\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter

\IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}%
  {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}%
  {\RequirePackage{color}}
\usepackage{colortbl}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{ifxetex}
\ifxetex
  \usepackage{fontspec}
  \usepackage{xunicode}
  \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash}
  \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{}
  \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}}
  \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}}
  \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}}
  \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}}
  \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono}
  
\else
  \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}%
   {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
      \PrerenderUnicode{–}
    }%
   {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}}
  \usepackage[english]{babel}
  \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
  \usepackage{float}
  \usepackage[]{ucs}
  \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash }
  \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{}
  \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}}
  \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}}
  \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,}
  \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ }
  \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>}
  \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}}
  \def\textJapanese{}
  \def\textChinese{}
  \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{}
\fi
\def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small}
\DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25}
\usepackage{relsize}
\RequirePackage{array}
\def\@testpach{\@chclass
 \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else
  \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else
   \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else
    \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@
   \else \z@
   \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else
   \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}%
   \@chnum
   \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else
    \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else
     \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else
   \z@ \@chclass
   \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else
    \if \@nextchar !6 \else
     \if \@nextchar @7 \else
      \if \@nextchar (8 \else
       \if \@nextchar )9 \else
  10
  \@chnum
  \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else
   \if \@nextchar p4 \else
    \if \@nextchar b5 \else
   \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi
   \fi \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi}
\gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr}
\def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}}
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\def\abbr{}
\def\corr{}
\def\expan{}
\def\gap{}
\def\orig{}
\def\reg{}
\def\ref{}
\def\sic{}
\def\persName{}\def\name{}
\def\placeName{}
\def\orgName{}
\def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}}
\def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}}
\def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}}
\def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}}
\def\textquoted#1{‘#1’}
\def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}}
\def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}}
\def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}}
\def\titlem{\itshape}
\newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{bibl}{}{}
\newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{rubric}{}{}
\newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par }

\newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}}
\newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}}
\definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75}
\def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}}
\DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@}
\def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}}
\begingroup
\catcode`\_=\active
\gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}}
\endgroup
\mathcode`\_=\string"8000
\catcode`\_=12\relax

\usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry}
\usepackage{framed}

\definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{fancyvrb}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{marginnote}

\renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1}


\renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize}

\def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif}

  \pagestyle{fancy}

\usepackage[pdftitle={Quality of IT Enabled Services in Higher Education Institutions in Saudi Arabia},
 pdfauthor={}]{hyperref}
\hyperbaseurl{}

	 \paperwidth210mm
	 \paperheight297mm
              
\def\@pnumwidth{1.55em}
\def\@tocrmarg {2.55em}
\def\@dotsep{4.5}
\setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
\clubpenalty=8000
\emergencystretch 3em
\hbadness=4000
\hyphenpenalty=400
\pretolerance=750
\tolerance=2000
\vbadness=4000
\widowpenalty=10000

\renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}}
\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large}}
\renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}%
     {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\large}}
\renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}%
     {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize}}
\renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}%
     {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}%
     {-1em}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}}


\def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt}
 \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup
 \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth 
 \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth 
 \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par
 \endgroup}
\def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}}
\def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}}
\def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}}
\def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}}
\@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{}
\@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{}
\newif\if@mainmatter 
\@mainmattertrue
\def\chaptername{Chapter}
\def\frontmatter{%
  \pagenumbering{roman}
  \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\roman{section}}
  \def\@chapapp{}%
}
\def\mainmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter}
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \pagenumbering{arabic}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6}
  \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}%
  \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}}
}
\def\backmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2}
  \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}%
  \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}}
  \appendix
}
\newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{%
   \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
       {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}%
        \leftmargin\labelwidth
        \advance\leftmargin\labelsep
        \@openbib@code
        \usecounter{enumiv}%
        \let\p@enumiv\@empty
        \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}%
	}%
  \sloppy
  \clubpenalty4000
  \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty
  \widowpenalty4000%
  \sfcode`\.\@m}%
  {\def\@noitemerr
    {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}%
    \endlist}

\def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}}
\parskip0pt
\parindent1em
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\newenvironment{reflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{sansreflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{specHead}[2]%
 {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}%
  \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}%

