Advertisement

The Novel Online Comparison Tool for Bank Charges with User-Friendly Approach

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

Abstract

This paper presents a proposal for the novel comparison tool for bank charges; the online calculator service. The development of this tool was motivated by information asymmetry, which exists on the market of payment accounts to consumer’s disadvantage. Our calculator service provides user with the list of the most suitable bank accounts based on his preferences, sorted by monthly fee. It is up to the particular user whether he fills in values of his current usage or future requirements. The results are personalized based solely on user’s input. This paper reveals motivation behind our work and presents the current implementation of our proposal including conceptual foundation, workflows, matrix of data for underlying logic and of course user interface. By presenting workflows we stress multidimensional use of our service. Apart for clear benefit for individual user, the data acquired from all users can be used for post-processing, which includes various analyses of user behaviour and resulting user profiling regarding using bank services. The calculator service was already launched for Czech environment on https://uni.uhk.cz/kalkulator/.

Keywords

Online services Digital services Bank charges Financial advisor Online calculators User experience User-centered design 

Notes

Acknowledgment

This paper was written with the financial support of specific university research funds allocated to the University of Hradec Králové Faculty of Informatics and Management, the Department of Economics project no. 3/2018, order 2103.

I would like to thank Aneta Bartuskova, Ph.D. for her work on calculator´s development. I would like to thank Lucie Silhabelova and Martin Král for her help with the database and Jan Draessler, Ph.D. for his comments during the design phase.

References

  1. 1.
    Zhu, H., Siegel, M., Madnick, S.: Enabling global price comparison through semantic integration of web data. Int. J. Electron. Bus. 6(4), 319–341 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bartuskova, A., Soukal, I., Draessler, J.: Calculator of banking fees (2018). http://uni.uhk.cz/kalkulator
  3. 3.
    Soukal, I., Draessler, J., Hedvičáková, M.: Cluster analysis of the demand side of the retail core banking services market. E M Ekonomie a Management 14(4), 102–114 (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Soukal, I., Draessler, D.: Price information asymmetry impact on optimal choice – RCBS market case study. In: Kocourek, A. (ed.) 2015 Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Liberec Economic Forum, Liberec, Czech Republic, pp. 144–153. Technical University of Liberec, Liberec (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Soukal, I., Hedvičáková, M., Draessler, J.: Probabilistic model of optimal price search on the retail core banking services market. Int. J. Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci. 6(2), 386–393 (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pires, T.: Measuring the effects of search costs on equilibrium prices and profits. Int. J. Ind. Organ. (2017, in press).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2017.10.007. Accessed 22 Nov 2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Iyer, G., Pazgal, A.: Internet shopping agents: virtual co-location and competition. Mark. Sci. 22(1), 85–106 (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.22.1.85.12842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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
  10. 10.
    European Parliament: Directive 2014/92/EU on the comparability of fees related to payment accounts, payment account switching and access to payment accounts with basic features. (L 257/214, Official Journal of the European Union) (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brannon, D.C., Soltwisch, B.W.: If it has lots of bells and whistles, it must be the best: how maximizers and satisficers evaluate feature-rich versus feature-poor products. Mark. Lett. 28(4), 651–662 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-017-9440-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schwatz, B.: The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less. HarperCollins Publishers, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Besharat, A., Ladik, D.M., Carrillat, F.A.: Are maximizers blind to the future? When today’s best does not make for a better tomorrow. Mark. Lett. 25(1), 77–91 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hassenzahl, M., Tractinsky, N.: User experience - a research agenda. Behav. Inf. Technol. 25(2), 91–97 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Albert, B., Tullis, T.: Measuring the User Experience: Collecting, Analyzing, and Presenting Usability Metrics, 2nd edn. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bartuskova, A., Krejcar, O.: Sequential model of user browsing on websites – three activities defined: scanning, interaction and reading. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies, Barcelona, Spain, pp. 143–148 (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee, S., Koubek, R.J.: Understanding user preferences based on usability and aesthetics before and after actual use. Interact. Comput. 22(6), 530–543 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lidwell, W., Holden, K., Butler, J.: Universal Principles of Design Revised and Updated: 125 Ways to Enhance Usability, Influence Perception, Increase Appeal, Make Better Design Decisions, and Teach through Design. Rockport Publishers, Beverly (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moe, W., Fader, P.: Dynamic conversion behavior at e-commerce sites. Manage. Sci. 50(3), 326–335 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Trattner, C., Lin, Y.L., Parra, D., Yue, Z., Real, W., Brusilovsky, P.: Evaluating tag-based information access in image collections. In: Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media, pp. 113–122. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ellonen, H.-K., Wikström, P., Johansson, A.: The role of the website in a magazine business – revisiting old truths. J. Media Bus. Stud. 12(4), 238–249 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bartuskova, A., Krejcar, O.: Evaluation framework for user preference research implemented as web application. In: Bǎdicǎ, C., Nguyen, N.T., Brezovan, M. (eds.) ICCCI 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8083, pp. 537–548. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40495-5_54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Svobodová, L., Hedvičáková, M.: Actual situation and development in online shopping in the Czech Republic, Visegrad Group and EU-28. In: Sieminski, A., Kozierkiewicz, A., Nunez, M., Ha, Q.T. (eds.) Modern Approaches for Intelligent Information and Database Systems. SCI, vol. 769, pp. 269–279. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76081-0_23CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Informatics and Management, Department of EconomicsUniversity of Hradec KraloveHradec KraloveCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations