The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive

xt archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-2323.htm

IJBM
22,7 In search of the Internet-banking
customer
Exploring the use of decision styles
484
Mark Durkin
School of Marketing, Entrepreneurship and Strategy, University of Ulster,
Received February 2004
Revised July 2004 Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
Accepted August 2004
Keywords Banking, Internet, Decision making, Consumer behaviour, Internet marketing
Abstract The focus on new technologies in service situations is growing and is of particular
importance in financial-services contexts. It is argued that there is mutuality of benefit for both
bank and customer through the adoption of self-service technologies (SSTs), of which e-banking is
but one example. Having established problems in the use of conventional segmentation methods,
this paper reports on a study into Internet banking that focuses on the extent to which 480
retail-bank customers can be clustered according to an adapted decision-making framework. How
such clusters can help influence the adoption of the Internet-banking interface is explored. Findings
show an encouraging match between the four sample clusters identified from the case bank and the
a priori classification of decision styles. This raises opportunities for the case bank’s marketing
strategy in terms of offering greater insight into the motivations for the adoption of e-banking
solutions within the customer base. High levels of Internet use at work are seen to positively
influence e-banking registration.

The International Journal of Bank
Marketing
Vol. 22 No. 7, 2004
pp. 484-503
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0265-2323
DOI 10.1108/02652320410567917
Introduction
Technology continues to make a dramatic and profound impact in service industries
and radically shapes how services are delivered (Bitner et al., 2000). The primary
motivation for the increasing role of technology in service organisations has been to
reduce costs and eliminate uncertainties (Kelly, 1989) as well as being used to
standardise services by reducing the heterogeneity prevalent in the typical
employee/customer encounter (Quinn, 1996).
Such technological change raises the important question of the extent to which
different customers may prefer face-to-face interaction in preference to new
technology-enabled remote channels and what the influencers and inhibitors on the
balance between these two interaction modes might be for different customer groups.
To what extent the personalised interface could, or should, be removed from the front
line in banking and for what customers is a key question for banks today (Joseph et al.,
1999). This general service issue forms part of the challenge facing financial service
providers and involves managing the balance between staffing levels, new
technological delivery platforms, branch networks and customer preferences (Hewer
et al., 2003).
The recent academic focus on customer self-service technologies (SSTs) highlights
the importance of exploring research issues where technology acts as a service enabler
for the customer (see Gwinner et al., 1998; Bitner et al., 2000; Selnes and Hansen, 2001).
The benefits of such technologies are argued to be centred around the fact that
“customers can access services when and where they want without some of the The
complications of inter-personal exchanges” (Bitner et al., 2000). Internet-banking
Internet banking is one such SST and represents the research focus in this paper.
This paper reports on a two-stage research study. The study examined the customer
perceptions of bankers and customers regarding the adoption of Internet banking.
Stage 1 of the research was a qualitative study comprising depth interviews with
senior bank executives in Sweden, UK/Ireland and USA (see Durkin and Howcroft, 485
2003). Stage 2 followed sequentially and involved the issue of a survey questionnaire to
5,000 UK bank customers that sought to identify key influencers and inhibitors on
adoption of the Internet for banking.
Prompted by the key stage 1 finding that many international bank respondents
interviewed were unclear as to the segment profile of their Internet banking users,
especially in behavioural terms, a key part of the stage 2 study focused on attempting
to identify such groups. The difficulties of effectively managing segmentation in
financial services has been reported in the literature (Machauer and Morgner, 2001;
Stone et al., 2002)
A central aspect of the stage 2 study reported here was to more usefully identify
customer groups through how they made decisions about the adoption of a new
innovation rather than by use of conventional demographic segmentation criteria
(Machauer and Morgner, 2001; Smith, 2004). A review of extant research in decision
making based on the work of Driver et al. (1998) led to the development of an adapted
decision styles framework deemed more suitable to bank customers. Factor analysis
and a cluster analysis methodology was used.
The research objective in this research is therefore to examine the extent to which
the sample of case bank[1] customers can be classified into clusters according to a
typology developed and adapted from the extant literature from Driver’s work on
decision making and decision styles. It is the findings of the factor analysis and cluster
analysis part of the research study that are reported here and which raise key issues for
management of the case bank as they attempt to more clearly identify customer
motivations for Internet banking adoption and use.