  \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}%
  \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}%
  }{}
      \def\TheFullDate{2016 2016-01-15 (revised: 21 Year 2016 15 January 2016)}
\def\TheID{\makeatother }
\def\TheDate{2016 2016-01-15}
\title{Quality of IT Enabled Services in Higher Education Institutions in Saudi Arabia}
\author{}\makeatletter 
\makeatletter
\newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{%
  \clearpage
    \if@twoside
    \ifodd\c@page
      \hbox{}\newpage
      \if@twocolumn
        \hbox{}\newpage
      \fi
    \fi
  \fi
}
\makeatother
\makeatletter
\thispagestyle{empty}
\markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author}
\renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@
\belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip
\abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@
\belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@
\def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini
               \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@
               \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@
               \itemsep 1pt}
}
\makeatother
\fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm}
\fancyhf{} 
\setlength{\headheight}{14pt}
\fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} 
\fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} 
\fancyfoot[RO]{}
\fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID}
\fancyfoot[LE]{}
\fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID}
\hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true}
\fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}}

\date{}
\usepackage{authblk}

\providecommand{\keywords}[1]
{
\footnotesize
  \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1
}

\usepackage{graphicx,xcolor}
\definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81}
\definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9}
\definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70}
\definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} 

\renewenvironment{abstract}{%
   \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
   \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space}
}{%   
   \vskip8pt
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
}

\usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos}

\makeatother 
      \usepackage{lineno}
      \linenumbers
      
\begin{document}

             \author[1]{Romana  Aziz}

             \author[2]{Basit  Shahzad}

             \affil[1]{  Prince Sultan University}

\renewcommand\Authands{ and }

\date{\small \em Received: 15 December 2015 Accepted: 2 January 2016 Published: 15 January 2016}

\maketitle


\begin{abstract}
        


The delivery of education has improved over time by using the IT enabled services, especially in the higher education institutes. The role of the IT enabled services to disseminate effective teaching has increased over time and still improving with a great pace with emerging needs of the students and the teachers. This research paper is focused to identify and investigate the quality of IT enabled services in the higher education institutes in Saudi Arabia. The study was conducted at two model higher education institutions from public and private sector. Mixed research method has been used to attain the information and to identify the convergence of the information. It was identified that the quality of IT enabled services in better in the public sector institution ascompared to the private sector institution.

\end{abstract}


\keywords{quality of education, quality of IT enabled services, education Saudi Arabia.}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark}
\end{textblock*}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}}
\end{textblock*}


