Business & Information Systems Engineering

, Volume 59, Issue 2, pp 97–110 | Cite as

Service-Channel Fit Conceptualization and Instrument Development

A Mixed Methods Study in the Context of Electronic Banking
  • Hartmut HoehleEmail author
  • Thomas Kude
  • Sid Huff
  • Karl Popp
Research Paper


Electronically mediated self-service technologies in the banking industry have impacted the way banks service consumers. Despite a large body of research on electronic banking channels, no study has been undertaken to empirically explore the fit between electronic banking channels and banking services. To address this gap, we developed and validated a service-channel fit conceptualization and an associated survey instrument. We applied a mixed methods approach and initially investigated industry experts’ perceptions regarding the concept of ‘service-channel fit’ (SCF). The findings demonstrated that the concept was highly valued by bank managers. Next, we developed an instrument to measure the perceived service-channel fit of electronic banking channels. The instrument was developed using expert rounds and two pretests involving approximately 300 consumers in New Zealand. Drawing on IS alignment literature, we created a parallel instrument allowing us to calculate SCF across three unique fit dimensions, including service complexity-channel fit, service importance-channel fit, and service routineness-channel fit. To explore the nomological validity of the SCF construct, we linked SCF to customers’ intention to use a specific channel for a particular banking task. We tested our model with data from 340 consumers in New Zealand using Internet banking applications for two different banking tasks. The results of our study have theoretical and practical implications for how clients should be serviced through electronically mediated banking channels.


Electronic banking Service-channel fit Technology adoption Technology acceptance Mixed methods 

Supplementary material

12599_2015_415_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (139 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 139 kb)