Retail banking and segmentation

In recent years banks have moved towards a marketing orientation and the adoption of
relationship banking principles (Axson, 1992; Hollander, 1985; Berry, 1995). The key
motivators for embracing marketing principles were the competitive pressures that
arose from deregulation of the financial services market. This essentially exposed
clearing banks and the retail banking market to increased competition and led to a
blurring of boundaries in many traditional product markets (Howcroft, 1998).
Segmentation is a key method employed by banks to better understand and service
their customers in this increasingly competitive environment (Meadows and Dibb,
1998a). Characteristics of the financial services sector indicate it is a suitable area for
market segmentation, most notably a diverse customer base with wide ranging needs
and buyer behaviour manifest through various channel interfaces (Meadows and Dibb,
1998b). While conceptually segmentation is straightforward, financial institutions
have been slower to capitalise on its potential than some other industries (McKechnie
and Harrison, 1995). Speed and Smith (1992) highlight a research gap in understanding
how segmentation strategies could be implemented more effectively.
IJBM In their critical review of financial services segmentation, Speed and Smith (1992)
22,7 suggest that a priori segmentation, which charges the researcher with determining the
size and character of segments, is the most widely used. This approach involves the
use of demographic information. In contrast, post hoc methods are less widely used and
entail the grouping of respondents according to their responses to particular variables.
Multivariate techniques such as cluster analysis and factor analysis can then be
486 applied to these responses (Meadows and Dibb, 1998b).
Increasingly there is a focus on behavioural segmentation (Elliott and Glynn, 1998;
Soper, 2002). The behavioural approach contrasts with the process of segmentation based
on customer characteristics in that the focus is more driven by customer “needs”. It is
argued that such a need identification approach is more robust than a classification of
characteristics and that it is more probable that the segments that are consequently
identified will be ultimately more predictive of purchase behaviour (Elliott and Glynn,
1998). Nunes and Cespedes (2003, p. 99) argue that while “demographic segmentation can
still tell you what people buy, demographics no longer tell you how people shop . . . it’s a
poor basis for channel design. The only rational basis is to integrate buyer behaviour”. In
support of this approach, Smith (2004, p. 27) argues that any approach to segmentation
that is not focused on clustering customers according to their motivations “is simply an
approximation based on the assumption that descriptors (i.e. characteristics) and
motivations (i.e. needs/behaviour) are closely aligned – usually they are not”.
Machauer and Morgner (2001) propose that the a priori segmentation method
(Green, 1977) and post hoc segmentation methods (Gwinn and Lindgren, 1982)
currently employed reveal little of predictive use to bank marketers. In support of this,
qualitative research conducted with an international sample of senior bank executives
found a lack of clarity in terms of what market segments these bank executives felt
were best served by their Internet banking proposition and what motivations of
different customer groups were in adoption (Durkin and Howcroft, 2003).
Research by Barczak et al. (1997) argues that adopters of consumer innovations differ in
their usage of technological products because of their behaviour and motivations for
usage. These researchers provided the example of an on-line grocery shopping service that
may be used by one individual through choice but another through necessity perhaps
because of a physical disability. Thus similar usage patterns may actually hide different
motives for use. Their study based on financial service consumers identified distinct
motivational clusters that were independent of the more established demographic
segmentation variables banks used in targeting and communicating. The research
suggests that customer motivations may be useful in predicting their response to new
products as well as persuading them to use existing services for the specific benefits they
value. The researchers conclude that all of the clusters identified needed to be informed
and educated about the benefits given their own specific personal motivations for
managing money as many of the generic advertising and merchandising messages
undertaken by the bank were not picked up on by these distinct clusters. Similarly,
Machauer and Morgner (2001) adopted a cluster analysis methodology as they attempted
to better understand customer perceived benefits of the bank relationship and in particular
the e-banking channel.
In summary therefore, it is evident that there is a general lack of clarity as to what
segments of banks’ customer bases are adopting the Internet innovation for their
banking and that the important issues of motivation and how decisions regarding
adoption of the e-banking platform are not well served through traditional The
segmentation and profiling tools. Internet-banking
customer
Technology in banking
Technology is making a dramatic impact upon service industries generally and the
financial services sector is no exception. Indeed, commentators believe, that with the
possible exception of deregulation, technological change is likely to have the greatest 487
impact on the banking sector over the next decade (McCartan-Quinn et al., 2004;
Jayawardhena and Foley, 2000). While “the infusion of new technologies in the services
sector is ubiquitous” (Lee and Allaway, 2002) there remains limited literature
describing studies that have been conducted with regard to the propensity and motives
of customers to use technology when interacting with their banks (Zeithaml and Gilly,
1987; Moutinho and Meidan, 1989; Leblanc, 1990). This research attempts to focus on
this area of omission.
Historically research in technology adoption in banking focused on the automated
teller machine technology (ATMs) (see Marr and Prendergast, 1991, 1993). More recent
research specific to the growth of self-service technologies (SSTs) has been conducted
by Lee and Allaway (2002) who propose that a successful SST improves service firms
resource management by lowering delivery costs and by releasing service personnel to
provide better and more varied service. This point is supported by Ricard et al. (2001, p.
300) who claim that SSTs can “ensure a customised service offering, help companies
recover from service failure and are often perceived by customers as a delightful
experience”. Lang and Colgate (2003, p. 30) argue however that technology may not
always have a positive impact on the relationship between supplier and customer and
highlight that “few authors have investigated whether the presence of IT-mediated
channels have a detrimental effect on firms’ relationships with their customers’.
Lee (2002) highlights a need for the availability of both a “high-tech” and a
“high-touch” approach where the human service dimensions are considered as
important as the technology enabled remote service interactions. Several authors have
cautioned against any attempt to replace the availability of human service interaction
with technology in various industry contexts (Pine et al., 1995; Chase, 1978; Kelly,
1989). Ricard et al. (2001) highlight the difficulty in proposing a broader perspective
towards a reconciliation of the extremes of dominantly personal or dominantly remote
interactions. They highlight two “diametrically opposed schools of thought; one
suggests that the use of technology has a positive impact on the relationship approach
. . . the other predicts a negative impact because the technology can diminish the
customer’s interest in a relationship approach” (Ricard et al., 2001, p. 301).
The conflicting views cited in this literature point up a lack of clarity in issues of
effectively determining interaction preferences for both banks and varying groups of
customers. The propensity and tolerances of the varying customer segments to embrace
SSTs and for what purposes, products and services seems a key consideration in this
debate and adds to its complexity. This, combined with the contention that “a correlation
between conventional demographic segmentation and clients’ needs cannot be assumed”
(Machauer and Morgner, 2001) points up the need for an alternative approach.
It is argued in this research that key to understanding customer motivations in
embracing SSTs, specifically Internet banking in this case, is an appreciation of how
customers make decisions in the adoption of new innovations such as the Internet.
IJBM Accordingly, the issue of how customers make decisions, what will motivate
22,7 customers to make the decision to embrace the Internet banking platform, and how
such motivations can be identified, understood and influenced, is deemed key to bank
marketers.

