Developing evaluation criteria by weighted importance in selecting U-City service types

The aim of this study is to derive the evaluation criteria that can be applied in common to the local government in selecting a U-service and then to analyze priority of evaluation criteria based on the type of service. This study reviewed evaluation items for selecting ubiquitous services in 25 loc...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inSpatial information research (Online) Vol. 24; no. 4; pp. 377 - 387
Main Authors Park, Su-jeong, Yi, Mi-sook, Min, Kyung-ju, Shin, Dong-bin
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Singapore Springer Singapore 01.08.2016
대한공간정보학회
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:The aim of this study is to derive the evaluation criteria that can be applied in common to the local government in selecting a U-service and then to analyze priority of evaluation criteria based on the type of service. This study reviewed evaluation items for selecting ubiquitous services in 25 local government and conducted a survey and factor analysis for common evaluation criteria. 5 common evaluation criteria and the priority of evaluation criteria for each type of ubiquitous services were derived by analytical hierarchy process survey method. Following is five common evaluation criteria: economic and technical factor, basic and institutional factor, linkage and expandable factor, recipient satisfaction factor, usability factor. Following is the most critical evaluation criteria: basic and institutional factor in case of basic services, recipient satisfaction factor in case of special services, usability factor in case of operation services, linkage and expandable factors in case of linkage services, economic and technical factor in case of profit services, basic and institutional factor in case of nonprofit services. The result is expected to use for local government to make a choice for the most useful type of ubiquitous service in U-City planning.
Bibliography:G704-000574.2016.24.4.011
ISSN:2366-3286
2366-3294
DOI:10.1007/s41324-016-0035-9