\let\tabcellsep& 	 	 		 
\section[{I. Introduction}]{I. Introduction}\par
ccess to education is a fundamental right of each child and making this access better is an obligation of the government. The emergence of IT and its utilization in the education sector has helped the students at all levels, to improve their capability to learn and without need to memorizing text but by learning the conceptual grounds and theories. Thus, IT has played its role in making the teaching and learning, not only interesting but also effective in the recent years. The role of IT Enabled Services (ITES) has been vital in the higher education institutes as well and now, as the baseline of the ITES has been established at most institutes it is becoming important to evaluate the quality of ITES at different institutes. In this paper, we focus on two higher education institutions from public and private sector. We have chosen universities in Saudi Arabia as the study is focused to make a comparison of the ITES in Saudi universities.\par
Considering the nature of the study, two leading universities, one each from government and private sector was selected to participate in the study as they exist in same city. The public sector university (referred as A in the rest of this paper)was established in the fifties and is one of the oldest university in the kingdom while the private sector university (referred as B in the rest of this paper) was established in the nineties. It is also important to mention that the current student enrolment at the private university is around 3,500 while the public sector university has 10 times mores enrolment, and so is the ratio in the staff of the universities. The purpose of this study is to compare the state of the ITES in the Saudi universities. 
\section[{II. Literature Review}]{II. Literature Review}\par
In order to compare the state of the art it is important to establish the parameters based on which the comparisons among the universities can be made for the quality of ITES. Some recent work has been carried out in this domain which is presented in the this section. Several researchers \hyperref[b0]{[1]} \hyperref[b4]{[5]}, including Alanezi and Yang have mentioned that the 'Accessibility' factor is vital in nature for measuring the quality of ITES. Tan and Burgess \hyperref[b4]{[5]}[1] \hyperref[b3]{[4]} have advocated the need for customization as a major player in the quantification of the ITES for the higher education while Parasuraman and George \hyperref[b0]{[1]}[6][2] \hyperref[b6]{[7]} are of the view that delivery of teaching and the efficiency of the ITES is also important.[2][3][4]\par
Alanezi, Lin, Sedera and Swaid \hyperref[b0]{[1]}[8] \hyperref[b8]{[9]}[10] have identified the importance and have advocated the existence of the factors like functionality and information quality. Both these factors form the core of ITES and are valuable in their nature and existence. Zeithaml \hyperref[b1]{[2]} has found that some factors like response time, service usability, system integrity and trust are important factors in the quantification of the quality measurement. These factors govern the environmental factors and responsiveness of the system and are vital to measure the quality of the system instead of functionality of the system. Tan, George and Burgess \hyperref[b0]{[1]}[4] \hyperref[b6]{[7]} have advocated the presence of security as an integral factor to measure the quality of ITES. Apart from that, some researchers like Burgess \hyperref[b4]{[5]} have considered that the factors like site design, service usability and service reliability have a great value in the measurement of the quality of the ITES. Aziz \hyperref[b10]{[11]} in her research shortlisted these seventeen items to evaluate the quality of the ITES in the higher education. The shortlisting was done from more than 100 elements based on the recurrence, relevance and importance which was determined by the expert opinion. The factor, its description and the citation of the survey is given in Table \hyperref[tab_0]{1}.\par
A 12 Service usability Service usability factor refers to the degree to which the users find it easy to use the various ITES.\par
[2]\par
13 Site design Site design factor measures the quality of site design in terms of user satisfaction and ease of use. \hyperref[b4]{[5]} 14 
\section[{System integrity}]{System integrity}\par
The provision of consistent information at all times.\par
[2] 15 Trust How reliable, efficient and responsive a system is.\par
[2]\par
16 Usefulness Usefulness is the degree to which the users find it easier to do their work via the ITES.\par
[5]\par
17 
\section[{User support}]{User support}\par
User support factor refers to the degree to which the ITES department personnel are willing to serve the users in case their help and support is required.\par
[3]\par
The findings by Aziz \hyperref[b10]{[11]} form the basis of this study. The findings are contemporary in nature and discuss an evolutionary paradigm of emerging state of the art from the authors of immense repute \hyperref[b11]{[12,}\hyperref[b12]{13]}. Ahead of this a considerably sound and current methodology to affirm the findings was used that increase the trust to use this findings of the publication as a base of this research. 
\section[{III. Methodology}]{III. Methodology}\par
