Evaluating factors contributing to the failure of information system in the banking industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing use of Information Technology (IT) has led to many security and other related failures in the banks and other financial institutions in Bangladesh. In this paper, we investigated the factors contributing to the failurein the IT system of the banking industry in Bangladesh. Based on the experts' opinions and weight on the specified evaluating criteria, an empirical test was conducted using a rough set theory to produce a framework for the IT system failure factors. In this study, an extended approach involving the integration of rough set theory based flexible Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) and the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) has beenapplied to help the managers of the corresponding field to identify the factors responsible for the failure of the IT system in the banking industries and then prioritize them accordingly, for the ease of decision-making.In this research, eleven such failure factors were identified, which were then quantitatively analyzed to facilitate managers in crucial decision-making. It was observed that cyber-attack, database hack risks, server failure, network interruption, broadcast data error, and virus effect were the most significant factors for the failure of the IT system. The framework developed in this research can be utilized to assist in efficient decision-makingin other serviceindustries where IT systems play a key role. To the best of the knowledge, this is the first study thatempirically tested key failure factors of the IT system for the banking sector using an integrated method.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".