of making quality certain. Mentor. 
  9. Dictionary.com. Website. Accessed April 10, 2018 at http://www.dictionary.com 
  10. Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., and Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. University of Chicago Press. 
  11. Franca, J. M., and Soares, M. S. (2015). SOAQM: Quality Model for SOA Applications based on ISO 25010. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 2, pp. 60-70. 
  12. Gawer, A., and Cusumano, M. A. (2014). Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(3), 417-433.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12105
  13. Gray, P. S., Williamson, J. B., Karp, D. A., and Dalphin, J. R. (2007). The research imagination: An introduction to qualitative and quantitative methods. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 
  14. Hagiu, A., and Rothman, S. (2016). Network effects aren't enough. Harvard Business Review, 94(4), 17. 
  15. Haile, N., and Altmann, J. (2016). Value creation in software service platforms. Future Generation Computer Systems, 55, 495-509.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2015.09.029
  16. Hasan, L. A., and Al-Sarayreh, K. T. (2015, November). An integrated measurement model for evaluating usability attributes. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Information Processing, Security and Advanced Communication (p. 94). ACM. 
  17. International Organization for Standardization. (2001). International Standard: ISO 5127: Information and Documentation, Vocabulary. ISO. 
  18. Iqbal, H., and Babar, M. (2016). An approach for analyzing ISO/IEC 25010 product quality requirements based on fuzzy logic and likert scale for decision support systems. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 7(12), 245-260.  https://doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA.2016.071232
  19. ISO/IEC 25010:2011(en). Systems and software engineering - Systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) - System and software quality models. Accessed 17-Oct-2019 at https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso-iec:25010:ed-1:v1:en 
  20. Juran, J. M., and Godfrey, A. B. (1999). Juran's quality handbook (5th ed). McGraw-Hill. 
  21. Kang, S., Suh, H., and Kym, H. (2015). The role of interpersonal trust in on-line learning communities and application of knowledge. Asia Pacific Journal of Information Systems, 25(4), 642-661.  https://doi.org/10.14329/apjis.2015.25.4.642
  22. Kaur, P., and Singh, H. (2015). An analytical review of quality attributes of service-oriented architecture. Trends in Information Management, 10(1), 40-50. 
  23. Kazan, E., and Damsgaard, J. (2016). Towards a market entry framework for digital payment platforms. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 38(1), 37. 
  24. Kim, Y. Y., and Kim, M. H. (2016). What are software developers' and medical experts' priorities for adopting a healthcare software platform? Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 9(24). 
  25. Kulkarni, A., Gutheim, P., Narula, P., Rolnitzky, D., Parikh, T., and Hartmann, B. (2012). Mobileworks: Designing for quality in a managed crowdsourcing architecture. IEEE Internet Computing, 16(5), 28-35.  https://doi.org/10.1109/MIC.2012.72
  26. Moazed, A. (2018). 8 Big Predictions for Platforms in 2018. Retrieved 4-Apr-2018 from https://www.inc.com/alex-moazed/8-predictions-for-2018-platform-edition.html 
  27. Moon, J. O., Lee, H., Kim, J. W., Aktas, E., Tsohou, A., and Choi, Y. (2015). Customer satisfaction from open source software services in the presence of commercially licensed software. Asia Pacific Journal of Information Systems, 25(3), 473-499.  https://doi.org/10.14329/apjis.2015.25.3.473
  28. Nandakishore, K. N. (2018). Design of quality of service framework for digital platforms. Unpublished Master of Science by Research Thesis. International Institute of Information Technology Bangalore, Bengaluru, India. 
  29. One Stop Testing. (n.d.). Retrieved 20-Dec-2017 from http://www.onestoptesting.com/quality-management/quality-factors.asp 
  30. Online Education Market in India 2016-2020. (2016). Retrieved 1-Jan-2018 from https://www.technavio.com/report/india-education-technology-online-market 
  31. Ouadoud, M., Chkouri, M. Y., Nejjari, A., and El Kadiri, K. E. (2016). Studying and analyzing the evaluation dimensions of e-learning platforms relying on a software engineering approach. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 11(01), 11-20.  https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v11i01.4924
  32. Parnanen, K. (2016). What makes a satisfying user experience in the context of human-computer interaction? Master's thesis. MSc program in Information and Service Management, Department of Information and Service Economy, Aalto University School of Business. 
  33. Parker, G. G., Van Alstyne, M. W., and Choudary, S. P. (2016). Platform revolution: How networked markets are transforming the economy--and how to make them work for you. WW Norton & Company. 
  34. Ruutu, S., Casey, T., and Kotovirta, V. (2017). Development and competition of digital service platforms: A system dynamics approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 117, 119-130.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.12.011
  35. Software Dependability. (n.d.). Presentation. Retrieved 21-Mar-2017 from groups.umd.umich.edu/CIS/course.des/cis376/ppt/lec9.ppt 
  36. Suri, R., and Monroe, K. B. (2003). The effects of time constraints on consumers' judgments of prices and products. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(1), 92-104.  https://doi.org/10.1086/374696
  37. Tellis, G. J., Yin, E., and Niraj, R. (2009). Does quality win? Network effects versus quality in high-tech markets. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(2), 135-149.  https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.46.2.135
  38. YourDictionary. Website. Accessed 20-Dec-2017 at http://www.yourdictionary.com 
  39. Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., and Berry, L. L. (1990). Delivering quality service: Balancing customer perceptions and expectations. Simon and Schuster. 
  40. Zhu, F., and Iansiti, M. (2012). Entry into platform based markets. Strategic Management Journal, 33(1), 88-106. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.941