488 Decision-making processes and decision styles

An example of decision making proposed by Driver (1979) is that of the
maximiser-satisficer model – a contingency model relating to information search.
Psychological research conducted over many decades by Driver indicates there are
satisficers and maximisers and that various decision styles exist within these broad
categories (Schroder et al., 1967; Driver and Streufert, 1969; Driver and Mock, 1975;
Driver, 1979; Driver et al., 1996, 1998).
Decision styles refer to learned habits or patterns of decision making that result
from fundamental differences in information gathering and information use tendencies
among individuals (Driver et al., 1996). Driver argues that two factors account for
decision styles:
(1) Information use: the amount of information actually considered when making a
decision. In satisficing mode the minimum amount of information needed is
used upon which to base a decision. In maximising mode all relevant data are
examined.
(2) Focus: the number of solutions considered. In uni-focus mode, information is
used to determine only one course of action. In contrast, using information to
come up with many alternatives is the multi-focus pattern. Uni-focused people
are usually those who have very definite ideas about how things ought to be
done. Multi-focused people tend to see more pros and cons in any course of
action or state of affairs.
In the maximiser-satisficer model Driver combines aspects of “information use” and
“focus” to propose a framework for defining five basic decision styles (Driver et al.,
1996, 1998). These are illustrated in Figure 1.
The satisficer is willing to abandon the search for further information to get the
decision made. The trade off is often stated as time vs quality. The maximiser on the
other hand opts for quality and will seek information until it is of no further value. As

Figure 1.
Driver’s decision styles
indicated above “focus” relates to the number of solutions considered. Characteristics The
of the five styles are now outlined: Internet-banking
(1) The decisive. Here use is made of the minimum amount of information in order customer
that a solution can be more rapidly proposed. Decisives prize action, speed,
efficiency and consistency. Once they decide on a course of action their
tendency is to stick with it. In dealings with people the hallmarks of the decisive
style are honesty and loyalty. 489
(2) The flexible. Like the decisive, the flexible moves fast but the emphasis here is
on adaptability. Any piece of information is seen as having several meanings or
implications. Faced with a problem requiring action, flexibles rapidly identify a
line of attack; if it appears not to be working they quickly shift to a second
course of action. A key issue for people with this style is to keep options open
and never get trapped by over-committing to any one course of action.
(3) The hierarchic. These individuals use much information to evaluate a problem
and then to carefully construct a very detailed and specific plan for handling the
problem. They prize thorough analysis and quality of outcome. Hierarchics
form relationships based on mutual trust and respect and prefer deep long term
friendships to acquaintances. The relational orientation of the hierarchic may
lead to a greater comfort with face-to-face interactions.
(4) The integrative. These also use much information to evaluate situations.
However rather than zeroing in on a single solution their tendency is to explore
a problem from many perspectives to come up with a variety of alternatives.
Creativity and exploration are highly important. Methods and plans are never
fixed or final. Integratives are usually thinking on several tracks
simultaneously and are particularly suited to working in groups. They thrive
best in an atmosphere of co-operation and trust.
(5) The systemic. This category is a recent addition to the Driver model. Some
decision makers make frequent use of both the integrative and hierarchic styles
and there is a two-stage decision process in evidence. Stage 1 involves the
systemic approaching a problem as would an integrative – using lots of
information, sizing up the situation, laying out alternatives. In stage 2, the
systemic shifts into a more hierarchic mode and orders or evaluates the
alternatives according to one or more criteria. The final result is a prioritised set
of strategies for dealing with the situation.

Style dominance
Driver et al. (1998) argue that until a style is used in a situation, strengths and
weaknesses are merely potential strengths and weaknesses. If a particular style doesn’t
fit the demands of a job, a task or a decision situation, its potential strengths don’t
really matter nearly as much as its weaknesses which are no longer potential.
Key influences upon style dominance are:
.
environmental load;
.
influence of role style; and
.
influence of operating style.
IJBM Environmental load is considered to be “anything in the environment that increases a
22,7 person’s sense of pressure”. Situations having factors like time pressure, uncertainty,
complexity and the potential for important consequences will create a circumstance of
high environmental load. When environmental load is very high or very low many
people will use a style of satisficing or uni-focus. When load is moderate conditions are
right for using one of the maximising or multi-focus styles.
490 Role style is heavily influenced by both national and organisational cultures.
Culture determines role style because it strongly establishes value systems as to what
you think “right” behaviour should be. These cultural forces are strongest when
circumstances force you to become aware of how you should act.
Operating style most often reflects the task demands of a particular job. The driving
forces behind operating style are subtle. Thought processes are constantly changing
and being shaped by the tasks performed. Operating style can be seen as reflective of
the cumulative effects of the task history. Doing varied or complex work seems to
create greater complexity of thought process. Operating style is affected by education,
which positively induces multi-focus thinking
In general, Driver argues that people tend to use one of these styles most frequently,
but we can see a bit of each style in behaviour from time to time. People will vary in
how strongly the rely on a given style. There are no socio-economic or demographic
attitudes assigned to his style classifications by Driver.

