The Relationship Model of Utility of Iranian Users in Database

Document Type : مقالات پژوهشی

Authors

• Mahshid Eltemasi ¹
• Fateme Fahimnia ¹
• Maryam Nakhoda ¹
• Mohamad Hassanzadeh ²

¹ University of Tehran

² Tarbiat Modares

10.22067/riis.v7i1.58199

Abstract

INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this article is to study the relationship model of effective factors on increasing of utility of database consumers in Iran. In fact, the meaning of utility is the consumer satisfaction, in economic point.
METHODOLOGY:
In this study a mixed method was used in 2 steps: First, a content analysis approach, and second, a survey method through self-made questionnaire (25 questions) were carried out. The research population included the users who paid for using databases. The research population for the content analysis covered the related literatures to utility during of 2011-2015, from Science Direct, Proquest, and Ebsco databases. The random sampling, which was used for the survey, included 200 users which is the minimum number for performing structural equations. They were selected among of the users of the Central Library of the University of Tehran and the Library of Industrial Management Institute.
FINDINGS:
As for the first question: The main factors which increased the utility of database users on the base of paying money were: Information need, quality, incentives, added information, and finally individual and social characteristics. For the second question: the utility model of database consumers in Iran has drawn on the base of factor analysis of each utility factor.
CONCLUSIONS:
The offered model illustrates the order of effectiveness priority of the four categories which are factors that increase the utility of database users: quality, incentives, added information, and information need, and the fifth category “individual and social characteristics” is addressed as a factor with less effectiveness. This model is the first available model for utility of database users, which is drawn up with an uncompromising approach. So it can be used, criticized and possibly developed as a base model for similar research.

Keywords

• Information economy
• Utility
• Databases
• Database sers
• Information goods

---

References

ابراهیمی خاکباز، هادی (1390). بررسی ارتباط بین مطلوبیت درک شده و امکان‌پذیری درک شده با گرایش به کارآفرینی دانشجویان. پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد. دانشکده کارآفرینی دانشگاه تهران.

امامی، مریم و میرطاهری، لیلی (1394). تحلیل هزینه-سودمندی پایگاه‌های اطلاعاتی دانشگاه تهران و تأثیر استفاده از پایگاه‌ها در تولیدات علمی. فصلنامه فن‌آوری اطلاعات و ارتباطات در علوم تربیتی، 6 (2): 109-131.

داورپناه، محمدرضا و دادخواه، نیره (1390). سنجش الگوی استفاده و تحلیل هزینه-سودمندی منابع اطلاعاتی الکترونیکی کتابخانه مرکزی دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد براساس شاخص‌های ای-متریک. فصلنامه پردازش و مدیریت اطلاعات، 27(3): 777-797.

غفاری، سعید و صدیقی‌فر، سپیده (1391). تحلیل هزینه-سودمندی منابع اطلاعاتی کتابخانه دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد کرمانشاه. فصلنامه دانش‌شناسی، 5(18): 69-86.

فرج‌پهلو، عبدالحسین و مکی‌زاده، فاطمه (1389). بررسی هزینه-سودمندی پایگاه‌های اطلاعاتی دانشگاه یزد در سال 2009. نشریه تحقیقات کتابداری و اطلاع‌رسانی دانشگاهی، 44 (54): 59-80.

کینگما، بروس. آر (1380). اقتصاد اطلاعات. ترجمه محمدحسین دیانی و کبری سقاء پیرمرد. مشهد: کتابخانه الکترونیکی.

محتشم دولت‌شاهی، طهماسب (1390). مبانی علم اقتصاد: اقتصاد خرد، اقتصاد کلان. تهران: خجسته.

Crawford, Gregory A; Gray W. white (1998). Cost-benefit analysis of electronic information: a case study. College and research libraries, 2(1), 502-509.

Gee, M. )2015(. Rationality and Expected Utility. A PhD dissertation, in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley.

Ikefuji, M & Laeven, R. J. A., Magnus, J. R., & Muris, C. (2015). Expected utility and catastrophic consumption risk. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics. 64:306-312

Jubb, M., Cook, J., Hulls, D., Jones, D., & Ware, M. (2011). Costs, risks and benefits in improving access to journal articles. Learned Publishing, 24, 247-260.

Lakishyk, K. (2012). Manufacturer Product Line Decisions In Growing Consumer Technology Markets: A Case of Digital Cameras. A Dissertation for Doctor of Philosophy, Business Administaration, Washington University.

Linn, M. (2011). Cost- benefit analysis: Examples. Bottom Line. The Managing Library Finances, 24(1): 68-72

Lindsay, L. )2013(. The arguments of utility: Preference reversals in expected utility of income models. Journal of Risk Uncertain (46),175-189.

Lorkowski, J. and Vladik K. (2015). Why Awe Makes People More Generous: Utility Theory Can Explain Recent Experiments. Retrieved 20 Nov, 2015, form http://digitalcommons.utep.edu/cs_techrep/927/

Luo, R. (2015). Essay on Network Effects, Consumer Demand, and Firms’ Dynamic Pricing. A Phd Dissertation, Department of Economics of Pennsylvania State University.

Myklebust, T.G.J, M.A. Sharpe and L. Tuncel (2016). Efficient heuristic algorithms for maximum utility product pricing problems. Computers & Operations Research , (69), 25-39.

Pan, D., & Fong, Y. (2010). Return on investment for collaborative collection development. Collaborative Librarianship, 2(4): 183-192.

Paurom, F. (2012). Consumer Utility Function: Initial Findings Through Lagrange Optimization Method. International Peer Reviewed Journal, 1(1), 25-41.

Zeng, D. (2015). The Two Envelopes Problem and Utility Theory. Retrieved 20 Nov, 2015, from https://www.math.washington.edu/~morrow/336_15/papers/david.pdf