15th Bled Electronic Commerce Conference
eReality: Constructing the eEconomy
Bled, Slovenia, June 17 - 19, 2002
Factors Affecting the Successful Introduction of
Mobile Payment Systems
Hans van der Heijden
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration,
The Netherlands
HHeijden@feweb.vu.nl
Abstract
A prerequisite to carry out transactions using a mobile phone is an effective mobile
payment system. However, no standardised, widely adopted mobile payment system
has yet emerged, and this is believed to be one of the factors that inhibits
widespread use of mobile commerce. This paper reports on a research project in
which the factors are examined that affect the introduction success of mobile
payment systems.
We start from the venture point that a lot can be learned from research on internet
paying systems, payment systems that have been introduced to faciliate payments
made over the internet. First we transferred factors affecting the introduction of
internet payment systems to a mobile setting. We then contrasted this list with the
views of 13 executives we interviewed in Sweden and the Netherlands.
We found that while many factors are at play at the same time, a subset of these
stood out at the early stages of the lifecycle of mobile payment systems. In the area
of consumer acceptance, these are their cost and their ease of use relative to other
payment methods, and the perceived risk. In the area of merchant acceptance,
transaction fees compared to debit and credit card systems are important, as is, to a
significant extent, the ease of use for the merchant. Finally, both customer and
merchant acceptance are highly interdependent as each influences the other,
especially during the early stages.
1. Introduction
Given the sheer number of mobile phones around today, it is no surprise that the
notion has been gaining ground that the phone can also be effectively used as a
transactional device. In particular the telecommunications industry, looking for
ways to increase revenue in unsettling times, firmly pursues the options available to
allow consumers to pay for products and services using their mobile phones
(Dornan 2001).
A prerequisite to carry out transactions using a mobile phone is an effective mobile
payment system. However, no standardised, widely adopted mobile payment
system has yet emerged, and this is believed to be one of the factors that inhibits
widespread use of mobile commerce (Carlsson 2001; Kruger 2001). In one panel at
last year’s Bled conference, it was argued that “without standardised mobile
payment solutions, the traditional problems of failure to complete transactions
which are so prevalent in web-based EC would apply to mobile commerce as well”
(Hampe & Swatman, 2001, p. 63).
This paper reports on a research project that examined the factors that affect the
early implementation success of mobile payment systems. Mobile payments (or mpayments)
are defined as payments that are carried out via the mobile phone
(Kruger 2001). We define a mobile payment system, in line with Shon &
Swatman’s definition of an internet payment system (Shon and Swatman 1997), as
“any conventional or new payment system which enables financial transactions to
be made securely from one organisation or individual to another over a mobile
network”.
Relatively little has been published on the factors that affect the introduction of
mobile payment systems (see Kruger, 2001 for an exception). No doubt this can be
attributed to the sheer novelty of these systems, and the turbulent markets that these
systems have been facing since their market introduction. All of this makes it
difficult to observe and study them at this point in time. To overcome this issue we
have started from the venture point that a lot can be learned from research on
internet paying systems, payment systems that have been introduced to facilitate
payments made over the internet. Specifically, our approach has been the following.
First we transferred factors affecting the introduction of internet payment systems to
a mobile setting. We then contrasted this framework with the views of 13
executives we interviewed in Sweden and the Netherlands.
This paper is organised as follows. The next section will introduce mobile payment
systems in more detail and discuss their structure, the market players, and several
examples. We then focus on previous work related to factors affecting the
successful introduction of mobile payment systems. In particular, we examine the
literature that discusses electronic payment systems in general. Section 4 describes
the design of our empirical research in more detail. In section 5, we contrast the
results of the empirical study with the literature. The last section presents some
conclusions and directions for further research.
Factors Affecting the Successful Introduction of Mobile Payment Systems
432
2. Mobile Payment Systems
Although the implementation details of different mobile payment systems vary,
their structure is quite similar (Kruger, 2001, Figure 1). First, a customer and a
merchant agree on a transaction and either one of them notifies the mobile payment
service provider. The mobile payment service provider confirms the transaction to
customer via his/her mobile phone and then asks the customer for approval. Once
approved, the provider administers the transaction and stores the appropriate fund
transfer instructions. Periodically, these payment instructions are cleared, resulting
in net payment instructions. Settlement can take place in a variety of ways. On the
merchant’s side, it is usually the bank account which is updated. On the customer’s
side, one of a prepaid account, a bank account or a credit card account is updated.