Methodology
The research objective in this research is to examine the extent to which groups of
customers can be classified into clusters according to Driver’s decision-making
typology. Respondents are bank customers and the clustering framework applied is
that of Driver as detailed above. The extent to which the case bank data set “fits” the
Driver model is of interest as this will present the case bank with an alternative
framework through which to segment customers on the basis of motivation and need
as regards the Internet banking proposition.
The stage 1 qualitative findings identified that a common feature of the feedback
from bankers interviewed in Sweden, America and the UK/Ireland was that trying to
predict customer behaviour in the area of Internet banking adoption was fraught with
problems[2]. That it is difficult to identify a “typical” Internet banking user through
conventional segmentation approaches is largely unsurprising as bankers interviewed
admitted actively encouraging all customers, irrespective of relationship worth or
profile, to adopt the Internet banking proposition. The lack of clarity as to which
customers were adopting the e-banking platform and what their adoption decision was
motivated by is at the heart of this research paper.
Given this it is appropriate to examine the decision-making characteristics of
respondents to see the extent to which the extant classifications of decision-making
style by Driver are consistent with the sample of UK retail case bank customers. Such
an analysis may be helpful in allowing banks to better target their communication and
education efforts more appropriately as it will overcome a reliance on conventional
segmentation criteria and focus more on behavioural/motivational aspects of customer
interaction. It is hoped that should clusters emerge through Driver’s
maximiser-satisficer decision-style model this would give the case bank an
opportunity to better segment and profile customers based on their decision styles
and that this could in turn lead to more effective marketing for the case bank’s The
e-banking platform. Internet-banking
Accordingly, an adapted version of Driver’s scale which features 26 questions that
have been derived from both the Driver-Streufert complexity index and more general customer
indicators of decision style characteristics as discussed in Driver et al. (1998) was
included in a dedicated section of the survey instrument. This comprised 26 attitude
statements with responses captured through a five-item Likert scale ranging from “Not 491
very characteristic of me” through to “Very characteristic of me” (see the Appendix).
The main four types of decision style that were used in this research were decisive,
flexible, hierarchic and integrative; the recent addition of systemic was not included as
it represents a compromise state between integrative and hierarchic and it was felt of
greater value to pursue the original distinct style clusters first determined by Driver.
The questionnaire within which the decision-style attitude statement questions
were a constituent part was issued to 5,000 UK retail bank customers. A 9.6 per cent
response rate was achieved for the overall survey, represented by 480 usable
responses.
Reliability analysis was conducted on the grouped attitude statements in each of
four decision style categories. The Cronbach’s alpha scores indicate adequate
reliability levels in all four style groupings with the lowest score being 0.646 and the
highest 0.711.
Having established the reliability of the decision style groupings, a decision-style score
was allocated to each respondent. Following initial analysis however unacceptable levels
of multi-collinearity were identified between styles and this made this original approach
unusable. The original attitude statements adapted from Driver were again refined and
the last four of the statements deleted as it was felt they added little to the analysis and
may have led to biased responses. A factor analysis was conducted on the remaining 22
Driver attitude statements (see the Appendix for these statements). To establish the
validity of employing factor analysis for the 22-item attitude scale the following tests were
conducted. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy shows a
figure of 0.782 and therefore lies between “middling“ and “meritorious” as defined Hair
et al. (2002). Bartlett’s test of sphericity is a statistical test for the presence of correlations
among the variables. It provides the statistical probability that the correlation matrix has
significant correlations among at least some of the variables. The figure was significant
(chi-square ¼ 2; 380:5; p ¼ 0:000) indicating that there are correlations between the
variables and the scale is appropriate for factor analysis. Additionally, inspection of the
reproduced correlation matrix shows that there are 85 (36 per cent) of non-redundant
residuals with absolute values . 0.
The SPSS output indicated that seven factors were identified and these accounted
for 65.2 per cent of the total variance. These factors are identified below with a
descriptive label attributed by the researcher and the attendant attitude statements
from the survey.
(1) Factor 1 – face-to-face oriented:
.
I value long term and personally held relationships.
.
I am loyal and value relationships highly.
.
I consider myself trusting and am loyal and honest.
.
I don’t buy the latest technology in order to be seen to have it.
IJBM (2) Factor 2 – information-searching oriented:
22,7 .
I like to keep my options open and not risk over-committing.
.
I refer to others before taking any decision.
.
If faced with too much information I seek advice from a third party.
. I value many sources of information and would analyse all before making a
492 decision.
(3) Factor 3 – convenience-searching oriented:
.
Convenience is highly important to me.
.
I would be willing to pay for added convenience.
.
I consider myself extremely short of time.
.
I would be willing to try out ways if I thought it would save me time.
(4) Factor 4 – creatively oriented:
. I would describe myself as creative.
.
I would describe myself as venturesome/enthusiastic.
.
I explore problems from many perspectives.
(5) Factor 5 – brand oriented:
.
Brand is important to me.
.
I prefer to buy brands I know.
(6) Factor 6 – technology oriented:
.
I buy the latest technology when prices begin to fall.
.
I buy the latest technology after I can see real benefits.
(7) Factor 7 – speed of decision oriented:
.
I make decisions quickly but may change my mind if an alternative seems
better.
.
I feel pressure to make decisions quickly.
These seven new factors replace the imperfect variables derived from the original
analysis on Driver’s decision-making variables described above and the seven new
variables were used in subsequent analysis. It must be noted that at this stage these
seven new factors represent groups of “questions” rather than groups of “customers”.
To develop the customer groups a cluster analysis on the seven new factors was
undertaken.

