Advertisement

What You See Is What You (Can) Get? Designing for Process Transparency in Financial Advisory Encounters

  • Philipp Nussbaumer
  • Inu Matter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6946)

Abstract

In this paper, we report on a study to establish process transparency in service encounters of financial advisors and their clients. To support their interaction, we implemented a cooperative software system for tabletops, building on transparency patterns suggested by the literature. In evaluations, however, we found that our design did not improve the perceived transparency and comprehensibility. Introducing the IT artifact into advisory failed to enhance the client’s overall experience and even seemed to negatively influence the client’s perception of the advisory process. Using the representational guidance of depicting the process and its activities as a navigable, interactive map made clients believe that interactions with their advisor were restricted to the system’s functionality, thus expecting that what they see is all they can get.

Keywords

process transparency collaboration advisory tabletops 

References

  1. 1.
    Mogicato, R., Schwabe, G., Nussbaumer, P., Stehli, E., Eberhard, M.: Beratungsqualität in Banken. Solution Providers AG, Dübendorf (2009) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Novak, J.: Mine, yours...ours? Designing for Principal-Agent Collaboration in Interactive Value Creation. In: Proceedings of Wirtschaftsinformatik 2009, Wien (2009) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buhl, H.U., Kaiser, M.: Herausforderungen und Gestaltungschancen aufgrund von MiFID und EU-Vermittlerrichtlinie. Zeitschrift für Bankrecht und Bankwirtschaft 20, 43–51 (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stiftung Warentest: Die Blamage geht weiter. Finanztest 8, 25–30 (2010) Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Klöckner, B.W.: Beratertest. Peinliche Ergebnisse - große Chancen. Bankmagazin 56, 42–43 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Evers, J., Krüger, U., Reifner, U.: Beratungsqualität in Finanzdienstleistungen. Nomos-Verl.-Ges., Baden-Baden (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Golec, J.H.: Empirical Tests of a Principal-Agent Model of the Investor-Investment Advisor Relationship. The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 27, 81–95 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eisenhardt, K.M.: Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review. The Academy of Management Review 14, 57–74 (1989)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nussbaumer, P., Schwabe, G.: Gemeinsam statt einsam: Kooperative Bankberatung. Mensch & Computer 2010, Duisburg (2010) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schmidt-Rauch, S., Nussbaumer, P.: Putting Value Co-Creation into Practice: A Case for Advisory Support. Under Review (2010) Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schmidt, K., Bannon, L.: Taking CSCW seriously. In: Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 1, pp. 7–40 (1992)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kienle, A.: Integration of knowledge management and collaborative learning by technical supported communication processes. Education and Information Technologies 11, 161–185 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guzdial, M., Turns, J.: Effective Discussion through a Computer-Mediated Anchored Forum. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 9, 437–469 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Engeström, Y.: Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In: Perspectives on Activity Theory, pp. 19–38 (1999) Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Larkin, J.H., Simon, H.A.: Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words. Cognitive Science 11, 65–100 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhang, J.: The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognitive Science 21, 179–217 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Suthers, D.D., Hundhausen, C.D.: The effects of representation on students’ elaborations in collaborative inquiry. In: Proceedings of the Conference on CSCL: Foundations for a CSCL Community, pp. 472–480 (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kienle, A.: Computerunterstützung für die Organisation menschlicher Kommunikationsprozesse. Habilitationsschrift, FernUniversität Hagen (2009) Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wang, W., Haake, J.M., Rubart, J., Tietze, D.A.: Hypermedia-based support for cooperative learning of process knowledge. Journal of Network and Computer Applications 23, 357–379 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Carell, A., Herrmann, T., Kienle, A., Menold, N.: Improving the coordination of collaborative learning with process models. In: Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on CSCL, pp. 18–27 (2005) Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dillenbourg, P.: Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In: Kirschner, P. (ed.) Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL?, pp. 61–91. Open University of The Netherlands, Heerlen (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Briggs, R., Reinig, B.A., De Vreede, G.: The Yield Shift Theory of Satisfaction and Its Application to the IS/IT Domain. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 9, 267–293 (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Solomon, M.R., Surprenant, C., Czepiel, J.A., Gutman, E.G.: A Role Theory Perspective on Dyadic Interactions: The Service Encounter. The Journal of Marketing 49, 99–111 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philipp Nussbaumer
    • 1
  • Inu Matter
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of InformaticsUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations