Information and Knowledge Management using ArcGIS ModelBuilder

Table 1: Criteria weights and satisfaction indices
Panagiotis Manolitzas et al.
Criteria Weight Satisfaction Indices
Content 36% 85,98%
Navigation 25% 79,81%
Structure & Design 19,5% 73,29%
Appearance 19,5% 70,5%
Global Satisfaction - 78,89%
In addition, the users seems to be very satisfied from the criterion of navigation (satisfaction indices
79,81%) but on the other hand, they do not attribute great importance to the others criteria like
structure and appearance. The satisfaction indices of these criteria are very high but for the visitors do
not attribute particular importance.
4.3.3 Action diagram
As presented in the previous section, the gap analysis in this study is based on the major results of
the MUSA. Particularly using the previously presented weights and average satisfaction indices of all
criteria a series of action diagrams may be developed in order to further study user’s satisfaction and
prioritize improvement actions In figure 5 we observe that the criterion of content and navigation
belongs to the area of action opportunity. Therefore, in this criterion the web site developer must
focus his/her efforts on improvement, so that it can be used as a competitive advantage. Besides, the
criterion of Structure and Appearance is found in the area of ‘Status Quo’ and must be the second
priority of the web developer.
Figure 5: Action diagram
4.3.4 Improvement diagram
As we can observe from figure 6 (improvement diagram), improvement priorities of the web portal
should focus on the appearance criterion.
The criterion of appearance presents the highest effectiveness and simultaneously the smallest
improvement. Consequently, we will get an improvement in terms of satisfaction paying little effort.
Alternatively the improvement of content, Structure & design and navigation can be also considered
due to the high effectiveness level or the low demanding level that users appear in these criteria.
337