Cluster analysis
The general objective of cluster analysis is to partition or sub-divide a set of objects
into homogeneous sub-groups or into a hierarchical arrangement of homogeneous
sub-groups. The appropriateness of cluster analysis in a financial services context has
been clearly established in the work of Machauer and Morgner (2001) who state that
“customer segmentation by banks is limited” and that this limitation can be overcome
through the “reference to different attitudinal dimensions concerning the
customer-bank relationship” (Machauer and Morgner, 2001, p. 8).
Findings The
In the context of this research, both a hierarchical (using Ward’s method) and k-means Internet-banking
clustering approach were undertaken through SPSS. In using the hierarchical
approach four main clusters were identified in the dendogram produced. customer
This was helpful since Driver’s decision-making classification offers four main
groupings. However, Ward’s hierarchical method represents just a single pass through
the data and there exists the possibility that points may be joined together that with 493
hindsight would be allocated to different clusters. With the k-means clustering approach
the test does multiple passes (iterative) through the data and so allows this concept of
“hindsight” to happen throughout the process and therefore results in a fine-tuning
around the edges of the clusters. With the k-means approach the number of clusters must
be indicated so in this case, given the Driver classifications and the preliminary
hierarchical findings, four clusters were chosen as shown in Tables I and II.
In total, 445 cases were included in the analysis (93 per cent of respondents
classified). It was encouraging to see a good spread between the four clusters and when
the final cluster centres were established Table III emerged.

Cluster
1 2 3 4

Desire for face-to-face 5.00 4.00 1.00 5.00

Desire for information 1.00 5.00 1.75 3.00
Desire for convenience 4.00 5.00 1.00 3.25
Creativity 1.00 5.00 2.33 4.67
Brand important 5.00 5.00 5.00 1.00
Desire for technology benefits 1.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 Table I.
Speed 5.00 5.00 2.50 1.00 Initial cluster centres

Cluster 1 129
Cluster 2 174
Cluster 3 39
Cluster 4 103 Table II.
Valid 445 Number of cases in each
Missing 35 cluster

Cluster
1 2 3 4

Desire for face-to-face 4.61 4.57 2.27 4.57

Desire for information 3.51 4.00 2.25 3.56
Desire for convenience 2.93 3.68 2.56 3.12
Creativity 3.33 3.93 2.31 3.75
Brand important 4.23 4.20 2.29 2.30
Desire for technology benefits 2.31 3.79 2.56 2.79 Table III.
Speed 2.58 3.47 2.68 2.67 Final cluster centres
IJBM The key elements from each cluster are summarised below:
22,7 (1) Cluster 1:
.
face-to-face oriented;
.
desire for information;
.
brand important; and
494 .
not convenience or technology oriented.
(2) Cluster 2:
.
face-to-face oriented;
.
brand important;
.
information desire relatively low; and
. doesn’t seek speed.
(3) Cluster 3:
.
desire for speed;
.
not face-to-face oriented; and
.
desire for information very low.
(4) Cluster 4:
.
face-to-face oriented;
.
brand not important;
.
doesn’t seek speed; and
.
middling desire for information.
All mean scores fall between 1 and 5 as this was the range from which the questions in
seven factors clustered here were originally derived (i.e. Driver’s attitude statements as
detailed in the Appendix).
On analysing the components of the four different clusters the following was
found:
.
Cluster 1. The seven factors are evenly spread throughout the 1-5 range in this
cluster. Desire for face to face important, as is brand importance and desire for
information. Less important to this cluster is a desire for technology benefit,
speed and convenience.
.
Cluster 2. Unlike the case of cluster 1, here the seven factors are bunched towards
the “very characteristic of me” end of the continuum. Again most important is
desire for face to face, followed by brand importance. While desire for speed falls
last in this cluster it is important to highlight that the score is still higher than
that for any other cluster.
.
Cluster 3. Similar to cluster 2 the seven factors are again bunched together in this
cluster but here it is towards the “not very characteristic of me” end of the
continuum. Desire for speed was most important here while desire for face to face
and desire for information scored lowest.
.
Cluster 4. As was the case with cluster 1, the seven dimensions are again spread
throughout the 1-5 scale in this cluster. As is the case in clusters 1 and 2, desire
 for face to face scored highest followed by creativity. The perception that brand The
is important is seen to be least characteristic here and desire for speed is second Internet-banking
last.
customer
These four clusters are illustrated in Figure 2.