This study is a mixed method research \hyperref[b13]{[14,}\hyperref[b14]{15]}, that has been completed by triangulating the qualitative and quantitative results. The survey was conducted on 300 individuals in each institute and the results were collected. The purpose of the survey was to ask the users about the quality of IT enabled services at their respective institute, against the different factors attained after the comprehensive literature review. Likert scale \hyperref[b15]{[ 16]} was used to rank the responses on a scale of 1-5, i.e. from poor to excellent, hence, the column 1 in each response list has the weightage 1, the 2 nd column has the weightage 2 and column 3 has the weightage of 3 and so on. Once the sums are accumulated they are divided by the number of total respondents to get the weighted average and this activity is run for both institutes separately. After that the comparison among the results is made by considering each factor to identify that in which area a specific institute is performing better. A qualitative study has been conducted on the same lines where four respondents were interviewed (two from each university) and were asked to identify the standards of the IT enabled service in their respective institutes based on the factors and considering the cotemporary situations \hyperref[b16]{[17]}\hyperref[b17]{[18]}\hyperref[b18]{[19]}\hyperref[b19]{[20]}\hyperref[b20]{[21]}\hyperref[b21]{[22]}\hyperref[b22]{[23]}\hyperref[b23]{[24]}. In this research we follow the partially mixed sequential dominant status paradigm where the qualitative findings follow the quantitative findings and are dominant. This paradigm is followed in research studies that are centric to evaluate the technology education \hyperref[b24]{[25]}\hyperref[b25]{[26]}\hyperref[b26]{[27]}\hyperref[b27]{[28]}\hyperref[b28]{[29]}\hyperref[b29]{[30]}\hyperref[b30]{[31]}.\par
IV. 
\section[{Quantitative Study}]{Quantitative Study}\par
Considering the scale of the survey it is important to maximize the responses, however it is notable that the responses have to be precise and should come from the experienced users \hyperref[b16]{[17,}\hyperref[b31]{32]}. In order to achieve this the means given in Table \hyperref[tab_1]{2} are used to spread the survey and collect the responses. The effectiveness of these means is given in Table \hyperref[tab_2]{3} while Figure  {\ref 1} illustrates the spread of survey call.  Confidence level demonstrates the level of confidence that we have on the response to be correct and precise. Usually a confidence level of 95\% is used in the research although 99\% is used. The confidence interval determines the amount of acceptable results, and is always presented with the ± symbol. If the threshold value is 67 and the confidence interval is 5, it will allow considering values from 62-72 as legitimate. Since the survey has been conducted in two different institute to compare the state of the art of IT enabled services, almost half of the responses came from each institute. A 5-level Likert scale has been used in this research that ranges from poor to excellent. The range is from 1-5 on a quantitative scale. The value for poor is 1 and value for excellent is 5. Every response that choses the 'poor' against some item is multiplied by 1 while the selections like 'somewhat acceptable' is multiplied by2, the choice 'acceptable' is multiplied by 3, the choice 'very good' is multiplied by 4, and the choice 'excellent' is multiplied by 5. The average weighted response is achieved by divining the weighted response over the total number of respondents. It is further important that some questions were not answered by some individuals. For institute A, 261 respondents have responded while some 325 respondents responded for the institute B.  
\section[{Global Journal of Computer Science and Technology}]{Global Journal of Computer Science and Technology}\par
Volume XVI Issue IV Version I ( )\par
V. Qualitative Study and Triangulation Table \hyperref[tab_4]{5} and Table \hyperref[tab_5]{6} summarize the survey response statistics from institute A and B respectively. The results shown in Table \hyperref[tab_6]{7} , clearly demonstrate that the quality of ITES is better in institute A as compared to institute B in all the factors. Considering these results a qualitative study was formulated where four interviews were conducted to gain an insight of the ITES in the respective institutes. The outcome is given in Table \hyperref[tab_7]{8}. Along with the illustrative description of the ITES quality items, the interviewees preferred to give the absolute numbers in measuring the quality. Four interviews were conducted in total Two interviews were conducted in institute A while rest two were conducted at institute B. The summary of the results is presented in Table \hyperref[tab_7]{8} which clearly demonstrates that the interviewees (like the survey respondents) believed that the quality of ITES is better in institute A as compared to institute B. In the survey, institute A was observed having lead in the quality factors while in the interviews institute A leads in 12 out of 17 factors, equal in 4, and lags in 1 factor. Figures  {\ref 2 and 3} depict the quantitative and qualitative analysis respectively.  In triangulation process, it is observed that whether the findings of the qualitative method and the quantitative methods converge to similar results? The triangulation process is shown in Table \hyperref[tab_8]{9}.   
\section[{VI. Discussion}]{VI. Discussion}\par
