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