Also, in many payment systems a monthly bill is sent, similar to the monthly phone
bill.
Figure 1: The Structure of Mobile Payments (adapted from (Kruger 2001), p. 15)
In a typical retail environment, it is the terminal at the point of sale who calls the
provider. The provider then notifies the customer by calling his or her mobile
phone. Approval takes place by entering a PIN-code. Some mobile payment
systems do not require PIN-code approval for small payments. In that case, just
pressing one button on the mobile phone is sufficient.
A notable difference between a mobile payment system and other electronic
payment systems is the identification of the customer (and the merchant). In a
mobile payment system, this identification is the GSM phone number. In other
systems it is either the bank account number, or an interim account. The implication
is that one can send funds to and retrieve funds from a phone number, rather than
the bank account. This is similar to payment systems that rely on the customer’s email
address as the prime identifier (e.g. Paypal).
Because mobile payment systems encompass both the retail sector, the financial
services sector and the telecommunications sector, their introduction is usually
prepared by a consortium of market players. These players can include telcos,
resellers, banks, credit card companies, 3rd party clearing houses, hard & software
suppliers, solution integrators, retailers. Indeed, examples of consortia in almost any
conceivable combination do exist today.
In Europe, a number of mobile payment systems are competing for market share.
Table 1 lists a non-exclusive number of representative systems that are currently
operational. An up to date, detailed overview of electronic payment systems in
Europe, including mobile systems, can be found in the ePOS database, available
online at http://www.epso.jrc.es, which is maintained by the Institute for
Prospective Technological Studies in Seville, Spain.
Table 1: Representative Mobile Payment Systems in Europe
3. Previous Work on Internet Payment Systems
A number of authors have studied the factors that influence the success of an
internet payment system (Clemons, Croson et al. 1997; Shon and Swatman 1997;
Jayawardhena and Foley 1998; Bohle, Krueger et al. 2000; Turban and Brahm
2000; Turban, King et al. 2002). We will briefly discuss their work in this section.
A Delphi study carried out by (Shon and Swatman 1997) on effectiveness criteria
for internet payment systems (IPS) revealed 15 factors distributed over six types of
stakeholders: financial institutions, IPS providers, merchants, consumers, regulators
and network providers. Security and reliability was important for almost all groups.
Lower transaction costs were favoured by merchants, consumers and financial
institutions. Scalability and universality were important factors for network
providers. Flexibility was also important for merchants.
In a study of the Mondex system, an early alternative for cash in the beginning of
the 1990’s introduced by Mastercard, (Clemons, Croson et al. 1997) consider the
They argue that the issues are Factors Affecting the Successful Introduction of Mobile Payment Systems not “simply whether benefits from the product will exceed the costs of its creation assuming that it is adopted, but rather issues of channel coordination, consumer
acceptance, and merchant acceptance. The feasibility of the initial business case
rests on gaining a critical mass of consumer and merchant acceptance” (p. 256).
Critical mass is closely related to the universality requirement, as an important
indication of critical mass is how universally available the payment system is. Poon
& Chau (2001) studied the e-payment system Octopus, an alternative for Mondex,
and also concluded that critical mass (which they term network goods leverage) and
standardisation are important requirements for the success of any new payment
system.
Jayawardhena & Foley conclude that there are three types of requirements for every
internet payment system (Jayawardhena and Foley 1998). The degree to which an
internet payment system can meet these requirements determines its success. There
are requirements related to the transaction itself (1), to the security of the
transaction (2), and other requirements (3). Transaction requirements include cost,
flexibility, ease of use, fungibility (exchangeability), and universality of the payment
system. Security requirements include privacy, anonymity, trustworthiness, and the
extent to which the payment system is backed up by a regulatory framework. Other
requirements include transferability of value, integration with back end systems,
unobtrusiveness, scalability, remote access, functionality, and user support.
