Policy Brief RESEARCHERS
Dr. Wasel Bin Shadat Senior Research Fellow Iffat Zahan Research Associate Maria Matin Research Associate Md. Saiful Islam Research Associate
Brac Institute of Governance and Development
Brac University 18 MAY 2020
NO. 03 VOLUME 01
TRANSFORMING CUSTOMER EXPERIENCES IN PUBLIC SERVICES (MOBILE BANKING, AGENT BANKING, AND SSN ALLOWANCE PAYMENT)
WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED?
1. INTRODUCTION
Transforming government agencies to serve people better requires cultivating a customer- centric vision and culture. A big challenge for agencies in scaling up the service operation by efficiently using time and resources is to have a clear understanding of what matters most to a widely diverse customer population. Certain approaches, such as identifying customers and their needs, collecting and analysing new and
existing data, and measuring what matters and make it visible, can help in launching a customer experience transformation and tracking its progress.
Understanding customers’ needs and agencies’
capability is imperative to reset customer expectations to a realistic level and continue to improve what can be delivered by the service
Figure 1. Number of Visits Required for the Service providers. Following up the discussion of the first
policy brief, our focus in this second issue of the policy brief series is to present new insights on customer experiences from the Brac Institute of Governance and Development (BIGD) survey related to the three financial inclusive services:
a) Mobile banking, b) Agent banking, and c) Social Safety Net (SSN) allowance payment.
2. A SINGLE VISIT FOR THESE SERVICES SHOULD BE THE NORM
Most of the customers were served on their first visit and it should be the standard for these services. The median number of required visits is one. However, about 15% of customers required a second or more visits to receive their SSN payment. It is to be mentioned that almost 3% of all mobile banking customers did not visit the service providers; instead, they subscribed to the service by themselves (Figure 1).
Note: * Includes no visits required (3%) for mobile banking
3. MORE DECENTRALISED SERVICE DELIVERY CAN REDUCE
ASSOCIATED TRAVEL COSTS
In order to obtain the service, the lowest average travel cost to make a single trip (not round trip) is BDT 7 for mobile banking service followed by agent banking (BDT 21) and SSN payment (BDT 58). However, a considerable amount of variation, particularly for the SSN payment, is observed in the data (see Annex Table).
The median travel costs (BDT 0.00 for mobile banking, BDT 10 for agent banking, and BDT 30 for the SSN payment) also provide interesting insight. Figure 2 displays the proportion of travel costs categorised into four groups (no cost, BDT 1-30, BDT 31-100, and more than BDT 100).
For a significant number of customers, there was no travel cost involved for mobile banking (69%), agent banking (46%), and SSN allowance payment (20%). Note that for mobile banking, travel cost never exceeds BDT 100.
Mobile Banking (N=2272) Agent Banking (N=79) SSN Allowance Payment (N=306)
Single visit* More than single visit
Percentage
Number of visitor 100
80 60 40
20 0
99 95
85
1 5
15 120
Figure 2. Travel Costs for Each Visit
=
4. POSITIVE CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE CAN BE ENHANCED BY SPEEDING UP THE SERVICE DELIVERY
The median time spent is 10 minutes for both mobile and agent banking, and 30 minutes for SSN payment. The average time spent in each visit for mobile banking is the lowest (12 minutes)
followed by the agent banking (19 minutes) and the SSN payment (34 minutes) with considerable variation in responses. Figure 3 shows that the majority of the mobile and agent banking customers were served under 10 minutes, whilst 73% of the SSN allowance payment customers received the service under half an hour.
Figure 3. Time Spent for the Service in Each Visit
Percentage 68.74
27.57
0.08
46.25
26.97
59.53 13.48
11.25
37.5
51.25
1.85
30.96
67.18 35
16.25 2.5
40.78
20.39
4.6 34.21
3.59
No cost 10-30 Taka 40-100 Taka More than 100 Taka
Mobile Banking (N=2267)
Mobile Banking (N=2267)
Agent Banking (N=80)
Agent Banking (N=80)
SSN Allowance Payments (N=304)
SSN Allowance Payments (N=304)
Percentage
E-services
E-services
80
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
60
40
20
0
10-30 minutes Up to 10 minutes More than 30 minutes
5. WHO PROVIDES THE SERVICE?
For mobile banking, the majority of customers availed the service from the local market/ computer shops (89%) followed by household (HH) members/relatives (9%). In the case of agent banking, 41% and 37%
of the consumers went to the local market/
computer shops and banks, respectively.
