Agendamindzworkz.weebly.com › uploads › 2 › 7 › 9 › 6 › 27965821 › dubai_m… ·...
Transcript of Agendamindzworkz.weebly.com › uploads › 2 › 7 › 9 › 6 › 27965821 › dubai_m… ·...
Agenda
• Introduction
• Problem Identification
• Research Objective
• Research Methodology
• Data Analysis
• Conclusion
Why the ‘Banking’ Sector ??
Explore the Unknown
Explore the UNKOWN
Availability of Information
Explore the UNKOWN
Understanding Consumer Behavior
Interactive Marketing Trust Vs Technology
Mobile Banking
“The only constant is change” -Issac Asimov
Customer is king
Retail Machines Phone Internet Mobile Customer Channels
Internal Drivers
Face to Face Interaction
Automation & Convenience
High
External Drivers
Low
Retail Banking Channels
Defining ‘Mobile Banking’
Types of Mobile Banking Services
Mobile Banking Services
PUSH
Inquiry Balance alert Credit/debit alert Bill Payment alert
PULL
Transactional Funds Transfer Bill Payment
Inquiry Account balance Account statement Transaction history
Dubai Mobile Banking Services
Banks
PUSH PULL
SMS notifications (inward/onward remittance, salary credit, cheque deposit)
Pre-defined alerts
Utility bill payment
Transfer funds
Apply for cards
Balance Enquiry (accounts, loans, credit card, deposit
RTA-Salik recharge
ATM Locator
RAK √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Dubai Islamic √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Mashreq √ √ √ √ √ √ √ NBD √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Citi √ √ √ √ √ √ √ HSBC √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Emirates Islamic √ √ √ √ ADCB √ √ √ Standard Chartered X X X X X X X X
Mobile Banking Adoption Statistics
10%
90%
Mobile Banking Users -Bank of America
Users
Non-Users
21%
79%
Mobile Banking Users - USA
Users
Non-Users
8%
92%
Mobile Banking Users -Philippines
Users
Non-Users
Source: http://www.mobilemarketer.com/cms/news/research/1561.html
Growth of Mobile Banking & its challenges in Dubai: A Study on Consumer Perception
Topic
Research Methodology
Conclusion & Recommendation
Data Processing & Analysis
Sampling & Data Gathering
Research Design Problem Definition
Research Model: TAM 2
Usefulness
Ease of Use
Cost
Trust
Risk
Mobile Banking Adoption
Actual Usage
Problem Definition
Research Objectives
Exploratory Research
Problem Discovery
Research Objectives
Finding out the extent of penetration of Mobile Banking in Dubai
Understanding consumer behaviour towards the acceptance of Mobile Banking
Challenges faced by banks
Research Design
Objective Parameter List
Qualitative & Quantitative
Research Design
Primary Research
Interviews Expert Discussion
Secondary Research
Literature Survey
Objective Parameter List
Research Objective
Parameter1 Parameter 2
.
.
. Parameter n
Option 1 Option 2
.
.
. Option n
Who
How
Objective Parameter List & Questionnaire
Objective Parameter Options
Extent of penetra,on of Mobile Banking in UAE
1.No.of mobile phone users and people having internet enabled phone (Q8, Q17) 2. No of banks having PULL services (Discussion Guide Q1 and Q3) 3. % of bank customers using PULL services (Discussion Guide Q4) 4.Demographic factors(Age, gender, marital status, naDonality, Income, educaDon, occupaDon)(Q1 – Q7)
Parameter Options
Consumer Behavior
1.Convenience (Q 13.1, 13.2, 13.3, 13.6, 18.2)
1. Ease of UI 2.Personal Preference(Dme, travel, any Dme anywhere availability etc)
2.Awareness & ExperDse (Q 10, Q11,13.9,13.10,18.8)
1.Not Aware 2.InformaDve Awareness 2.Level of usage
3.Technolgical Anxiety (Q 13.8, 13.7)
1. Consumer's reluctance 2. Early Adopters 3.Laggards
4.Trustworthiness (Q 13.4, 18.3, 18.5, 18.7)
1. TransacDonal risks 2. IdenDty TheO
5.PercepDon (Q 18.1, 18.4, 13.5, 18.6)
1. Inhibitors 2. MoDvators 3. Image 4.AcDon steps
Objective Parameter List & Questionnaire contd.
Objective Parameter List & Questionnaire contd.