In a study of the strategic issues surrounding electronic payment systems, Bohle et
al (2000) identify four issues that are related to „the demands of different actors
who shape and constrain the corridor of future retail payment systems“ (p. 2). These
are regulation (1), standardisation and interoperability (2), consumer protection,
anonymity, privacy and security (3), and integration of payments into online
transactions (4).
Finally, Turban et al. list a number of crucial factors that determine whether an
internet payment system will achieve widespread acceptance (Turban, King et al.
2002). These are independence, interoperability and portability, security,
anonymity, divisibility, ease of use, and transaction fees. Independence refers to the
degree to which the system requires specialised hardware and software.
Interoperability refers to the degree to which the system can integrate with backend
systems. E-Payment systems should minimise the risk run by buyer and seller
(security) and not disclose information that trails a buyer to the transaction
(anonymity). Divisibility refers to the spectrum of transaction amounts that a
system supports, and ease of use to the degree of effort associated with making the
transaction. A final factor that influences the acceptance of electronic payment
systems is the amount of transaction fee charged to the merchant and/or to the
consumer.
In Table 2 we have tried to synthesize these studies and arrive at a common set of
factors that could influence the success of electronic payment systems. These
factors provide the preliminary set of factors that influence the success of mobile
payment systems.
Table 2: Preliminary set of factors influencing the success of mobile payment
systems
4. Study Design
In order to get a better grip on the set of factors that affect the success of mobile
payment systems, we decided to carry out an empirical study. The subjects of our
study were executives who were directly responsible for the introduction of mobile
payment systems. The interview research method was selected because we felt that
a rich, qualitative response would provide more insight than relatively standardised
survey responses.
Eventually, we decided to conduct interviews with executives in one of the leading
Scandinavian regions on mobile commerce: Stockholm, Sweden (in particular the
Kista area). The market penetration of mobile phones in Scandinavia is very high if
not the highest in Europe. Because of this, many international companies have set
up mobile and wireless competence centers in Stockholm and Helsinki to
experiment with new mobile services (Kviselius 2001). Also, there are at least two
mobile payment systems fully operational in the Stockholm area, so we could
benefit from the experience that was gained during the introduction of these
systems.
Table 3 lists details about the interviews that were carried out in Stockholm. All the
interviews took place in Winter 2001.
Table 3: Interviews held in Stockholm
Each of the interviews had the following structure. First, we introduced ourselves
and explained the nature of our study. We then continued by explaining in brief the
factors as identified in the previous section. The interviewees then explained their
role in the mobile payment market and we continued by discussing each factor in
greater detail. Also, we asked the interviewee whether he or she had encountered
any specific bottle-necks or drivers of success that we had failed to identify so far.
To corroborate our findings, we decided to discuss the results with a number of
executives in a different region in Europe: Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Similar to
the Stockholm area, the region of Amsterdam has also an active mobile industry,
and many new companies have been set up to exploit mobile opportunities.
Confirmation or disconfirmation of the results in a different European region would
strengthen our results and give us some right to claim pan-European generalisability
(although admittedly, Stockholm and Amsterdam are not that culturally different
when compared to other European cities).
Our approach in Amsterdam was similar to the approach in Stockholm. We also had
the opportunity to invite the Dutch executives for a round table discussion, which
took place after all interviews were conducted. Table 4 lists the executives who
participated in the interviews and the round-table discussion in Amsterdam, which
also took place in the Winter of 2001.
Table 4: Interviews Held in Amsterdam
In the following section we will convey the results of our empirical study and link
these results to the previous work from section 3.
5. Discussion
Rather than exposing the responses for each interview session individually, we have
summarised and synthesised the various results in a number of key findings. Our
overall finding was that the market players were skeptical, sometimes even cynical
about the succesful introduction of mobile payment solutions. Certainly, there were
no signs of massive take-up in both countries. This may well be a sign of the times,
because in Winter 2001 the situation for the mobile industry looked particularly
gloomy. For example, one interviewee explained that his company had participated
in mobile payment experiments in multiple countries and with multiple participants.