495
Discussion: comparison with Driver’s classification
As was established above Driver’s four key decision-making styles were:
(1) Decisive (unifocus, satisficer). Characterised by using a minimum of information
to make decisions, and speed being a factor in decision making. Honest and
loyal; time-poor, convenience-oriented.

Figure 2.
Graphic showing four new
clusters
IJBM (2) Hierarchic (unifocus, maximiser). Characterised by using a lot of information to
22,7 make decisions; slow to decide as they plan the implementation of the one
decision they have reached on the basis of the information.
Relationship-oriented, enjoy face-to-face relationships built on mutual trust.
(3) Flexible(multi-focus, satisficer). Characterised by using a minimum of
information to make a decision but considering that different information has
496 different meanings or implications. This over-consideration can slow decisions
being made and they may refer to a third party for help in reaching a final
decision rather than search out more information on their own.
(4) Integrative (multi-focus, maximiser). Characterised by the use of a lot of
information to evaluate situations with many perspectives being considered
rather than one solution being focused upon. Creativity and exploration are key
in this process. Very adaptable. Thrive in atmospheres of co-operation and
trust.
The research objective in this research is to examine the extent to which groups of
customers can be classified into clusters according to Driver’s decision-making
typology.
Figure 3 demonstrates a “threads of commonality” approach that can be drawn
between the characteristics of Driver’s four key decision styles and the clusters
identified in this research.
While it was not expected that the clusters would exactly replicate the components
of Driver’s decision-making model there are clear commonalities in evidence.
Replicating Driver’s work was not the purpose of this study – rather it was designed to
see the extent to which an a priori model of decision making might lend itself to
adoption when adjusted for bank customers and their interactions on the net.
Indeed, as Driver highlights, the manifestation of decision style can be situation
specific and when environmental load changes (e.g. additional stress, time pressures)
subject style behaviour can change. Each proposed match between Driver and the
cluster analysis output will now be discussed:
.
Cluster 1 – proposed integratives. This cluster had 129 respondents classified.
Desire for information is a common feature as is a lack of focus on technology
benefit or convenience. Decision processes are slow and all options considered.
Face-to-face relationships and decisions by consensus are desired.
.
Cluster 2 – proposed flexibles. This cluster had 174 respondents classified.
Commonalities can be found in the relatively low level of information
required/desired but combined with no need to achieve a quick decision. The
desire for face-to-face interaction and propensity to refer to a third party to help
make the final decision are also mutually supporting.
.
Cluster 3 – proposed decisives. This cluster has the least number of respondents
classified (39) but it is here that of all the cluster comparisons the greatest degree
of commonality exists. The decisive profile of one who prizes action, makes quick
decisions and uses minimum information is reflected in the desire for speed, low
desire for information and no need for face-to-face orientation identified in the
cluster.
 The
Internet-banking
customer

497

Figure 3.
Thread of commonality
between driver and
research clusters

.
Cluster 4 – proposed hierarchics. This cluster had 103 respondents classified.
Commonalities can be found in the relatively high level of information
required/desired, no focus on speed as being important and an enthusiasm for
face-to-face relationship building.
Each proposed match between Driver and the cluster analysis output from this
research study is mapped in Figure 4.

Exploring findings from cluster profiling

In an attempt to assess the extent to which each of the new clusters had a distinct
demographic profile logistic regression analysis was undertaken.
The demographic data capture questions and net usage questions in the customer
survey instrument were used as categorical independent variables as the goal of the
IJBM
22,7

498

Figure 4.
Research clusters mapped
with driver clusters

logistic regression analysis was to identify the independent demographic variables

that would act as predictors for membership of various clusters.
At the level of individual clusters each one was coded 1 and compared against the
remaining three clusters, which were collectively grouped and coded as 2. The findings
of the logistic regression now follow:
.
Cluster 1 (integrative). The key predictor which emerged was that of marital
status and the nature of the relationship (ExpB , 1) shows that constituents of
cluster 1 were less likely to be “single” although nothing more specific than this
could be determined. The second predictor was “Work involves a high level of
Internet use” and the nature of the relationship indicated that this was true for
clusters other than cluster 1.
.
Cluster 2 (flexible). The key predictor was “Work involves a high level of
computer usage” and the nature of the relationship indicated that this was
increasingly true in cluster 2 rather than the other clusters.
.
Cluster 3 (decisive). The key predictor was “gender” and the nature of the
relationship indicated female respondents were more likely to be classified in
other clusters.
.
Cluster 4 (hierarchic). The key predictor was chief income earner (CIE) and the
nature of the relationship indicated that the membership of cluster 4 was
increasingly unlikely to be the CIE.