Parameter Options
Bank’s Challenges
1.Customer Awareness (Q 20, Discussion Guide 11.1) 2. Reducing TransacDonal Risks (Discussion Guide 11.2) 3.Technological ComplexiDes (Discussion Guide 9)
1. Internet Infrastructure 2. Difficulty in geTng competent developers
4.Role of Service Providers (Discussion Guide 12) 5.Regulatory Challenges (Discussion Guide 10) 6.Scalability (Discussion Guide 11.3)
1. Mobile banking infrastructure
Questionnaire flow
Demographic & Screener Questions
Stop
Consumers aware and
using mobile banking
Consumers aware but not using mobile
banking
Consumers unaware
End
Part A Part B Part C
Sampling: Convenience Sampling
Unaware &
Do not use (15)
Do not use
(57)
Use (30)
AWARE (87)
TOTAL SAMPLE = 102
70%
30%
Male Female
Demographic: Gender Profile
43%
22%
16%
19%
19-30 31-40 41-50 >50
Age in Yrs
Demographic: Age Group Profile
Quantitative Analysis
62% 23%
20% 0%
Mobile Banking Users & Awareness-Age Group
19-30
31-40
>50
21%
37% 8%
18%
11% 5%
Mobile Banking Users & Awareness-Gender
Aware & Use-Male Aware & Non Users-Male Aware & Use-Female
Unaware-Male Unware-Female
29%
56%
15%
Mobile Banking Users & Awareness
Aware & Use
Aware & Non-users
Unaware
Mobile Banking Service Usage-Part A
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Get account balance update
Transfer money Pay utility bills Buy goods or services
All services Others
Mobile Banking Services
Perception of Consumers using Mbanking
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
17 14 15 14 12 11
5 9
6
10 13 9 10 12
9
13 9
12 Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Factor Analysis of Part A
Variables Factors Time cost Technological
Factor Ease Factor Awareness
Saves Time .915
24 * 7 Access .898
Cost Effective .895
UI .935
Comfortable with new technologies
.929
Ease of Use .940
Carry banking operations easily
.935
Trust n/w connectivity
.870
Satisfied with security provided by bank
.806
Awareness .579
Regression Analysis - Part A
-0.30
-0.20
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50 Satisfaction
Co-efficients
Consumer Satisfaction-Part A
0
2 3
18
7
Satisfaction
1 2 3 4 5
Score
Inference: Users find the technology very useful
Statement P-VALUE Result
Users find the technology Useful 1.001 Accepted
HYPOTHESIS 1(H1)
Inference : Users find the technology easy to use and this has lead to increase in adoption of mobile banking
Statement P-VALUE Result
Users find the technology easy to use 1.211 Accepted
HYPOTHESIS 2(H2)
Inference: Mobile banking has been perceived by the user has a cheaper way of doing banking transactions.
Statement P-VALUE Result
Users find Mobile banking cost effective 1.000 Accepted
HYPOTHESIS 3(H3)
Inference: This shows that users do not completely trust the Network provider who acts as a conduit between the user and the bank. This perception needs to change to bolster the penetration of mobile banking.
Statement P-VALUE Result
Users trust the network provider completely for using mobile banking
0.000 Rejected
HYPOTHESIS 4(H4)
Inferences: Here too users have concerns pertaining to security provided for conducting mobile banking.
Statement P-VALUE Result
Users trust the security provided by the bank 0.000 Rejected
HYPOTHESIS 5(H5)
Technology Acceptance Model
Usefulness
Ease of Use
Cost
Trust
Risk
Performance Risk
Security Risk
Financial Risk
Time Risk
Mobile Banking Adoption
Actual Usage
H1
H2
H3
H4
H5
Usefulness
Ease of Use
Cost
Trust
Risk
Mobile Banking Adoption
Actual Usage
Mobile Banking Adoption
Usefulness Ease of Use Cost Trust Risk
Actual Usage
H2 H1 H3 H4 H5
Performance Risk Time
Financial
Perception of Consumers not using Mbanking : Part B
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
23 15 10 6 9 7
0
17
15 12
8 5 6 9
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Factor Analysis of Part B Variables Factors
UI related Risk Factor
Perception Trust Time
Dissatisfied with User Interface .862
Complicated User Interface .742 Not comfortable using new technologies .716
I have problems in understanding the language used in mobile banking
.620
Possibilities of identity theft, fraud or hacking .763
I find it risky to share my private and sensitive information with the bank
.714
Transactional risk .617 Prefer via other means like internet banking .597
Meant for wealthy people .893 My phone does not support it .812 I feel the mobile service provider might not perform well and process payment incorrectly
.873
I do not trust the network connectivity while doing a transaction
.762
I am completely aware of the mobile banking services
.469
Takes more time .913
Regression Analysis – Part B
-0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Satisfaction
Co-efficients
INFERENCE: On expected terms the non users feel that there is prohibitive level of transactional Risk involved in Mobile banking which prevents them from using it
Statement P-VALUE Result
Transactional Risk associated with mobile banking
1.000 Accepted
HYPOTHESIS 1
INFERENCE: The users are not comfortable with new technologies such as mobile banking which also prevents them from adopting this technology
Statement P-VALUE Result
Not comfortable with new technology 0.991 Accepted
HYPOTHESIS 2
INFERENCE: Even though language does not act as a barrier for conducting mobile banking but it remains a concern for many especially South Koreans and Chinese
Statement P-VALUE Result
Language does not act as a potential barrier 0.624 Accepted
HYPOTHESIS 3
INFERENCE: Non users feel that sharing of information over mobile phone is risky. This also prohibits them from adopting mobile banking
Statement P-VALUE Result
Sharing information with the bank is Risky over mobile phone
1.000 Accepted
HYPOTHESIS 4
INFERENCE: Most people agree that their mobile phone support mobile banking. This shows that people already have the means to use mobile banking. The bank on its part has to convince the customers to adopt them.
Statement P-VALUE Result
The Mobile phone does not support Mobile banking
0.000 Rejected
HYPOTHESIS 5
INFERENCE: The users of mobile banking doubt the network connectivity whereas the non users do not feel that network connectivity is a problem.
Statement P-VALUE Result
Do not trust the network connectivity during transaction
0.003 Rejected
HYPOTHESIS 6
Recommendation 1
Target Segment: Aware & Do not use (70 %)
Marketing & Promotional Schemes
Recommendation 2
Free Demo By Banks
Recommendation 3
Channel Partners to increase trust
Recommendation 4
• Improve UI
• Language Translator
Recommendation 5