Neither of these had been very succesful and because of this he advised us to go
back home and conduct another, more promising research project. While not every
interviewee took this pessimistic stance, the general feeling was similar.
Of course, what was and still is interesting to us is why mobile payment systems
had not been that succesful so far and why it was that not every participant agreed
that it would be succesful in the future. Do the factors that were identified in the
context of internet payment systems play a role, or were there other factors? The
remainder of this section deals with these questions.
We observed that a mere list of critical success factors does not fully do justice to
the fact that the introduction of a mobile payment system is a complex economic
game with multiple stakeholders. As in most markets with network externalities, the
acceptance and use of the system by one stakeholder is highly dependent on the
acceptance and use of the system by another (cf. discussion of this subject by
Shapiro & Varian, 1999). The executives argued almost unanimously that merchant
acceptance, consumer acceptance, telco acceptance, and bank acceptance were
highly interdependent requirements, and that critical mass in one area would
certainly impact critical mass in another area, and vice versa. Some of them felt like
playing on four different chess boards simultaneously, and when they moved one
chess piece on one board, various other chess pieces on the other boards would
move at the same time, in unexpected ways. It is no suprise that such a complex
management challenge, in the presence of bounded rationality, leads to 1) less then
optimal results, 2) a more than average dependence on luck, and 3) radical attempts
by the players to simplify the problem and to make it managerially tractable. Some
mobile payment systems effectively ruled out, or „by passed“, banks and telcos in
the beginning of their life cycle, because the complexities of dealing with these
market players were simply beyond what the players could bear at that stage.
Focusing on consumer and merchant acceptance and getting both of them to work at
the same time was already hard enough.
While the interviewees agreed that bottle-necks could occur on all four
„chessboards“, the merchant chessboard was particularly challenging. This had to
do, in large part, with the fact that merchants were eventually the ones who would
pay the payment system provider for their services, in a vein similar to credit card
issuers. While every effort was made to reduce or eliminate transaction fees for
consumers (such as a toll-free number to call the payment system), the merchants
were frequently ear-marked as the prime source of revenue. Many merchants of
course, are small and medium enterprises, and do not like the idea of paying for
something when there are acceptable, free substitutes such as cash around.
The executives in our interview sessions who represented large retail organisations
had a different view on this subject however. They saw mobile payment systems as
a viable alternative to the debit card and credit card systems, in particular because
mobile payment systems would charge lower transaction fees. Since the banks and
the large credit card companies have a great deal of power because of their large
customer base, merchants found it difficult to negotiate transaction fees with these
parties. By introducing mobile payment in their stores, an alternative to the debit
cards and the credit cards could be offered to consumers. As one executive said,
„we are extremely interested in anything that transfers payments cheaper than debit
and credit cards. But it has to be as fast and preferably faster.“
Another merchant acceptance issue was the ease-of-use at their side of the payment
system. The shop attendants did not always know what to do when a consumer
indicated he or she wanted to pay via the mobile phone. While initial training was
of course provided by the payment system provider, the merchants tended to forget
how to operate the system as time went by. Furthermore, there is always some
turnover in retail shops, so new employees arrived who were not aware of the
mobile payment system. Clearly, when shop merchants show anxiety in using the
system and „press the wrong buttons“, consumer confidence in the mobile payment
system is unlikely to increase. And if these consumers, early adopters so valuable in
the early stages of a new product, have a bad initial experience with the payment
service, this is simply critical. Interestingly, one payment system provider attempted
to beat this challenge by instructing his employees to systematically visit every
shop that had accepted the payment system and to pay something using the system.
This ensured that the mobile payment system was kept operational by the merchant
and that the shop attendants did not forget how to operate it.
As noted earlier, the traditional alternatives available to consumers to pay for a
product are difficult to beat. The advantages of physical cash exchange are clear: it
is simple, fast, and there is no additional cost involved. Because of this, most
mobile payment systems provide the service free to consumers, and continue to do
so because switching back to cash is very easy for all consumers. Taking a more
competitive viewpoint, one could argue that mobile payment systems compete with
cash for the consumer’s favour, and the consumer places value on one payment
system by taking into account the value offered by the „competition“. For this
reason, both cost and ease of use are typically evaluated in their relationship to
other alternatives, such as traditional cash.