There are 17 factors for measuring the quality of ITES in the institutes in Saudi Arabia. Two intuitions, one government and one private university was selected for this purpose in the capital city of Riyadh. The results of the study demonstrate that the quality of the ITES is better in institute A as compared to B. After the completion of the triangulation process the results have not changed much from the initial process, since the findings were very much consistent in the quantitative and qualitative methods. For the factors like 'accessibility', 'delivery of teaching', 'efficiency', 'information quality', 'inter-operability', 'privacy', 'security', 'service reliability', 'service usability', 'site design', 'system integrity', and 'user support' the results of the qualitative and quantitative findings were same. For the factors 'customization', 'functionality, 'trust', and 'usefulness'. the qualitative findings are different from the quantitative findings where in the survey it was established that the institute A is better as compared to institute B but in the interview it was established that both institutes have same standing. It was mentioned in the methodology section that the qualitative findings will have the dominance on the quantitative findings, therefore the qualitative results are observed in case of a disagreement among the qualitative and quantitative findings. Since the results of the qualitative finding demonstrate that the state-of-art of two institutions for these four factors is not different therefore the qualitative findings hold. For one factor 'response time' in the quantitative findings it was observed that the institute A is better in comparison while the results of the qualitative findings are otherwise, but for the reasons mentioned above, the qualitative results are held. 
\section[{VII. Conclusion}]{VII. Conclusion}\par
It can be summarized that the in order to compare the state-of-art of ITES in Saudi universities 17 factors were identified. Two institutions were compared based on quantitative and qualitative data, and the results have shown that institute A leads with better score on 12 factors while for four factors the scores were equal, while institute B leads only in one factor. It can be concluded that the state-of-art of ITES is much better in institute A as compared to institute B. Institute B needs to be more concerned in improving the quality of the ITES, especially in the areas of accessibility, information security, privacy, and user support. While Institute A needs to improve in customization, usefulness, response time, and trust. 
\section[{VIII. A cknowledgement}]{VIII. A cknowledgement}\begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{162016}\includegraphics[]{image-2.png}
\caption{\label{fig_0}16 Year 2016}\end{figure}
  \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.013103802672147996\textwidth}P{0.13715313463514903\textwidth}P{0.6307297019527235\textwidth}P{0.06901336073997943\textwidth}}
No\tabcellsep Factor\tabcellsep Description\tabcellsep \\
1\tabcellsep Accessibility\tabcellsep Accessibility is the degree to which the user can access the required service\tabcellsep {}[1][2][3][4][5]\\
2\tabcellsep Customization\tabcellsep The ability to configure the ITES according to requirement\tabcellsep {}[5][1][4]\\
3\tabcellsep Delivery of teaching\tabcellsep It deals with the ways and quality of the teaching.\tabcellsep {}[7]\\
4\tabcellsep Efficiency\tabcellsep How quickly the required services are available.\tabcellsep {}[1][6][2][7]\\
5\tabcellsep Functionality\tabcellsep It describes that what specific tasks can be performed by using the system\tabcellsep {}[1][8]\\
6\tabcellsep Information quality\tabcellsep By what level the available information suits the user.\tabcellsep {}[9][10]\\
7\tabcellsep Interoperability\tabcellsep Access to multiple service\tabcellsep {}[4]\\
8\tabcellsep Privacy\tabcellsep The level to which a person is secure in performing his tasks without being public.\tabcellsep {}[7][6][1]\\
9\tabcellsep Response time\tabcellsep The time between the request and availability of the information\tabcellsep {}[2]\\
10\tabcellsep Security\tabcellsep Security factor reflects the adequacy of security features implemented in the ITES.\tabcellsep {}[7][1][4]\\
11\tabcellsep Service reliability\tabcellsep Service reliability is the percentage of time the ITES is available for use without failure.\tabcellsep {}[5]\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_0}Table 1 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{2} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.09375\textwidth}P{0.31875\textwidth}P{0.20625\textwidth}P{0.1125\textwidth}P{0.11875\textwidth}}
No.\tabcellsep Mean of\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Count Responses}\tabcellsep \%\\
1\tabcellsep Paper\tabcellsep 10\tabcellsep 10\tabcellsep 100\\
2\tabcellsep Web Link\tabcellsep 500\tabcellsep 398\tabcellsep 80\\
3\tabcellsep Skype Text\tabcellsep 20\tabcellsep 10\tabcellsep 50\\
4\tabcellsep Google Talk\tabcellsep 50\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 60\\
5\tabcellsep Phone call\tabcellsep 60\tabcellsep 40\tabcellsep 67\\
6\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 40\tabcellsep 36\tabcellsep 90\\
7\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 96\tabcellsep 64\tabcellsep 67\\
Total\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 776\tabcellsep 588\tabcellsep 75\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_1}Table 2 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{3} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.03359683794466403\textwidth}P{0.4871541501976285\textwidth}P{0.06719367588932806\textwidth}P{0.08063241106719367\textwidth}P{0.18142292490118575\textwidth}}
