Enhance Internet Banking Service Quality with Quality Function Deployment Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Internet banking providers tend to introduce to consumers as many services as possible very often without knowing what the customers really want and expect from them. Within the traditional banking environment it was almost impossible to monitor and record data on secondby- second actions and interactions with the customers. The fact is that the electronic environment allows Internet banking providers to capture enormous amount of information about customer behaviour during the whole process of service consumption and to collect their opinions and requirements in different forms. However, the first question is whether Internet banking providers are able to analyse and conceptualise them and further to translate them into service design specifications. The second issue concerns an e-service quality management framework based on the customers' requirements that would allow managing the quality of Internet banking services, developing quality measurement system and so facilitating full control over service quality in electronic environment. Quality Function deployment (QFD) is a distinguished product and service design technique primary oriented to deliver 'voice of the customer' throughout every single planning and design activity. Taking into account the trends of moving the banking products and services online this paper demonstrates the application of QFD to Internet banking and it outlines the links among service quality management, its concepts, and tools and Internet banking services. QFD application resulted in formulating the current service quality dimensions, disclosed the quality management deficiencies and provided decision support for the e-banking managers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".