Document Type : Original Article


1 Medical Informatics, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences

2 Department of Commerce Management, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

3 Isfahan Health Center No. 2, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan


Context: Implementing information technology in the best possible way can bring many advantages
such as applying electronic services and facilitating tasks. Therefore, assessment of service providing
systems is a way to improve the quality and elevate these systems including e‑commerce, e‑government,
e‑banking, and e‑learning. Aims: This study was aimed to evaluate the electronic services in the website
of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences in order to propose solutions to improve them. Furthermore,
we aim to rank the solutions based on the factors that enhance the quality of electronic services by using
analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method. Materials and Methods: Non‑parametric test was used to
assess the quality of electronic services. The assessment of propositions was based on Aqual model
and they were prioritized using AHP approach. The AHP approach was used because it directly applies
experts’ deductions in the model, and lead to more objective results in the analysis and prioritizing the
risks. After evaluating the quality of the electronic services, a multi‑criteria decision making frame‑work
was used to prioritize the proposed solutions. Statistical Analysis Used: Non‑parametric tests and AHP
approach using Expert Choice software. Results: The results showed that students were satisfied in
most of the indicators. Only a few indicators received low satisfaction from students including, design
attractiveness, the amount of explanation and details of information, honesty and responsiveness of
authorities, and the role of e‑services in the user’s relationship with university. After interviewing
with Information and Communications Technology (ICT) experts at the university, measurement
criteria, and solutions to improve the quality were collected. The best solutions were selected
by EC software. According to the results, the solution“controlling and improving the process in
handling users complaints” is of the utmost importance and authorities have to have it on the
website and place great importance on updating this process. Conclusions: Although, 4 out
of the 22 indicators used in the test hypothesis were not confirmed, the results show that these
assumptions are accepted at 95% confidence level. To improve the quality of electronic services,
special attention should be paid to “services interaction.” As the results showed having“controlling
and improving the process in handling users
complaints” on the website is the first and most
important one and the process of “changing
brand/factory name/address in the text of
the factory license/renewal or modification of
manufacturing license/changing the formula”
is the least important one.


1. The Supreme Council of Information. Comprehensive program of
information technology to Iran. E‑government report on the situation
in Iran. 2008.
2. Porkiani M, Maleki M, Jamali Paghaleh M, Quality Improvement of
Public Sector Services by Process Documentation. Indian Journal
of Economics and Development. 2013;1:121-2.
3. Vargas SI. Lusch RF. The four service marketing myths‑remnants
of a goods‑based manufacturing model. J S R 2004;6:324‑35.
4. Crosby Ph. Quality without tears: The art of hasher free management.
New York: Mc Grow Hill; 2004. p. 1-3.
5. Yusin M, Correia E, Lisboa J. Retail Banking: An Assessment of some
of the key antecedents of customer satisfaction in retail banking
International Journal Bank Marketing 2002;20:146‑60.
6. Soltani E, Poursina M. Simply implement a comprehensive
management. 1th ed. Esfahan: Ardakan danesh; p. 24-5.
7. Parasuraman A. Technology readiness and e‑service quality:
Insights for effective e commerce [dissertation]. Carolina:
E‑Commerce Seminar Series North Carolina State University; 2002.
8. Santos J. E‑service quality: A model of virtual service quality
dimensions. Managing Service Quality 2003;13:233‑46.
9. Alaris C, Magoutas B, Papadomichelaki X, Mentzas X. Classification
and synthesis of quality approaches in e‑government services. Vol. 17.
Athens, Greece: Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2007. p. 378‑401.
10. Bhattacharya D, Gulla U, Gupta MP. E‑service quality model for
Indian government portals: Citizens’ perspective. Journal of
Enterprise Information Management 2012;25:246‑71.
11. Verdegem P, Verleye G. User‑centered E‑Government in practice:
A comprehensive model for measuring user satisfaction. G Inf Q
12. Madlberger M, Kotzab H. Adapting the Internet as distribution
channel for stationary retailers: The Austrian case. Electronic
Markets 2001;11:64‑74.
13. Boyer KK, Hallowell R, Roth AV. E‑services: Operating strategy: A
case study and method for analyzing operational benefits. J Oper
Manag 2002;20:175‑99.
14. Buckley J. E‑service quality and the public sector. Managing Service
Quality 2003;13:453‑62.
15. United Nations. “E‑Government Development”. United Nations.
Available from:
overview/ereadiness.htm. 2012.
16. OECD. The E‑Government Imperative Paris: OECD E‑Government
Studies. Paris: 2003.
17. World Bank. Definition of E-Governmen.Available from: http://www. 2012.
18. European Commission. The Role of E‑government for Europe’s
Future. Communication from the Commission to the Council.
the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions.(2003). Brussels.
19. Howard M. E‑government Across the Global: How will Change
Government? Government Finance Review 2001;17:6‑9.
20. Asian Development Bank, United Nations, and Regional Workshop
on Designing e‑Government for the Poor. ???. Designing
E‑Government for the Poor. Bangkok, Thailand: United Nations
Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. 2005.
21. Belanger F, Hiller JS. A Framework for E‑government: Privacy
Implications. Journal of Enterprise Information Management
22. Affisco JF. Soliman KS. E‑government (2006) a strategic operations
management framework for service delivery. Business Process
Management Journal 2006;12:13‑21.
23. Bertot JC, Jaeger PT, McClure CR. Citizen‑Centered E‑Government
Services: Benefits, Costs, and Research Needs. The Proceedings
of the 9th Annual International Digital Government Research
Conference. 2008;137‑142. Montreal, Canada, May 18‑211.
24. Gülçin B, Çifçi G. A combined fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS based
strategic analysis of electronic service quality in healthcare industry.
Ortaköy, İstanbul, Turkey: Industrial Engineering Department,
Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Galatasaray University;
2011. p. 34357.
25. Xenia Papadomichelaki, Gregoris M. e‑GovQual: A multiple‑item
scale for assessing E‑Government service quality. Athens, Greece:
National Technical University of Athens; 2011. p. 10682.
26. Layla H. Emad A. Assessing the quality of web sites. Applied
Computing and Informatics. Jordan: King Saud University; 2011.
p. 9, 11‑29.
27. Barnes SJ, Vidgen RT. Data triangulation in action: Using comment
analysis to refine web quality metrics. In Proceedings of the
13th European Conference on Information system. information
systems in a rapidly changing economy, ECIS 2005, Regensburg,
Germany, May 26‑28