  1. Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Processes 50(2):179–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aksin Z, Armony M, Mehrotra V (2007) The modern call center: a multi-disciplinary perspective on operations management research. Prod Oper Manag 16(6):665–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barczak G, Ellen PS, Pilling BK (1997) Developing typologies of consumer motives for use of technologically based banking services. J Bus Res 38(2):131–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beck R, König W, Wigand RT (2003a) Creating value in e-banking: efficient usage of e-commerce applications and technologies. In: Proceedings of the 7th Pacific-Asia conference on information systems (PACIS), AdelaideGoogle Scholar
  5. Beck R, Wigand RT, König W (2003b) Beyond the electronic commerce diffusion race: efficiency prevails. In: Proceedings of the 11th European conference on information systems (ECIS), NaplesGoogle Scholar
  6. Beck R, Franke J, König W, Wigand RT (2005) Globalization and e-business application adoption and usage: comparing Germany in a global context. In: Proceedings of the Americas conference on information systems (AMCIS), OmahaGoogle Scholar
  7. Beck R, Beimborn D, Weitzel T, König W (2008) Network effects as drivers of individual technology adoption: analyzing adoption and diffusion of mobile communication services. Inf Syst Front 10(4):415–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benbasat I, Barki H (2007) Quo vadis TAM? J Assoc Inf Syst 8(4):211–218Google Scholar
  9. Black NJ, Lockett A, Ennew C, Winklhofer H, McKechnie S (2002) Modelling consumer choice of distribution channels: an illustration from financial services. Int J Bank Mark 20(4):161–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brynjolfsson E, Hu YJ, Rahman MS (2013) Competing in the age of omnichannel retailing. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 54(4):23–29Google Scholar
  11. Calder BJ (1977) Focus groups and the nature of qualitative marketing research. J Mark Res 14(3):353–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Campbell D, Frei F (2010) Cost structure, customer profitability, and retention implications of self-service distribution channels: evidence from customer behavior in an online banking channel. Manag Sci 56(1):4–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chan YE, Huff SL, Barclay DW, Copeland DG (1997) Business strategic orientation, information systems strategic orientation, and strategic alignment. Inf Syst Res 8(2):125–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cheng TCE, Lam DYC, Yeung ACL (2006) Adoption of internet banking: an empirical study in Hong Kong. Decis Support Syst 42(3):1558–1572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chin WW (1998) The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern methods for business research. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hilsdale, pp 295–336Google Scholar
  16. Chin WW, Gopal A (1995) Adoption intention in GSS: relative importance of beliefs. Database Adv Inf Syst 26(2):42–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. D’Ambra J, Wilson CS (2004) Explaining perceived performance of the World Wide Web: uncertainty and the task-technology fit model. Internet Res 1(4):294–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13(3):319–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dennis AR, Kinney ST (1998) Testing media richness theory in the new media: the effects of cues, feedback, and task equivocality. Inf Syst Res 9(3):256–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Deutsche Bank Research (2011) 47 percent of Europeans will use online banking in 2012. Accessed 17 Aug 2014
  21. DeVellis RF (2011) Scale development: theory and applications, vol 26, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  22. Dishaw MT, Strong DM (1999) Extending the technology acceptance model with task-technology fit constructs. Inf Manag 36(1):9–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ferratt TW, Vlahos GE (1998) An investigation of task-technology fit for managers in Greece and the US. Eur J Inf Syst 7(2):123–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  25. Fornell CD, Larcker F (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement errors. J Mark Res 18(February):39–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Forrester Research (2007) European mobile banking: an inconvenient truth. Forrester Research. Accessed 17 Aug 2014
  27. Froehle CM (2006) Service personnel, technology, and their interaction in influencing customer satisfaction. Decis Sci 37(1):5–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Froehle CM, Roth AV (2004) New measurement scales for evaluating perceptions of the technology-mediated customer service experience. J Oper Manag 22(1):1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Froehle CM, Roth AV (2007) A resource process framework of new service development. Prod Oper Manag 16(2):169–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Goodhue DL (1995) Understanding user evaluations of information systems. Manag Sci 41(12):1827–1844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Goodhue DL (1997) The model underlying the measurement of the impacts of the iic on the end-users. J Am Soc Inf Sci 48(5):449–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Goodhue DL (1998) Development and measurement validity of task-technology fit instrument for user evaluations of information systems. Decis Sci 29(1):105–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Goodhue D (2007) Comment on Benbasat and Barki’s “Quo Vadis TAM” article. J Assoc Inf Syst 8(4):219–222Google Scholar
  34. Goodhue DL, Thompson RL (1995) Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Q 19(2):213–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hoehle H, Venkatesh V (2015) Development and validation of a mobile usability conceptualization and instrument. MIS Q 39(2):435–472 Google Scholar
  36. Jiang JJ, Klein G, Carr CL (2002) Measuring information system service quality: SERVQUAL from the other side. MIS Q 26(2):145–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kamis A, Koufaris M, Stern T (2008) Using an attribute-based decision support system for user-customized products online: an experimental investigation. MIS Q 32(1):159–177Google Scholar
  38. Karimi J, Somers TM, Gupta YP (2004) Impact of environmental uncertainty and task characteristics on user satisfaction with data. Inf Syst Res 15(2):175–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Katuri S, Lam M (2003) Factors affecting internet banking activities: a case study of a community bank. In: Americas Conference on Information SystemsGoogle Scholar
  40. Katuri S, Lam M (2007) Switching customers from branches to internet: a credit union’s journey. J Financ Serv Mark 11(3):229–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kim G, Shin B, Lee HG (2009) Understanding dynamics between initial trust and usage intentions of mobile banking. Inf Syst J 19(3):283–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Klopping IM, McKinney E (2004) Extending the technology acceptance model and the task-technology fit model to consumer e-commerce. Inf Technol Learn Perform J 22(1):35–48Google Scholar
