The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Internet vs mobile banking: comparing customer value perceptions
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of the paper is to explore and compare customer value perceptions in internet and mobile banking. The purpose especially is to compare customer perceived value and value creation between internet and mobile bill paying service. Design/methodology/approach: A qualitative in‐depth interviewing design was applied in order to ascertain the factors that create value perceptions in fund transfer service via personal computer and mobile phone. Means‐end approach and laddering interviewing technique was used in order to reveal how different value creating factors are hierarchically structured and related to each other. Findings: The results indicate that customer value perceptions in banking actions differ between internet and mobile channels. The findings suggest that efficiency, convenience and safety are salient in determining the differences in customer value perceptions between internet and mobile banking. Research limitations/implications: The findings of the qualitative study, being more depth than wide in nature, deserve to be quantitatively measured in future studies in order to provide more generalisable results. Practical implications: The paper provides enhanced information for business managers about both positive and negative customer value perceptions in internet and mobile banking. By understanding how and what kind of value different service channels provide for customers service providers are better enabled to create actions to enhance internet and mobile banking adoption. Originality/value: The contribution of the paper lies in achieving a more profound understanding on consumer value perceptions to internet and mobile banking. It expands the literature on electronic and mobile commerce and on electronic banking especially.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Baptista, G., & Oliveira, T. (2015) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.024 · Cited by 922
Lin, H.-F. (2011) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.07.006 · Cited by 912
Extending the understanding of mobile banking adoption: When UTAUT meets TTF and ITM
Oliveira, T., Faria, M., Thomas, M. A., & Popovič, A. (2014) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.06.004 · Cited by 808
Acceptance of mobile banking framework in Pakistan
Afshan, S., & Sharif, A. (2016) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2015.09.005 · Cited by 376
A unified perspective on the factors influencing usage intention toward mobile financial services
Lee, Y.-K., Park, J.-H., Chung, N., & Blakeney, A. (2012) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.02.044 · Cited by 261
Metadata
- Authors
- Laukkanen, T.
- Venue
- Business Process Management Journal
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2007-11-13
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 788-797
- ISSN
- 1463-7154 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2001420591
- Cited by
- 411
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 24.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Internet vs mobile banking: comparing customer value perceptions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/14637150710834550
- The paper
- Laukkanen, T. (2007). Internet vs mobile banking: comparing customer value perceptions. Business Process Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/14637150710834550
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.