The interviewees agreed that in particular the calling of a phone number (10 digits
most of the time) by either consumer or merchant to initiate the transaction was too
time-consuming and too error-prone. Alternatives to overcome the usability
problems were coming available on the market however. In particular, the
technology to „identify“ a certain mobile phone using a desk panel was deemed
promising. When the panel at the merchant desk had identified the phone, it could
call the mobile payment provider automatically with the payment information. This
would eliminate the manual calling of the phone number. A promising development
also includes the integration of mobile payment systems with loyalty cards, who can
be used at the P.O.S. to identify the customers and to call their mobile phones. At
the time this study took place (winter 2001), these technologies were still relatively
immature and were not incorporated in the mobile payment systems that were
operational.
Looking back to the preliminary set of factors identified in section 3, we can
observe that many of the factors that were identified in previous work also play
their role in mobile payment systems. The interviewees emphasized merchant
acceptance and consumer acceptance (universality), and stressed the importance of
cost (transaction fees) and ease of use for both parties. Bank acceptance or telco
acceptance were important too, but many executives (including those working for
banks and telcos) agreed that this would not be too great a problem if merchant
acceptance and consumer acceptance did materialise.
Security was emphasized, both for merchants and for consumers, but it was usually
framed in a factor that can best be described as perceived risk. Most of the
payments done through the mobile payment system are micropayments, and if for
one reason or another the transaction fails, the damage done would not be
particularly great. Many believed that the development of confidence in the mobile
payment system by taking appropriate security measures would positively affect
perceived risk.
Technological feasibility and user support, two other mentioned factors, were deemphasized
by the interviewees. We suggest this is because 1) these factors were
being treated like hygiene factors, and 2) these are issues that were largely under
their own control. User support and technological feasibility were almost taken for
granted: these are features of a mobile payment system that just have to be there.
However, when they are present, they will not by themselves contribute to
consumer and merchant acceptance – a typical characteristic of a hygiene factor.
Second, the market players were confident that they could solve any technical
irregularities by themselves. Because it is human nature to worry more about the
tasks of those beyond your control than those within your control, this may be the
reason why they did not regard these factors as critical for the acceptance of a
mobile payment system.
Independence, e.g. the degree to which specialised hardware and software needed to
be installed, was mentioned too by the interviewers (e.g. the desk panel in the
shop). One can argue however, that eventually, independence boils down to issues
of cost and ease of use. For example, the original set of factors assumed that
additional installment of hardware and software will be costly and less easy to use.
Thus, the more independent the system, the higher the acceptance. Yet, the desk
panel technology was embraced by the interviewers, and so this would appear to
conflict with our preliminary set, but in this case, the additional hardware would
actually increase ease of use.
We have synthesized the critical factors for the succesful introduction of mobile
payment systems in Figure 1. In this graphical framework, we have tried to adapt
the original set of factors to what we have learned during the interview and roundtable
sessions. In summary, these enrichments are: 1) the explicit separation
between consumer and merchant acceptance, 2) the dynamics between these
stakeholders (rather than simply listing the universality factor), 3) the emphasis on
factors the interviewees deemed important, and 4) the de-emphasis of factors that
are less critical.
Figure 2: Factors Affecting the Successful Introduction of Mobile Payment Systems
6. Conclusions and Further Research
In this paper, we have conceptually and empirically investigated the factors that
affect the success of mobile payment systems. While many factors are at play at the
same time, a number of them stood out at this early stage of their lifecycle. In the
area of consumer acceptance, these are their cost relative to other payment methods,
their ease of use, and their perceived risk. In the area of merchant acceptance,
transaction fees compared to debit and credit card systems are important, as is, to a
significant extent, the ease of use for the merchant. Finally, both customer and
merchant acceptance are highly interdependent as each influences the other,
especially during the early stages of the lifecycle.