  43. Krammer A, Heinrich B, Henneberger M, Lautenbacher F (2011) Granularity of services. Bus Inf Syst Eng 3(6):345–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lai VS, Li H (2005) Technology acceptance model for internet banking: an invariance analysis. Inf Manag 42(2):373–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lamberti HJ, Büger M (2009) Lessons learned: 50 years of information technology in the banking industry – the example of Deutsche Bank AG. Bus Inf Syst Eng 1(1):26–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lee J (2002) A key to marketing financial services: the right mix of products, services, channels and customers. J Serv Mark 16(3):238–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lewis BR, Templeton GF, Byrd TA (2005) A methodology for construct development in MIS research. Eur J Inf Syst 14(1):388–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Liang H, Saraf N, Hu Q, Xue Y (2007) Assimilation of enterprise systems: the effect of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top-management. MIS Q 31(1):59–87Google Scholar
  49. Lu Y, Deng Z, Wang B (2010) Exploring factors affecting Chinese consumers’ usage of short message service for personal communication. Inf Syst J 20(2):183–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mäenpää K, Kale SH, Kuusela H, Mesiranta N (2008) Consumer perceptions of internet banking in Finland: the moderating role of familiarity. J Retail Consum Serv 15(4):266–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Morrison PD, Roberts JH (1998) Matching electronic distribution channels to product characteristics: the role of congruence in consideration set formation. J Bus Res 41(3):223–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nadkarni S, Gupta R (2007) A task-based model of perceived website complexity. MIS Q 31(3):501–524Google Scholar
  53. Pahlke I, Beck R, Wolf M (2011) Enterprise-Mashup-Systeme als Plattform für situative Anwendungen – Nutzen und Herausforderungen für Unternehmen. WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK 25(5):299–310Google Scholar
  54. Parker SC, Van Witteloostuijn A (2010) A general framework for estimating multidimensional contingency fit. Organ Sci 21(2):540–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Petter S, Straub DW, Rai A (2007) Specifying formative constructs in information systems research. MIS Q 31(4):623–656Google Scholar
  56. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88(5):879–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pousttchi K, Hufenbach Y (2011) Value creation in the mobile market: a reference model for the role(s) of the future mobile network operator. Bus Inf Syst Eng 3(5):299–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Prescott JE (1986) Environments as moderators of the relationship between strategy and performance. Acad Manag J 29(2):329–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Reinsch NL, Beswick RW (1990) Voice mail versus conventional channels: a cost minimization analysis of individuals’ preferences. Acad Manag J 33(4):801–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ringle C, Wende S, Will A (2005) SmartPLS 2.0 M3. Accessed 17 Aug 2014
  61. Rogers EM (2010) Diffusion of innovations. Simon and Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  62. Rosemann M, Vessey I (2008) Toward improving the relevance of information systems research to practice: the role of applicability checks. MIS Q 32(1):1–22Google Scholar
  63. Saeed KA, Abdinnour S (2011) Understanding post-adoption IS usage stages: an empirical assessment of self-service information systems. Inf Syst J 23(3):219–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sampson SE, Froehle CM (2006) Foundations and implications of a proposed unified services theory. Prod Oper Manag 15(2):329–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sayar C, Wolfe S (2007) Internet banking market performance: Turkey versus the UK. Int J Bank Mark 25(3):122–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schmenner RW (1986) How can service businesses survive and prosper? Sloan Manag Rev 27(3):21–32Google Scholar
  67. Schmenner RW (2004) Service businesses and productivity. Decis Sci 35(3):333–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Shirani AI, Tafti MHA, Affisco JF (1999) Task and technology fit: a comparison of two technologies for synchronous and asynchronous group communication. Inf Manag 36(3):139–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Staples DS, Seddon P (2004) Testing the technology-to-performance chain model. J Organ End User Comput 16(4):17–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Straub D, Burton-Jones A (2007) Veni, vidi, vici: breaking the TAM logjam. J Assoc Inf Syst 8(4):223–229Google Scholar
  71. Strauss AL, Corbin J (1998) Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  72. Suh KS (1999) Impact of communication medium on task performance and satisfaction: an examination of media-richness theory. Inf Manag 35(5):295–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Suh B, Han I (2003) Effect of trust on customer acceptance of internet banking. Electron Commer Res Appl 1(3):247–263Google Scholar
  74. Tan M, Thompson SH (2000) Factors influencing the adoption of internet banking. J Assoc Inf Syst 1:5Google Scholar
  75. Te’eni D (2001) Review: a cognitive-affective model of organizational communication for designing IT. MIS Q 25(2):251–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Tesch D, Jiang J, Klein G (2003) The impact of information system personnel skill discrepancies on stakeholder satisfaction. Decis Sci 34(1):107–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Venkatesh V (2006) Where to go from here? Thoughts on future directions for research on individual-level technology adoption with a focus on decision making. Decis Sci 37(4):497–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q 27(3):425–478Google Scholar
  79. Venkatesh V, Thong JYL, Chan FKY, Hu PJ-H, Brown SA (2011) Extending the two-stage information systems continuance model: incorporating UTAUT predictors and the role of context. Inf Syst J 21(6):527–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Venkatesh V, Brown SA, Bala H (2013) Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS Q 37(1):21–54Google Scholar
  81. Venkatraman N (1989) The concept of fit in strategy research: toward verbal and statistical correspondence. Acad Manag Rev 14(3):423–444Google Scholar
  82. Wang Y-S, Lin H-H, Luarn P (2006) Predicting consumer intention to use mobile service. Inf Syst J 16(2):157–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Weiß F, Leimeister JM (2012) Consumerization. Bus Inf Syst Eng 6(4):363–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wood RE (1986) Task complexity: definition of the construct. Organ Behav Hum Decis Processes 37(1):60–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Zigurs I, Buckland BK, Connolly J, Wilson EV (1999) A test of task-technology fit theory for group support systems. Database Adv Inf Syst 30(3–4):34–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hartmut Hoehle
    • 1
    Email author
  • Thomas Kude
    • 2
  • Sid Huff
    • 3
  • Karl Popp
    • 4
  1. 1.Sam M. Walton College of BusinessUniversity of ArkansasFayettevilleUSA
  2. 2.Business SchoolUniversity of MannheimMannheimGermany
  3. 3.School of Information ManagementVictoria University of WellingtonWellingtonNew Zealand
  4. 4.SAP SEWalldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations