A Multi Criteria Approach for Computer Purchase Among International Graduate Students

A Multi Criteria Approach for Computer Purchase Among International Graduate Students

It is undisputable that possession of a personal computer (PC) is necessary for university students. It is vital to consider the attributes that make consumer decision-making easier, comfortable and therefore, leading to an appropriate PC purchase. First, the study aims to determine the ranking of a...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Bataineh, Mahmoud Salem Barakat
Format: Thesis
Language:eng
Published: 2009
Subjects:
HF5415.33 Consumer Behavior.
Online Access:https://etd.uum.edu.my/3626/1/s89204.pdf
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
id my-uum-etd.3626
record_format uketd_dc
institution Universiti Utara Malaysia
collection UUM ETD
language eng
advisor Mat Kasim, Maznah
Ibrahim, Haslinda
topic HF5415.33 Consumer Behavior.
spellingShingle HF5415.33 Consumer Behavior.
Bataineh, Mahmoud Salem Barakat
A Multi Criteria Approach for Computer Purchase Among International Graduate Students
description It is undisputable that possession of a personal computer (PC) is necessary for university students. It is vital to consider the attributes that make consumer decision-making easier, comfortable and therefore, leading to an appropriate PC purchase. First, the study aims to determine the ranking of attributes of a computer required by a university student, where Rank-Ordered-Centroid (ROC) method is employed. The findings indicate that the most important attribute is processor, followed by hard drive, price, memory card, warranty, size, screen resolution, Ethernet, weight and DVD. Second, the study constructs Computer Preference Index (CPI) required by a university student. The CPI is calculated by using Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) which is one of the Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) methods. The study only focuses on four brands of PC (Toshiba, Dell, HP Compaq and Acer). The result shows that the rank of computers according to brands is the same, even though two types of weights are used. For example, for Toshiba brand, the most preferable computer is M200-E4314, for Dell, it is Inspiron I1420 [T8100], for HP Compaq, Presario V3632, and for Acer, Aspire 4920-601G25L. The CPIs for all computers based on two types of weights are different, but the most preferred computer is HP Compaq Presario V3632 and the least preferred computer Acer Aspire 4920-5AA0516MI are the same.
format Thesis
qualification_name masters
qualification_level Master's degree
author Bataineh, Mahmoud Salem Barakat
author_facet Bataineh, Mahmoud Salem Barakat
author_sort Bataineh, Mahmoud Salem Barakat
title A Multi Criteria Approach for Computer Purchase Among International Graduate Students
title_short A Multi Criteria Approach for Computer Purchase Among International Graduate Students
title_full A Multi Criteria Approach for Computer Purchase Among International Graduate Students
title_fullStr A Multi Criteria Approach for Computer Purchase Among International Graduate Students
title_full_unstemmed A Multi Criteria Approach for Computer Purchase Among International Graduate Students
title_sort multi criteria approach for computer purchase among international graduate students
granting_institution Universiti Utara Malaysia
granting_department College of Arts and Sciences (CAS)
publishDate 2009
url https://etd.uum.edu.my/3626/1/s89204.pdf
_version_ 1747827614482956288
spelling my-uum-etd.36262013-11-04T02:22:29Z A Multi Criteria Approach for Computer Purchase Among International Graduate Students 2009 Bataineh, Mahmoud Salem Barakat Mat Kasim, Maznah Ibrahim, Haslinda College of Arts and Sciences (CAS) College of Arts and Sciences HF5415.33 Consumer Behavior. It is undisputable that possession of a personal computer (PC) is necessary for university students. It is vital to consider the attributes that make consumer decision-making easier, comfortable and therefore, leading to an appropriate PC purchase. First, the study aims to determine the ranking of attributes of a computer required by a university student, where Rank-Ordered-Centroid (ROC) method is employed. The findings indicate that the most important attribute is processor, followed by hard drive, price, memory card, warranty, size, screen resolution, Ethernet, weight and DVD. Second, the study constructs Computer Preference Index (CPI) required by a university student. The CPI is calculated by using Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) which is one of the Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) methods. The study only focuses on four brands of PC (Toshiba, Dell, HP Compaq and Acer). The result shows that the rank of computers according to brands is the same, even though two types of weights are used. For example, for Toshiba brand, the most preferable computer is M200-E4314, for Dell, it is Inspiron I1420 [T8100], for HP Compaq, Presario V3632, and for Acer, Aspire 4920-601G25L. The CPIs for all computers based on two types of weights are different, but the most preferred computer is HP Compaq Presario V3632 and the least preferred computer Acer Aspire 4920-5AA0516MI are the same. 2009 Thesis https://etd.uum.edu.my/3626/ https://etd.uum.edu.my/3626/1/s89204.pdf text eng validuser http://lintas.uum.edu.my:8080/elmu/index.jsp?module=webopac-l&action=fullDisplayRetriever.jsp&szMaterialNo=0000337014 masters masters Universiti Utara Malaysia Anderson, D., Sweeney, D., & Williams, T. (2005). An introduction to management science: Quantitative approaches to decision making. Thomson/South-Western. Barron, F. & Barrett, B. (1996). Decision quality using ranked