For SSN payment, the majority of services (69%) was provided by banks followed by the Union Parishad office (18%) (See Annex Table).
6. SERVICE FEE: SOURCES OF
INFORMATION AND SATISFACTION
SSN payment system is a free of charge service whilst mobile banking and agent banking involve service charges which vary according to the service received and operator involved. Figure 5 shows that verbal information (i.e. without any documentation or approved list) from the service provider and word of mouth (from other customers) are the two major sources of fees-related information. Almost 90% of consumers received both banking services from these two sources. Meanwhile, a very low proportion of customers received this information from the internet and official/approved documents.
Notably, 8% (for agent banking) and 5% (for mobile banking) of the customers had no information regarding fees.
Figure 4. Consumers’ Reflection on Customer Service Experience
Figure 5. Service Fee: Sources of Information (%)
Mobile Banking (N=2300)
Mobile Banking
Slow Not
supportive
Not enough informative
Charged extra money
Agent Banking (N=80)
Agent Banking I didn’t know the fees
Verbal information by service providers
From other customers
Internet
Approved government list
SSN Allowance Payments (N=307)
25 20 15 10 5 0
9.33 5.69
22.7
0.0 4.35
15.79
2.67
5.74 14.47
7.03 19.41
2.67 2.67
Percentage
Consumers’ Reflection
20.0 40.0 60.0
5.18.3
58.3 52.3 29.2
38.1 1.0
1.7 3.1 2.8
Service Fees
A considerable number of consumers (77% and 60% for mobile and agent banking, respectively) were satisfied with the amount of the service fees, while a considerable amount of consumers did not require to pay any fee at all (Figure 6). Paying more than the specified fees and not having the government-approved list of service fees displayed were the main reasons for dissatisfaction, as identified by the dissatisfied customers.
7. SOME EVIDENCE OF PAYING EXTRA MONEY OUTSIDE THE FEES (IF ANY)
There is some evidence for paying extra money on top of the specified service fees to receive the mobile and agent banking services. Many HHs reported paying extra money for mobile banking (2.4%), agent banking (2.5%), and SSN payment (6.2%) (See Annex Table). This
extra money was mostly paid for a speedier service.
8. CUSTOMERS ASK FOR MORE SUPPORT, INFORMATION, SPEED, AND TRANSPARENCY FROM SSN PAYMENT SERVICE PROVIDER
Among the three services, customers expressed their dissatisfaction most towards the SSN payment service providers over all four criteria:
slow (23%), not supportive (16%), not enough informative (15%), and charged extra money (19%). Although 9% of the customers mentioned the slowness of agent banking, service recipients were mostly satisfied with other indicators. The customer dissatisfaction rate for mobile banking over these indicators ranges between 4% and 7% (Annex Table).
Figure 6. Satisfaction (%) with respect to paid service fees
Figure 7. Making and Handling of Complaints
Mobile Banking (N=2300) Mobile Banking
% of consumers made
complaints % of complaints received feedback
Satisfied Dissatisfied Don’t know Didn’t have to pay
Agent Banking (N=80)
Agent Banking
SSN Allowance Payments (N=307) 90
80 70
70 60
60 50
50 40
40 30
30 20
20 10
10 0
0
76.65 60
4.04
1.48
13.36
1.82 67
58.54
3.75
5 1.48 2.5
17.83 32.5
PercentagePercentage
% of Satisfaction
9. LOW COMPLAINTS RATE, EVEN LOWER COMPLAINTS FEEDBACK RATE
Figure 7 shows that 13% of the SSN allowance payment customers made complaints against the service, of which only 58% of the complaints received feedback/response. For mobile banking, the complaint rate is low (1.5%) but of these, only 2% of the complaints received feedback. For agent banking, the complaint and complaint response rates are 4% and 67%, respectively. For SSN allowance payment and agent banking, most customers made complaints at the Union Office, whilst for mobile banking, most complaints were made over the phone.
