A Usability Comparison of SMS and IVR as Digital Banking Channels-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

A Usability Comparison of SMS and IVR as Digital Banking Channels

Published:2013 Issue: Volume: Page:76-91
ISSN:
Container-title:User Perception and Influencing Factors of Technology in Everyday Life
language:
Short-container-title:

Author:

Peevers Gareth¹,Douglas Gary¹,Jack Mervyn A.¹,Marshall Diarmid¹

Affiliation:

1. The University of Edinburgh, UK

Abstract

In this paper, the authors compare the usability of SMS mobile banking and automated IVR telephone banking. Participants (N = 116) used SMS banking and IVR banking to find their account balance in a repeated-measures experiment. IVR banking scored higher for usability metrics: effectiveness, attitude, and quality. There was no clear difference in rank order of preference between the two channels. Participants gave positive comments regarding speed and efficiency with SMS banking, but had serious doubts over the security of the SMS channel, impacting consumer trust in SMS banking. The authors argue that usability problems and security concerns are a major factor in the low adoption of SMS mobile banking. Older users were less positive in general to SMS banking compared with the more established IVR banking. Older users had lower first time completion rates for SMS banking and gave IVR banking higher attitude and quality scores.

Publisher

IGI Global

Reference67 articles.

1. Ahmed, Z. (2004). Youth drives India’s mobile phone revolution. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3585257.stm

2. Online banking: a field study of drivers, development challenges, and expectations

3. Impact of video-mediated communication on simulated service encounters

4. A study of the effect of thumb sizes on mobile phone texting satisfaction.;V.Balakrishnan;Journal of Usability Studies,2008

5. Balakrishnan, V., Yeow, H. P., & Ngo, D. C. L. (2005). An investigation on the ergonomic problems of using mobile phones to send SMS. In P. D. Bust & P. T. McCabe (Eds.), Proceedings of the Contemporary Ergonomics 2005 Conference (pp. 195-199). London, UK: Taylor & Francis.