For practitioners who develop and introduce mobile payment systems, these
findings have a number of implications. First of all, we believe merchant
acceptance and consumer acceptance should be addressed and targeted seperately,
as each of these groups faces different requirements. Also, since the benefits of a
mobile payment need to be addressed relative to substitutes, areas where the relative
advantage is highest are especially attractive. These include, for instance, home
deliveries, and car parking. A third implication is that building the customer base
and the merchant base interdependently is one of the most important management
challenges to get the mobile payment system succesfully introduced.
In terms of further research, we recommend carrying out a more quantitative
oriented study, for example a survey with consumers and merchants. This would
give insight in the relative importance of each factor for the acceptance of particular
mobile payment systems. Of interest would also be the opinions of those already
exposed to a mobile payment system and those who are not, since this would give
some insight into the degree to which such a system is actually an experience good
(a good whose value can only be properly assessed after having consumed the
good). Finally, an international study would also give insight in the degree to which
consumers in different countries differ in their perception of the need for a mobile
payment system.
We agree with Hampe and Swatman (2001) that standardised mobile payment
systems are an important prerequisite for the widescale adoption of mobile
commerce services. For this reason, we offer this study to practicitioners and our
academic colleagues. We do so in the hope that it will contribute to a sharpened
focus on the critical factors affecting mobile payment solutions.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Louis Kinsbergen for his support during this
research, and Menno Schilder and Coen Wartenhorst for their assistance. Thanks
also to the interviewees in Stockholm and Amsterdam for their willingness to
participate in this project, and to Pablo Valiente for his valuable comments on an
earlier draft of this paper.
References
Bohle, K., M. Krueger, et al. (2000). Electronic payment systems: strategic and
technical issues. Seville, Electronic Payment Systems Observatory (ePSO),
http://epso.jrc.es: 20.
Carlsson, C. (2001). Mobile commerce: core issues, products and services. Panel at
the Bled Electronic Commerce Conference, Bled, Slovenia.
Clemons, E. K., D. C. Croson, et al. (1997). “Reengineering money: the Mondex
stored value card and beyond.” International Journal of Electronic
Commerce 1(2): 5-31.
Dornan, A. (2001). The essential guide to wireless communications applications:
from cellular systems to WAP and m-commerce. Upper Saddle River, NJ,
Prentice Hall.
Hampe, J. F. and P. M. C. Swatman (2001). Mobile payment: opportunities,
challenges and solutions. Panel at the Bled Electronic Commerce
Conference, Bled, Slovenia.
Jayawardhena, C. and P. Foley (1998). “Overcoming constraints on electronic
commerce: Internet payment systems.” Journal of General Management
24(2): 19-35.
Kruger, M. (2001). The future of M-payments: business options and policy issues.
Seville, Electronic Payment Systems Observatory (ePSO),
http://epso.jrc.es: 29.
Kviselius, N. Z. (2001). Swedish mobile internet companies. Stockholm, Stockholm
School of Economics: 129.
Poon, S. and P. Y. K. Chau (2001). “Octopus: the growing e-payment system in
Hong Kong.” Electronic markets 11(1): 1-10.
Shapiro, C. and H. Varian (1999). Information Rules. Boston, Massachusetts,
Harvard Business School Press.
Shon, T. H. and P. M. C. Swatman (1997). Effectiveness criteria for internet
payment systems. First pacifica-asia workshop on electronic commerce,
Brisbane, Australia.
Turban, E. and J. Brahm (2000). “Smart card-based electronic card payment
systems in the transportation industry.” Journal of Organizational
Computing and Electronic Commerce 10(4): 281-293.
Turban, E., D. King, et al. (2002). Electronic commerce 2002: a managerial
perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Pearson Education.