Looking closely at the data, it is found that the complaint rates among the customers who actually paid extra money (outside the service fees) are very low. For example, none of 19 SSN payment customers, who paid extra money, made a complaint. Similarly, only one
of the 55 mobile banking customers, who paid extra money, made a complaint and received feedback. For agent banking, however, the only extra paying customer who made a complaint did not receive any response.
10. OVERALL SATISFACTION IS HIGH, AFFORDABILITY IS STILL A CONCERN
On a satisfaction scale of 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest), the average score for all the combination of services and satisfaction dimensions—except the affordability of the SSN allowance payment—
is above 4. The average satisfaction score for mobile banking topped the other two services in each of the four dimensions. Even though the overall satisfaction for SSN payment is slightly higher than the agent banking, the latter’s average scores in the other three dimensions are higher than those of the former (Figure 8).
Figure 8 . Average Customer Satisfaction Score: On a Scale of 1 (Lowest) to 5 (Highest)
Mobile Banking (N=2300) Agent Banking (N=80)
SSN Allowance Payments (N=307)
Easw of use Affordbility Timeliness Overall satisfaction 5.0 4.5 4.4
4.2 4.2 4.0
3.5
4.54.3 4.1
4.64.3 4.4
Percentage
4.0
3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0
Customer Satisfaction Score
11. CONCLUDING REMARKS
Transformation of any kind is not easy. As both the necessity and benefits of customer experience improvements become increasingly evident in the public sector, we hope that the evidence and lessons presented here will help to decode the puzzle of serving customers better.
Delivering services at a more decentralised level with a simplified and transparent process could substantially improve customers’
convenience and affordability. The positive customer experience is expected to have a spillover effect that would eventually lead to a higher consumption rate of these services.
Service providers need to train for delivering a better customer experience with transparency.
Proactive and clear policies are required to address customer complaints and resolution mechanisms. An inclusive, accessible, and trackable grievance redress system should be in place and must be widely communicated among the customers.
For a better customer-centric service, building and sustaining the momentum by demonstrating actions and successes are also crucial. The overall high customer satisfaction for these services indicates that we are moving in the right direction; however, variability across components and services needs to be investigated in further detail.
Annex Table: Various Indicators of Customer Experience
Indicators Mobile banking Agent banking Social Safety Net
allowance payment Service provider’s
performance Slow 5.69% 9.33% 22.7%
Not supportive 4.35% 2.67% 15.79%
Not enough
informative 5.74% 2.67% 14.47%
Charged extra
money 7.03% 2.67% 19.41%
Number of visits Average (SD) 0.99 (0.42) 1.05 (0.22) 1.34 (1.14)
Median 1 1 1
Time spent on each
visit (minutes) Average (SD) 11.70 (10.29) 18.84 (18.03) 33.97 (28.70)
Median 10 10 30
Related travel costs
(BDT) Average (SD) 7.18 (14.57) 21.36 (37.33) 57.87 (292.17)
Median 0 10 30
Had to make extra payment (% of HHs) 2.39% 2.50% 6.19%
Top two service providers (% of HHs)
HH member/relative (9%) Local Market/computer
shop (89%) Local Market/computer
shop (41%) Bank (69%)
Bank (37%) Union Parishad Office (18%)
Average satisfaction
score Ease of use (SD) 4.50 (0.80) 4.41 (0.81) 4.21 (0.94)
Affordability(SD) 4.17 (0.93) 4.00 (0.73) 3.50 (1.11)
Timeliness (SD) 4.49 (0.80) 4.28 (0.90) 4.08 (0.98)
Overall satisfaction
(SD) 4.56 (0.78) 4.30 (0.93) 4.42 (0.88)