attribute weights. Management Science, 42(11), 1515- 1523. Byun, D. (2001). The AHP approach for selecting an automobile purchase model.Information & Management, 38(5), 289-297. Castro, F., Caccamo, L., Carter, K., Erickson, B., Johnson, W., Kessler, E. (1996). Sequential test selection in the analysis of abdominal pain.Medical Decision Making, 16(2), 178-183. Catalan, R., Perez, E., & Perez, B. (2007). Evaluation of 3D scanners to develop virtual reality applications. Electronics, Robotics and Automotive Mechanics Conference. CERMA 2007, 551-556. Celik, M., Cebi, S., Kahraman, C., & Er, I. (2008). Application of axiomatic design and TOPSIS methodologies under fuzzy environment for proposing competitive strategies on Turkish container ports in maritime transportation network.Expert Systems With Applications Chang, Y., & Yeh, C. (2001). Evaluating airline competitiveness using multiattribute decision making. Omega, 29(5), 405-415. Cheng, S.K. (2000). Development of a fuzzy multi criteria decision support system for municipal solid management. unpublished master's M.S. Thesis. University of Regina-Saskatchewan, Canada. Cho, K., & Kim, S. (2003). Selecting medical devices and materials for development in Korea: The analytic hierarchy process approach.Int J Health Plan Mgmt, 18, 161-174. Fay, A. (2006). Impact of laptop computers on students' academic lives: The Eberly Center for teaching excellence & The Office of Technology for Education, Carnegie Mellon university. Grosan, C. & Abraham, A. (2007). Intelligent data analysis using multiple criteria decision making. European Conference Data Mining 2007, 89-94. http://dictionary.bnet. com/definiti-on/Decision+Making.html, retrieved April 5th, 2008 Hwang, C., & K. Yoon (1981). Multiple attribute decision making and applications, New York: Springer-Verlag Jankowski, P. (2006). Integrating geographical information systems and multiple criteria decision-making methods. International Journal of Geographical Information Science and Systems, 9(3), 251-273. Joerin, F., & Musy, A. (2000). Land management with GIS and multicriteria analysis.International Transactions in Operational Research, 7(1), 67-78. Kabassi, K., & Virvou, M. (2004). Personalised adult e-training on computer use based on multiple attribute decision making.Interacting with Computers, 16(1), 115-132. Kirkwood, C. (1997). Strategic decision making: Multiobjective decision analysis with spreadsheets. Belmont : Duxbury Press. Lonial, S., Menezes, D. & Zaim, S. (2000). Identifying purchase driving attributes and market segments for PCs using conjoint and cluster analysis. Journal of Economic and Social Research, 2(2), 19-37. Maznah, M. K. (2008). Determination of criteria weight unpublished PhD thesis, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia. McMullen, P. & Tarasewich, P. (2000). Selection of notebook personal computers using data envelopment analysis. The Southern Business & Economic Journal, 23(3), 200-214. Nooripoor, M., Shahvali, M., & Zarafshani, K. (2008). Integration of communication media for horticultural sustainability. The Application of Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM), 3(1), 137-147. Penuel, W. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 329-348. Protheroe, N. (2005). Technology and student achievement. principal Arlington, 85(2), 46. Roberts, R., & Goodwin, P. (2002). Weight approximations in multi-attribute decision models. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 11(6), 291-303. Rogers, M., & Bruen, M. (1996). Using electre to rank options within an environmental appraisal-tow case studies. Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, 13(3), 203-221. Saaty, T. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill. Shanian, A., & Savadogo, O. (2006). A material selection model based on the concept of multiple attribute decision making.Materials and Design, 27(4), 329-337. Singh, S., Dolan, J., & Centor, R. (2006). Optimal management of adults with pharyngitis--A multi-criteria decision analysis.BMC Med Inform Decision Making, 6(14). Stavins, J. (1995). Model entry and exit in a differentiated-product industry: The personal computer market. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 77(4), 571-584. Stillwell, W. G., Seaver, D. A., & Edwards, W. (1981). A comparison of weight approximation techniques in multiattribute utility decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28, 62-77. Triantaphyllou, E. (2000). Multi-criteria decision making methods: A comparative study. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Triantaphyllou, E., Shu, B., Sanchez, S. & Ray, T. (1998). Multi-criteria decision making: An operations research approach. Encyclopedia of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, 15, 175-186. Wang, T., & Chang, T. (2007). Application of TOPSIS in evaluating initial training aircraft under a fuzzy environment.Expert Systems with Applications, 33(4), 870- 880. Wong, G. (1999). Multi-criteria decision-aid for building professionals. The Journal of Building Surveying, 1(1), 5- 10. www.answers.com, retrieved April 7th, 2008. Xie, P. (2008) Development ranking in real estate strategy management in China based on TOPSIS method.Paper presented at the Computing, Communication, Control, and Management, 2008. CCCM'08. ISECS International Colloquium. Yoon, K. & Hwang, C. (1995). Multiple attribute decision making: An introduction. Sage. Zanakis, S., Solomon, A., Wishart, N., & Dublish, S. (1998) . Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods. European Journal of Operational Research , 107(3), 507-529. Zhou, P., & Ang, B. (2008). Indicators for Assessing Sustainability Performance. Handbook on Performability Engineering.

Similar Items