Interpretation
The logistic regression analysis undertaken in an attempt to establish demographic
and net usage predictors for cluster membership had limited success with only cluster
2 demonstrating the influence of Internet use in work on membership of this cluster.
As previously identified cluster 2 had 174 respondents classified. Commonalities
can be found in the relatively low level of information required/desired but combined
with no need to achieve a quick decision. The desire for face-to-face interaction and
propensity to refer to a third party to help make the final decision are also mutually
supporting. The logistic regression analysis on demographic predictors for
membership of this cluster did result in “Work involves a high level of Internet use”
being identified as key.
 The logistic regression findings show consistently that in cluster 2 there is a The
positive influence in respondents’ high levels of use of the Internet at work leading to Internet-banking
their being registered for Internet banking. There was no influence played by
demographic profile on this. It is interesting though that the satisficing, multi-focus customer
character of the Flexible customer should demonstrate this “Internet use at work”
characteristic. It would seem logical for this cluster that given the inherent multi-focus
dimension that the Internet would not be the sole means used for gathering information 499
in making the decision quickly. Indeed, the use of the Internet in the decision-making
process is highly consistent with this cluster’s trait not to rely or over-commit on any
one information source, a desire for speed and the retrieval of limited information from
various sources relatively quickly.

Management implications and concluding remarks

The cost-effective implementation of Internet banking is of paramount importance
not only to the case bank in this study but also to the industry generally. As
established in the literature review, given the limitations of conventional a priori
segmentation strategies in predicting Internet banking adoption patterns this
research adopted a post hoc cluster analysis methodology. Customers were
clustered according to an established decision-making classification system in an
attempt to identify customer groups in a more meaningful and actionable manner. It
is hoped that the case bank could then target benefits-led communications
messages tailored at the various cluster memberships and that this would prove an
effective approach in encouraging the adoption of the case bank’s Internet banking
proposition.
The identification of the clusters found in the sample is encouraging in this
regard. The results represent preliminary findings of a possible match between
elements of Driver’s decision styles and the clusters identified in the case bank’s
sample. While not a replication of the Driver methodology the adapted set of attitude
statements has allowed for sample case bank customers to be grouped into four
distinct clusters each of which displays different aspects of satisficing and
maximising behaviour.
The identification of four customer clusters based on Driver’s
maximiser-satisficer decision style model is therefore both interesting and
strategically important for the case bank. Key strategic issues centre on the
characteristics of each cluster and how such characteristics can be used by the case
bank to identify four key decision-style segments in the broader customer base.
Given the lack of clarity in the case bank as to what the typology of customers
embracing the e-banking platform actually is, the clusters identified here may be of
help to marketing staff in identifying and more meaningfully assessing the
motivations of customers in making decisions about e-banking adoption and
ongoing use. Preliminary regression analysis did not uncover any key predictors for
Internet banking registration in the demographic profile of respondents but the
positive influence of respondents using the Internet at work on e-banking
registration was identified, especially among the satisficing, multi-focus cluster 2
membership. Such a finding could be useful to the case bank especially in their
communication strategy development.
IJBM Further research needs to be completed in order to better test the efficacy of the four
22,7 clusters identified. This could be completed by an extension of the questionnaire to a
wider population of bank customers.
Should the findings then be generalisable to the larger bank customer base this may
form a mechanism through which the bank can better target e-banking
communications towards the specific clusters of customers. An obvious example
500 would be to communicate the time-saving and convenience aspects of the Internet
banking proposition to the satisficing, convenience-oriented clusters eg decisives or
flexibles.
A limitation of this research is that there were insufficient responses to differentiate
between those customers who were relationship-managed (i.e. higher net worth) and
non relationship-managed (i.e. lower net worth). This would be an important point of
differentiation since the bank may wish for the lower net worth base to see e-banking
as a replacement for face-to-face interaction but may wish the higher net worth clients
to see e-banking as a complement to the personalised relationship management
strategy employed.
Further research will examine the differences between relationship managed clients
and those not relationship managed as regards their decision styles and assess the
attendant impacts on Internet banking adoption behaviour.

Notes
1. The case bank in this research wishes to remain anonymous.
2. Further detail of the stage 1 methodology employed and the findings from this stage can be
found in Durkin and Howcroft (2003).

