Advertisement

Information Quality of Web Services: Payment Account Online Comparison Tools Survey in the Czech Republic and Slovakia

  • Ivan Soukal
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 341)

Abstract

The paper is focused on the comparison and calculation of retail payment accounts. The latest development of digital services within the frame of a FinTech leaves out the product comparison so far and therefore a consumer has to rely on these online tools. Six comparison tools were found and analyzed in two selected countries. The information quality test was performed based on the EU methodology regarding accuracy and full price, relevance, language and concision, detail, uniformity, comparability, and verifiability. The user test profile is a retail mainstream client with e-banking preference. All comparison tools but one failed in the information quality test. Some of them provided a correct result for only 33% of compared offers. Most of the misguiding and incorrect results came from a miscalculation of specific conditional sales issues and ATM withdrawal from other bank’s network service. Only one comparison tool passed with the share of correct and plausible results above 90%. Unsatisfactory results can be explained by the incompleteness of CTs, not being up-to-date issues and by a specific pricing policy different from e.g. United Kingdom or Germany. The last part suggests possible ways how to improve current unsatisfactory situation by creating a test framework that would complement the Directive 2014/92/EU.

Keywords

Shopbot Online comparison tool Information quality Payment account Price calculation Relevance Language Detail Uniformity Comparability Verifiability 

Notes

Acknowledgment

This paper was written with the financial support of Specific Research Project “Investments within the Industry 4.0 concept” 2018 at Faculty of Informatics and Management of the University of Hradec Králové to the Department of Economics. I would like to thank Aneta Bartuskova, Ph.D. for her valuable comments. I would like to thank Lucie Silhabelova for her help with the calculator’s database.

References

  1. 1.
    Baye, M.R., Morgan, J.: Temporal price dispersion: evidence from an online consumer electronics market. J. Interact. Mark. 18(4), 101–115 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    European Banking Authority. Consumer trends report 2016. http://www.eba.europa.eu/documents/10180/1360107/Consumer+Trends+Report+2016.pdf. Accessed 12 Mar 2018
  3. 3.
    European Commission: Comparison Tools: Report from the Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue (2013). http://edz.bib.uni-mannheim.de/daten/edz-a/gdgv/13/comparison-tools-report-ecs-2013_en.pdf. Accessed 12 Mar 2018
  4. 4.
    European Commission: Study on the coverage functioning and consumer use of comparison tools and third party verification schemes for such tools (2013). https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/final_report_study_on_comparison_tools_2013_en.pdf. Accessed 16 Mar 2018
  5. 5.
    Gai, K.K., Qiu, M.K., Sun, X.T.: A survey on FinTech. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 103, 262–273 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2017.10.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gomber, P., Kauffman, R.J., Parker, C., Weber, B.W.: On the fintech revolution: interpreting the forces of innovation, disruption, and transformation in financial services. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 35(1), 220–265 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2018.1440766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gozman, D., Liebenau, J., Mangan, J.: The innovation mechanisms of fintech start-ups: insights from SWIFT’s innotribe competition. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 35(1), 145–179 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2018.1440768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haynes, M., Thompson, S.: Price, price dispersion and number of sellers at a low entry cost shopbot. Int. J. Ind. Organ. 26(2), 459–472 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2007.02.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Iyer, G., Pazgal, A.: Internet shopping agents: virtual co-location and competition. Mark. Sci. 22(1), 85–106 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim, J.W., Ha, S.H.: Price comparisons on the internet based on computational intelligence. PLoS ONE 9(9), e106946 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ma, Z., Liao, K., Lee, J.J.-Y.: Examining comparative shopping agents from two types of search results. Inf. Syst. Manag. 27(1), 3–9 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530903455072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schwartz, B.: The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less. HarperCollins Publishers, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Smith, M.D.: The impact of shopbots on electronic markets. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 30(4), 446–454 (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1177/009207002236916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Soukal, I., Draessler, J., Hedvičáková, M.: Cluster analysis of the demand side of the retail core banking services market. E & M Ekonomie a Manag. 14(4), 102–114 (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Soukal, I., Draessler, J.: Retail core banking services comparison tools and the quality of information. In: Novak, P., Jurigova, Z., Kozubikova, L., Zlamalova, J. (eds.) Finance and Performance of Firms in Science, Education and Practice, pp. 994–1009. Tomas Bata University, Zlin (2017)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Soukal, I., Hedvičáková, M.: Retail core banking services costs optimization. Procedia Technol. 1(1), 177–182 (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tang, Z., Smith, M.D., Montgomery, A.: The impact of shopbot use on prices and price dispersion: evidence from online book retailing. Int. J. Ind. Organ. 28(6), 579–590 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2010.03.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yuan, S.T.: A personalized and integrative comparison-shopping engine and its applications. Decis. Support Syst. 34(2), 139–156 (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9236(02)00077-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics, Faculty of Informatics and ManagementUniversity of Hradec KraloveHradec KraloveCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations