Technical, Usability, Content and Other factors (TUCO) Framework for website upgrade in Higher Education Institution

  • Caroline Chepkoech Kiptoo, PhD University of Nairobi
Keywords: Website Upgrade, HEI Website, Website Guidelines
Share Article:


This paper presents a framework for the upgrade of Higher Education Institutions (HEI) websites. The objectives of the research are to examine important factors for Higher Education Institutions (HEI) websites upgrade and develop a framework and guidelines for the upgrade of websites of these institutions. The framework is anchored on the requirement of any upgrade to guarantee continuity in two important roles of a HEI website, namely; the continuity of the institutional image, and the continuity of online service delivery to stakeholders. The research adopted the Design Science Research (DSR) approach which is a problem-solving paradigm and considers research as capable of bringing change through introduction of novel artefacts that address societal challenges. DSR is characterised by two major iterative cycles of build and evaluate activities that are executed until a sufficient artefact is realised. The framework was developed during the conclusion phase of the research. The Framework is named TUCO, representing the initials of the framework lenses of Technical, Usability, Content and Other factors. The lenses are connected by a hinge that holds together all the lenses and represents the flexibility of the framework which allows for an upgrade to be done by looking through at one lens or a combination of different lenses depending on the priorities of the upgrade and the resources available. Each lens has a number of components that must be considered during an upgrade. The framework contributes to the HEI websites body of knowledge and provides support and practical guideline for practitioners.


Download data is not yet available.


Aguillo, I. F., Ortega, J. L., & Fernández, M. (2008). Webometric ranking of world universities: Introduction, methodology, and future developments. Higher education in Europe, 33(2-3), 233-244.

Aguillo, I., Ortega, J., Fernández, M., & Utrilla, A. (2010). Indicators for a webometric ranking of open access repositories. Scientometrics, 82(3), 477-486.

Mentes, S. A., & Turan, A. H. (2012). Assessing the usability of university websites: An empirical study on Namik Kemal University. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 11(3), 61-69.

Akgül, Y. (2017, June). The most violated WCAG 1.0 guidelines by the developers of university websites in Turkey. In 2017 12th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI) (pp. 1-7). Ieee.

Akram, M., & Sulaiman, R. B. (2017). A systematic literature review to determine the web accessibility issues in Saudi Arabian university and government websites for disable people. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 8(6).

Al-Debei, M. M. (2014). The quality and acceptance of websites: an empirical investigation in the context of higher education. International Journal of Business Information Systems, 15(2), 170-188.

Alahmadi, T., & Drew, S. (2017). Accessibility evaluation of top-ranking university websites in world, Oceania, and Arab categories for home, admission, and course description webpages. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 21(1), 7-24.

Armstrong, J., & Franklin, T. (2008). A review of current and developing international practice in the use of social networking (Web 2.0) in higher education.

Bernier, J. L., Barchéin, M., Cañas, A., Gómez-Valenzuela, C., & Merelo, J. J. (2002). The services a university website should offer. Information Society and Education: Monitoring a Revolution. Serie Sociedad de la Educación, 9, 1746-1750.

Caglar, E., & Mentes, S. A. (2012). The usability of university websites–a study on European University of Lefke. International Journal of Business Information Systems, 11(1), 22-40.

Chow, A. S., Bridges, M., & Commander, P. (2014). The website design and usability of US academic and public libraries. Reference & user services quarterly, 53(3), 253-265.

Conole, G., & Alevizou, P. (2010). A literature review of the use of Web 2.0 tools in Higher Education. A report commissioned by the Higher Education Academy.

Hevner, A. R. (2007). A three-cycle view of design science research. Scandinavian journal of information systems, 19(2), 4.

Hevner, A., & Chatterjee, S. (2010). Design science research in information systems. In Design research in information systems (pp. 9-22). Springer, Boston, MA.

Hollinderbäumer, A., Hartz, T., & Ückert, F. (2013). Education 2.0-How has social media and Web 2.0 been integrated into medical education? A systematical literature review. GMS Zeitschrift für medizinische Ausbildung, 30(1).

Kuechler, W., & Vaishnavi, V. (2012). A framework for theory development in design science research: multiple perspectives. Journal of the Association for Information systems, 13(6), 3.

Mohammed, A., Garba, A., & Umar, H. (2016). University library websites in Nigeria: An analysis of content. World Digital Libraries-An international journal, 9(2), 121-130.

Paul, A. Tess. 2013. The role of social media in higher education classes (real and virtual)–A literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), A60-A68.

Pierce, K. R. (2005). Usability Review of the Harvard. Edu Web Site. (accessed 19 March 2020).

16 February, 2022
How to Cite
Kiptoo, C. (2022). Technical, Usability, Content and Other factors (TUCO) Framework for website upgrade in Higher Education Institution. East African Journal of Information Technology, 5(1), 7-19.