References
Axson, D. (1992), “A return to managing customer relationships”, International Journal of Bank
Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 30-5.
Barczak, G., Ellen, P.S. and Pilling, B. (1997), “Developing typologies of consumer motives for use
of technologically based banking services”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 38 No. 4,
pp. 131-9.
Berry, L. (1995), “Relationship marketing of services – growing interest, emerging perspectives”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 236-45.
Bitner, M.J., Brown, S.W. and Meuter, M.L. (2000), “Technology infusion in service encounters”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 138-49.
Chase, R.B. (1978), “Where does the customer fit in a service operation?”, Harvard Business
Review, November/December, pp. 137-42.
Driver, M.J. (1979), “Individual decision making and creativity”, in Kerr, S. (Ed.), Organisational
Behavior, Grid Publishing, Columbus, OH, pp. 59-94.
Driver, M.J. and Mock, T.J. (1975), “Human information processing, decision style theory and
accounting information systems”, Accounting Review, Vol. 50, pp. 490-508.
Driver, M.J. and Streufert, S. (1969), “Integrative complexity: an approach to individuals and
groups as information processing systems”, Administration Science Quarterly, Vol. 14,
pp. 272-85.
Driver, M.J., Brousseau, K.R. and Hunsaker, P. (1998), The Dynamic Decision-Maker, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA.
Driver, M.J., Svensson, K., Amato, R.P. and Pate, L.E. (1996), “A human-information processing The
approach to strategic change”, International Studies of Management and Organisation,
Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 41-58. Internet-banking
Durkin, M. and Howcroft, J.B. (2003), “Relationship marketing in the banking sector: the impact customer
of new technologies”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 64-71.
Elliott, G. and Glynn, W. (1998), “Segmenting financial services markets for customer
relationships: a portfolio-based approach”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 18 No. 3, 501
pp. 38-55.
Green, P.E. (1977), “A new approach to market segmentation”, Business Horizons, February,
pp. 61-6.
Gwinn, J.M. and Lindgren, J.H. (1982), “Bank market segmentation: methods and strategies”,
Journal of Retail Banking, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 8-13.
Gwinner, K.P., Grender, D.D. and Bitner, M.J. (1998), “Relational benefits in service industries: the
customer’s perspective”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 101-14.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. and Black, W.C. (2002), Multivariate Data Analysis,
Prentice-Hall, London.
Hewer, P., Howcroft, J.B. and Durkin, M. (2003), “Banker-customer interactions in financial
services”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 19, pp. 1001-20.
Hollander, S. (1985), “A historical perspective on the service encounter”, in Czepiel, J.A.,
Solomon, M.R. and Surprenant, C.F. (Eds), The Service Encounter: Managing
Employee/Customer Interaction in Service Businesses, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA,
pp. 49-64.
Howcroft, J. (1998), “The new retail banking revolution”, Journal of the Association of
Professional Bankers, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 45-55.
Jayawardhena, C. and Foley, P. (2000), “Changes in the banking sector – the case of Internet
banking in the UK”, Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy,
Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 19-30.
Joseph, M., McClure, C. and Joseph, B. (1999), “Service quality in the banking sector: the impact of
technology on service delivery”, International Journal of Bank Management, Vol. 17 No. 4,
pp. 54-71.
Kelly, S.W. (1989), “Efficiency in service delivery: technological or humanistic approaches?”,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 43-50.
Lang, B. and Colgate, M. (2003), “Relationship quality, online banking and the information
technology gap”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 29-37.
Leblanc, G. (1990), “Customer motivations: use and non-use of automated banking”, International
Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 36-40.
Lee, J. (2002), “A key to marketing financial services: the right mix of products, services, channels
and customers”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 238-58.
Lee, J. and Allaway, A. (2002), “Effects of personal control on adoption of self-service technology
innovations”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 553-72.
McCartan-Quinn, D., Durkin, M. and O’Donnell, A. (2004), “Explaining the application of IVR:
lessons from retail banking”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 25 No. 2.
Machauer, A. and Morgner, S. (2001), “Segmentation of bank customers by expected benefits and
attitudes”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 6-17.
IJBM McKechnie, S. and Harrison, T. (1995), “Understanding consumers and markets”, in Ennew, C.,
Watkins, T. and Wright, M. (Eds), Marketing Financial Services, Butterworth-Heinemann,
22,7 Oxford.
Marr, N.E. and Prendergast, G.P. (1991), “Strategies for retailing technologies at maturity: a retail
banking case study”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 99-125.
Marr, N.E. and Prendergast, G.P. (1993), “Consumer adoption of self-service technologies in retail
502 banking”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 3-10.
Meadows, M. and Dibb, S. (1998a), “Implementing market segmentation strategies in UK
personal financial services: problems and progress”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 18
No. 2, pp. 45-64.
Meadows, M. and Dibb, S. (1998b), “Assessing the implementation of market segmentation in
retail financial services”, International Journal of Service Quality Management, Vol. 9 No. 3,
pp. 266-79.
Moutinho, L. and Meidan, A. (1989), “Bank customers’ perceptions, innovations and new
technology”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 2.
Nunes, P.F. and Cespedes, F.V. (2003), “The customer has escaped”, Harvard Business Review,
November, pp. 96-105.
Pine, B.J. II, Peppers, D. and Rogers, M. (1995), “Do you want to keep your customers forever?”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73 No. 2, pp. 103-14.
Quinn, J.B. (1996), “The productivity paradox is false: information technology improves service
performance”, in Swartz, A.T, Bowen, D.E. and Brown, S.W. (Eds), Advances in Services
Marketing and Management, Vol. 5, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
Ricard, L., Prefontaine, L. and Sioufi, M. (2001), “New technologies and their impact on French
consumer behaviour: an investigation in the banking sector”, International Journal of Bank
Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 299-311.
Schroder, H.M., Driver, M.J. and Streufert, S. (1967), Human Information Processing, Holt,
Reinehart and Winston, New York, NY.
Selnes, F. and Hansen, H. (2001), “The potential hazard of self-service in developing customer
loyalty”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 79-90.
Smith, B. (2004), “Getting motivated”, Marketing Business, January, pp. 26-7.
Soper, S. (2002), “The evolution of segmentation methods in financial services: where next?”,
Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 67-75.
Speed, R. and Smith, G. (1992), “Retail financial services segmentation”, The Service Industries
Journal, Vol. 12, July, pp. 368-83.
Stone, M., Kiran, C., Brew, T. and Selby, D. (2002), “Managing customers in retail bank
branches”, in Foss, B. and Stone, M. (Eds), CRM in Financial Services: A Practical Guide,
Kogan Page, London.
Zeithaml, V.A. and Gilly, M.C. (1987), “Characteristics affecting the acceptance of retailing
technologies: a comparison of elderly and nonelderly consumers”, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 49-68.
Appendix The
Internet-banking
customer

503

Figure A1.