จากบทความ
Factors Affecting
the Successful Introduction of Mobile Payment
Systems
สรุปประเด็นต่อไปนี้
1.ปัญหาในงานวิจัย
ผู้ให้สัมภาษณ์บางส่วนซึ่งเกี่ยวข้องกับการการทดลองชำระเงินมือถือในหลายประเทศและมีผู้เข้าร่วมหลายรายซึ่งบริษัทเหล่านี้ไม่ได้รับการประสบความสำเร็จในการทดลองการชำระเงินผ่านระบบโทรศัพท์ทำให้มองระบบการชำระเงินในแง่ร้ายแคะคิดว่าไม่ประสบความสำเร็จ
ทำให้มองการสัมภาษณ์ในแง่ร้ายซึ่งอาจส่งผลกระทบต่อการสรุปผลการวิจัยได้
2. วัตถุประสงค์ของงานวิจัย
เพื่อศึกษาและวิจัยการดำเนินธุรกรรมทางการเงินผ่านช่องทางทางโทรศัพท์มือถือโดยเฉพาะระบบการชำระเงินผ่านโทรศัพท์มือถือว่าเป็นอย่างไร
มีปัญหาและอุปสรรคข้อดีข้อเสีย อย่างไรบ้าง รวมถึงแนวโน้มการขยายตัว
การการดำเนินการดำเนินธุรกรรมทางการเงินผ่านช่องทางทางโทรศัพท์มือถือ
3. ระบุชื่องานวิจัยที่ผู้วิจัยนำมากล่าวอ้างอิง 2
คน (ชื่องานวิจัย ชื่อเจ้าของงานวิจัย ปีที่ทำวิจัย)
1.Kruger, M. (2001). The future of M-payments:
business options and policy issues.
Seville, Electronic Payment Systems Observatory (ePSO),
http://epso.jrc.es: 29.
2. Clemons, E. K., D. C. Croson, et al. (1997).
“Reengineering money: the Mondex
stored value card and beyond.” International Journal of Electronic
Commerce 1(2): 5-31.
Dornan, A. (2001). The essential
4. วิธีการเก็บรวบรวมข้อมูล (เก็บข้อมูลจากใคร
เก็บอย่างไร)
เริ่มจากการศึกษาการดำเนินการธุรกรรมทางการเงินผ่านระบบอินเตอร์เน็ต
จากนั้นจึงนำไปสู่การดำเนินการธุรกรรมผ่านทางโทรศัพท์มือถือโดยขยายความให้ชัดเจนขึ้นผ่านทางการเก็บข้อมูลจากการสัมภาษณ์มุมมองของผู้บริหาร
13 คน ในประเทศสวีเดนและเนเธอร์แลนด์ที่มีต่อระบบการดำเนินการธุรกรรมผ่านทางโทรศัพท์มือถือ
5. ผลที่ได้จากงานวิจัย
ปัจจัยที่มีผลต่อการชำระเงินและการทำธุรกรรมผ่านระบบโทรศัพท์มือถือมีหลายอย่างได้แก่
1.
จำนวนผู้ที่จะใช้งานเกี่ยวกับการดำเนินการธุรกรรมการเงินผ่านระบบโทรศัพท์มือถือที่จะเข้ามาสู่การใช้งานระบบการดำเนินธุรกรรมการเงินและการชำระเงินผ่านระบบโทรศัพท์
2.
พื้นที่ให้บริการลูกค้า
ว่าคลอบคลุมแค่ไหนอย่างไรบ้าง
3.
ค่าใช้จ่ายหรือค่าธรรมเนียมในการดำเนินการธุรกรรมโดยผ่านระบบโทรศัพท์เมื่อเทียบกับวิธีการชำระเงินโดยวิธีอื่นๆ
4.
ความสะดวกและมีความง่ายดายในการดำเนินการแค่ไหนอย่างไร
5.
สำหรับร้านค้าค่าใช้จ่ายหรือค่าธรรมเนียมเป็นอย่างไรเมื่อเทียบกับการชำระเงินด้วยเดบิตหรือเครดิตการ์ด
สุดท้ายทั้งลูกค้าและร้านค้าจะมีการยอมรับระบบการชำระเงินและการทำธุรกรรมการเงินผ่านโทรศัพท์มือถือแค่ไหนโดยเฉพาะช่วงเริ่มแรกของการใช้งาน
สำหรับผู้ปฏิบัติงานที่พัฒนาและแนะนำระบบการชำระเงินผ่านระบบโทรศัพท์มือถือต้องมองภาพของผู้ใช้บริการในส่วนของลูกค้าและร้านค้าแยกออกจากกันตามความต้องการของแต่ละกลุ่มต่อไป
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น