Car Rental Website Analysis ISQA 4180 – Electronic Commerce February 26, 2002 Dr. Deepak Khazanchi Project Group Members: Aaron Lightfoot Robert SouderTable of Contents I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Industry Selected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Evaluation Explanation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. Technical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Technical Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Technical Website Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . 3 Top 5 Technical Websites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 III. Business Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Business Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Business Website Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Top 5 Business Websites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 IV. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Top 5 Car Rental Websites . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Table 1 – Technical Evaluation Results . . . . 15 Table 2 – Value Added Evaluation . . . . . . . . 16 Table 3 – Business Evaluation Results . . . . 17 Table 4 – Overall Evaluation Results . . . . . . 18Car Rental Website Analysis 1I. Introduction Industry Selected The industry selected for this website analysis is the online car rental industry. The twelve websites originally selected for the evaluation consisted of the following: 1. Alamo.com 2. Hertz.com 3. Avis.com 4. Thrifty.com 5. CityRAC.com 6. Enterprise.com 7. AceRentACar.com 8. NationalCar.com 9. Budget.com 10. Cheepers.net 11. MidwestRentACar.USWestDex.com* 12. Dollar.com* (* Dollar Rent A Car and Midwest Rent A Car were not included in the evaluation process.) After determining that Midwest Rent A Car did not offer any type of online transaction process and that the same company that owns Thrifty Car Rental owns Dollar Rent A Car, the two sites were dropped from the evaluation. Evaluation Explanation The website evaluation consisted of three parts which included a technical, business, and overall evaluation of each site. Each of these areas was rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest. The technical evaluation rated areas such as content of the site, page design and layout, the usability of the site, and web features incorporated into the site. The business evaluation rated the business characteristics that the site demonstrated. These areas included security of the site, methods of payment and reservation that were available, customer service, stickiness and value added by the site. An overall rating was given to the selected car rental sites based on a combination of the final technical and business ratings. The following process determined the overall ratings of the car rental sites. First, the individual category ratings from the technical evaluation were averaged toCar Rental Website Analysis 2come up with the final technical rating. Next, the individual business category ratings were averaged to calculate the final business rating. After the technical and business ratings were calculated, these two ratings were averaged to determine the overall rating of the web sites. The top five overall car rental sites were then selected based on their overall rating. II. Technical Analysis Technical Criteria The Criteria used to evaluate the technical aspects of the website were chosen based on factors that enhance website performance and usability. • Content - The Content criteria were based on what information was on the site. It was broken down into information on the company, the cars they offered, and any current information available on the site such as promotions, or links to other relevant information. • Ease of Use - The Ease of Use criteria was based on how easy it was to use the site. This looked how long it took to find what we were looking for. This included information available on the site, how easy it was to use the reservation process, and if the help options available were helpful and easy to use. • Design and Layout - The design and layout of the website was evaluated based on the look and feel of the site. We looked at color schemes, font selections, and the layout of the information available. • Use of Web Features - The website’s dynamic content was based on how they added to the sites usability. This also tied into page load times because the more media and dynamic content a site had the harder it was to get it to load quickly. • Other - The other criteria used was based on the standardization of the pages, and what type of international dimension the website had. It also looked at security and privacy policies. Each website was visited and tested on the specified criteria. They were opened in multiple browsers and tested in different resolutions. We tried to remain as objective as possible when reviewing the different websites trying not to let previous sites affect our judgment.Car Rental Website Analysis 3Technical Website Evaluations Alamo.com – This was the first site visited. The site contained plenty of useful information, and was easy to use and navigate. The page fell short when it came to dealing with the layout and color scheme of the site. It was best viewed in 1024 X 768 resolution and did not look well in smaller resolutions. The first tool bar drop down was only available in Explorer and could have provided some better dynamic content. The website offered Global rentals, but the information was only in English. There was no security on the web page, but it only required a name and e-mail address to reserve a car. The only invalid link was the financial restructuring link in the company information section. Hertz.com – Hertz.com was unavailable the first time we tried to evaluate it. When we tried the next day it was up and ready for business. It looked great in both 1024 X 768 and 800 X 600 resolutions. …