No.\tabcellsep Mean of Sending Survey\tabcellsep Count\tabcellsep Responses\tabcellsep Average Response\\
1\tabcellsep Paper Survey\tabcellsep 10\tabcellsep 10\tabcellsep 1.7\%\\
2\tabcellsep Web Link\tabcellsep 500\tabcellsep 398\tabcellsep 67.6\%\\
3\tabcellsep Skype Text Request\tabcellsep 20\tabcellsep 10\tabcellsep 1.7\%\\
4\tabcellsep Google Talk Link Forwarding\tabcellsep 50\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 5.1\%\\
5\tabcellsep Phone call Requests\tabcellsep 60\tabcellsep 40\tabcellsep 6.8\%\\
6\tabcellsep Text message Requests\tabcellsep 40\tabcellsep 36\tabcellsep 6.12\%\\
7\tabcellsep Facebook messaging\tabcellsep 96\tabcellsep 64\tabcellsep 10.8\%\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_2}Table 3 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{4} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.737062937062937\textwidth}P{0.11293706293706293\textwidth}}
Measure\tabcellsep Number\\
Confidence Level\tabcellsep 99\%\\
Confidence Interval\tabcellsep 3\\
Population accessed\tabcellsep 776\\
Sample Size\tabcellsep 548\\
percentage\tabcellsep 50\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{*The actual population size is unknown [9]}\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_3}Table 4 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{5} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.33970070422535215\textwidth}P{0.03142605633802817\textwidth}P{0.07632042253521128\textwidth}P{0.09128521126760562\textwidth}P{0.08978873239436619\textwidth}P{0.08380281690140844\textwidth}P{0.13767605633802818\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Somewhat\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Very\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Average Weighted\\
Items\tabcellsep Poor\tabcellsep Acceptable\tabcellsep Acceptable\tabcellsep Good\tabcellsep Excellent\tabcellsep Response\\
Accessibility\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 42\tabcellsep 270\tabcellsep 492\tabcellsep 135\tabcellsep 3.60\\
Customization\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 48\tabcellsep 972\tabcellsep 1584\tabcellsep 315\tabcellsep 3.41\\
Delivery of teaching\tabcellsep 3\tabcellsep 24\tabcellsep 252\tabcellsep 504\tabcellsep 90\tabcellsep 3.59\\
Efficiency\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 36\tabcellsep 216\tabcellsep 516\tabcellsep 180\tabcellsep 3.72\\
Functionality\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 278\tabcellsep 384\tabcellsep 255\tabcellsep 3.67\\
Information quality\tabcellsep 3\tabcellsep 36\tabcellsep 234\tabcellsep 504\tabcellsep 165\tabcellsep 3.65\\
Interoperability\tabcellsep 3\tabcellsep 42\tabcellsep 331\tabcellsep 384\tabcellsep 90\tabcellsep 3.78\\
Privacy\tabcellsep 3\tabcellsep 36\tabcellsep 341\tabcellsep 492\tabcellsep 105\tabcellsep 3.88\\
Response time\tabcellsep 3\tabcellsep 24\tabcellsep 261\tabcellsep 456\tabcellsep 165\tabcellsep 3.65\\
Security\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 42\tabcellsep 243\tabcellsep 420\tabcellsep 90\tabcellsep 3.53\\
Service reliability\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 24\tabcellsep 234\tabcellsep 336\tabcellsep 165\tabcellsep 3.67\\
Service usability\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 24\tabcellsep 297\tabcellsep 348\tabcellsep 225\tabcellsep 3.68\\
Site design\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 6\tabcellsep 234\tabcellsep 552\tabcellsep 120\tabcellsep 3.75\\
System integrity\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 36\tabcellsep 279\tabcellsep 456\tabcellsep 105\tabcellsep 3.56\\
Trust\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 42\tabcellsep 405\tabcellsep 348\tabcellsep 75\tabcellsep 3.37\\
Usefulness\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 297\tabcellsep 372\tabcellsep 210\tabcellsep 3.65\\
User support\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 36\tabcellsep 252\tabcellsep 348\tabcellsep 225\tabcellsep 3.68\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_4}Table 5 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{6} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.32428571428571423\textwidth}P{0.04714285714285714\textwidth}P{0.17857142857142858\textwidth}P{0.07285714285714286\textwidth}P{0.07285714285714286\textwidth}P{0.05714285714285714\textwidth}P{0.09714285714285714\textwidth}}
Items\tabcellsep Poor\tabcellsep \multicolumn{5}{l}{Somewhat acceptable Acceptable Very Good Excellent Average Weighted Response}\\
Accessibility\tabcellsep 12\tabcellsep 102\tabcellsep 531\tabcellsep 312\tabcellsep 75\tabcellsep 3.17\\
Customization\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 126\tabcellsep 540\tabcellsep 228\tabcellsep 75\tabcellsep 2.94\\
Delivery of teaching\tabcellsep 42\tabcellsep 120\tabcellsep 531\tabcellsep 156\tabcellsep 15\tabcellsep 2.69\\
Efficiency\tabcellsep 9\tabcellsep 132\tabcellsep 495\tabcellsep 216\tabcellsep 120\tabcellsep 3.06\\
Functionality\tabcellsep 6\tabcellsep 138\tabcellsep 504\tabcellsep 288\tabcellsep 75\tabcellsep 3.06\\
Information quality\tabcellsep 21\tabcellsep 72\tabcellsep 414\tabcellsep 384\tabcellsep 150\tabcellsep 3.24\\
Interoperability\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 96\tabcellsep 432\tabcellsep 264\tabcellsep 120\tabcellsep 3.02\\
Privacy\tabcellsep 24\tabcellsep 138\tabcellsep 177\tabcellsep 120\tabcellsep 75\tabcellsep 1.70\\
Response time\tabcellsep 9\tabcellsep 108\tabcellsep 477\tabcellsep 288\tabcellsep 135\tabcellsep 3.17\\
Security\tabcellsep 18\tabcellsep 132\tabcellsep 468\tabcellsep 228\tabcellsep 120\tabcellsep 3.01\\
Service reliability\tabcellsep 18\tabcellsep 138\tabcellsep 468\tabcellsep 204\tabcellsep 75\tabcellsep 2.92\\
Service usability\tabcellsep 24\tabcellsep 108\tabcellsep 441\tabcellsep 288\tabcellsep 60\tabcellsep 2.98\\
Site design\tabcellsep 21\tabcellsep 144\tabcellsep 477\tabcellsep 192\tabcellsep 90\tabcellsep 2.91\\
System integrity\tabcellsep 18\tabcellsep 180\tabcellsep 450\tabcellsep 168\tabcellsep 60\tabcellsep 2.81\\
Trust\tabcellsep 6\tabcellsep 150\tabcellsep 432\tabcellsep 264\tabcellsep 135\tabcellsep 3.10\\
Usefulness\tabcellsep 18\tabcellsep 144\tabcellsep 495\tabcellsep 204\tabcellsep 75\tabcellsep 2.92\\
User support\tabcellsep 12\tabcellsep 144\tabcellsep 468\tabcellsep 228\tabcellsep 90\tabcellsep 2.99\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_5}Table 6 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{7} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.85\textwidth}}
Year 2016\\
19\end{longtable} \par
  {\small\itshape [Note: © 2016 Global Journals Inc. (US)]} 
\caption{\label{tab_6}Table 7 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{8} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.85\textwidth}}
Year 2016\\
20\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_7}Table 8 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{9} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.85\textwidth}}
Year 2016\\
22\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_8}Table 9 :}\end{figure}
 			\footnote{© 2016 Global Journals Inc. (US)} 		 		\backmatter   			 \par
The authors thank Prince Sultan University in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for funding this project in the year 2013-2014 under number IBRP-CFW-2013-11-14. 			  			  				\begin{bibitemlist}{1}
\bibitem[Burgess ()]{b4}\label{b4} 	 		‘A conceptual framework for understanding and measuring perceived service quality in net-based customer support systems’.  		 			L Burgess 		.  	 	 		\textit{CollECTeR LatAm Conference},  				 (Santiago, Chile)  		2004. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Sedera and Gable ()]{b8}\label{b8} 	 		‘A factor and structural equation analysis of the enterprise systems success measurement model’.  		 			D Sedera 		,  		 			G Gable 		.  	 	 		\textit{ICIS 2004 Proceedings},  				2004. p. 36.  	 
\bibitem[Burnard ()]{b23}\label{b23} 	 		‘A method of analysing interview transcripts in qualitative research’.  		 			P Burnard 		.  	 	 		\textit{Nurse education today}  		1991. 11 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Alanezi et al. ()]{b0}\label{b0} 	 		‘A proposed instrument dimensions for measuring e-government service quality’.  		 			M A Alanezi 		,  		 			A Kamil 		,  		 			S Basri 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of u-and e-Service}  		2010. 3 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Hill et al. ()]{b22}\label{b22} 	 		‘A qualitative assessment of Arab culture and information technology transfer’.  		 			C E Hill 		,  		 			K D Loch 		,  		 			D Straub 		,  		 			K El-Sheshai 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Global Information Management (JGIM)}  		1998. 6 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Weston et al. ()]{b21}\label{b21} 	 		‘Analyzing interview data: The development and evolution of a coding system’.  		 			C Weston 		,  		 			T Gandell 		,  		 			J Beauchamp 		,  		 			L Mcalpine 		,  		 			C Wiseman 		,  		 			C Beauchamp 		.  	 	 		\textit{Qualitative sociology}  		2001. 24 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Basit Shahzad]{b31}\label{b31} 	 		 			A M S Basit Shahzad 		.  		\textit{Application of Quantitative Research Methods in Identifying Software Project},  				 	 
\bibitem[Zeithaml et al. ()]{b1}\label{b1} 	 		\textit{Conceptual Framework for understanding e-service quality: Implications for future research and managerial practice},  		 			V A Zeithaml 		,  		 			A Parasuraman 		,  		 			A Malhotra 		.  		2000.  	 
\bibitem[Lee et al. ()]{b15}\label{b15} 	 		‘Cultural differences in responses to a Likert scale’.  		 			J W Lee 		,  		 			P S Jones 		,  		 			Y Mineyama 		,  		 			X E Zhang 		.  	 	 		\textit{Research in nursing \& health}  		2002. 25 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Lin ()]{b7}\label{b7} 	 		‘Determining the relative importance of mobile banking quality factors’.  		 			H.-F Lin 		.  	 	 		\textit{Computer Standards \& Interfaces}  		2013. 35 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Yang et al. ()]{b2}\label{b2} 	 		‘Development and validation of an instrument to measure user perceived service quality of information presenting web portals’.  		 			Z Yang 		,  		 			S Cai 		,  		 			Z Zhou 		,  		 			N Zhou 		.  	 	 		\textit{Information \& Management}  		2005. 42 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Shahzad et al. ()]{b29}\label{b29} 	 		‘Distributed risk analysis using relative impact technique’.  		 			B Shahzad 		,  		 			J Iqbal 		,  		 			Z Haq 		,  		 			S Raza 		.  	 	 		\textit{3rd Asian Conference on Intelligent Systems and Networks},  				2006. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Shahzad and Alwagait ()]{b25}\label{b25} 	 		‘Does a Change in Weekend Days Have an Impact on Social Networking Activity?’.  		 			B Shahzad 		,  		 			A Alwagait 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Universal Computer Science}  		2015. 20 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Meho ()]{b20}\label{b20} 	 		‘E-mail interviewing in qualitative research: A methodological discussion’.  		 			L I Meho 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of the American society for information science and technology}  		2006. 57 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Shahzad et al. ()]{b30}\label{b30} 	 		‘Enhanced risk analysis-relative impact factorization’.  		 			B Shahzad 		,  		 			T Afzal 		,  		 			R Irfan 		.  	 	 		\textit{Information and Communication Technologies, 2005. ICICT 2005. First International Conference on},  				2005. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Parasuraman et al. ()]{b5}\label{b5} 	 		‘ES-QUAL a multiple-item scale for assessing electronic service quality’.  		 			A Parasuraman 		,  		 			V A Zeithaml 		,  		 			A Malhotra 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of service research}  		2005. 7 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Shahzad and Aziz ()]{b10}\label{b10} 	 		‘Factors for Measurement of ITES Quality for Higher Education Institutions in Saudi Arabia’.  		 			B Shahzad 		,  		 			R Aziz 		.  	 	 		\textit{Global Journal of Computer Science and Technology}  		2015. 15 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Shahzad et al. ()]{b27}\label{b27} 	 		‘Impact of Change in Weekend Days on Social Networking Culture in Saudi Arabia’.  		 			B Shahzad 		,  		 			E Alwagait 		,  		 			S Alim 		.  	 	 		\textit{2014 International Conference on Future Internet of Things and Cloud},  				2014. p. .  	 
\bibitem[George and Kumar ()]{b6}\label{b6} 	 		\textit{Impact of service quality dimensions in internet banking on customer satisfaction},  		 			A George 		,  		 			G G Kumar 		.  		2014. 41 p. .  	 	 (DECISION) 
\bibitem[Alwagait et al. ()]{b26}\label{b26} 	 		‘Impact of social media usage on students academic performance in Saudi Arabia’.  		 			E Alwagait 		,  		 			B Shahzad 		,  		 			S Alim 		.  	 	 		\textit{Computers in Human Behavior}  		2015. 51 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Tan et al. ()]{b3}\label{b3} 	 		‘ITmediated customer service content and delivery in electronic governments: An empirical investigation of the antecedents of service quality’.  		 			C.-W Tan 		,  		 			I Benbasat 		,  		 			R T Cenfetelli 		.  	 	 		\textit{MIS quarterly}  		2013. 37 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Al-Ohali et al. ()]{b24}\label{b24} 	 		‘KSU News Portal: A Case Study’.  		 			Y Al-Ohali 		,  		 			A A Al-Oraij 		,  		 			B Shahzad 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Conference on Internet Computing (ICOMP'11)},  				2011.  	 
\bibitem[Swaid and Wigand ()]{b9}\label{b9} 	 		‘Measuring the quality of e-service: Scale development and initial validation’.  		 			S I Swaid 		,  		 			R T Wigand 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Electronic Commerce Research}  		2009. 10 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Abowitz and Toole ()]{b13}\label{b13} 	 		‘Mixed method research: Fundamental issues of design, validity, and reliability in construction research’.  		 			D A Abowitz 		,  		 			T M Toole 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Construction Engineering and Management}  		2009. 136 p. .  	 
\bibitem[
			G
		 ()]{b18}\label{b18} 	 		‘Pragmatism vs interpretivism in qualitative information systems research’.  		 			G 		.  	 	 		\textit{European Journal of Information Systems}  		2012. 21 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Ritchie et al. ()]{b17}\label{b17} 	 		\textit{Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers: Sage},  		 			J Ritchie 		,  		 			J Lewis 		,  		 			C M Nicholls 		,  		 			R Ormston 		.  		2013.  	 
\bibitem[Creswell ()]{b16}\label{b16} 	 		\textit{Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches},  		 			J W Creswell 		.  		2009. Sage Publications.  	 
\bibitem[Shahzad ()]{b28}\label{b28} 	 		‘Software Risk Management-Prioritization of frequently occurring Risk in Software Development Phases’.  		 			B Shahzad 		,  		 			J 		.  	 	 		\textit{2nd International Conference on Information and Communication Technology (ICICT2007)},  				2007. p. .  	 	 (Using Relative Impact Risk Model) 
\bibitem[Livingstone ()]{b12}\label{b12} 	 		‘Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: teenagers' use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and selfexpression’.  		 			S Livingstone 		.  	 	 		\textit{New media \& society},  				2008. 10 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Qu and Dumay ()]{b19}\label{b19} 	 		‘The qualitative research interview’.  		 			S Q Qu 		,  		 			J Dumay 		.  	 	 		\textit{Qualitative Research in Accounting \& Management}  		2011. 8 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Greene et al. ()]{b14}\label{b14} 	 		‘Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs’.  		 			J C Greene 		,  		 			V J Caracelli 		,  		 			W F Graham 		.  	 	 		\textit{Educational evaluation and policy analysis},  				1989. 11 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Shahzad and Alwagait ()]{b11}\label{b11} 	 		‘Utilizing Technology in Education Environment: A Case Study’.  		 			B Shahzad 		,  		 			E Alwagait 		.  	 	 		\textit{Information Technology: New Generations (ITNG), 2013 Tenth International Conference on},  				2013. p. .  	 
\end{bibitemlist}
 			 		 	 
\end{document}
