Qualitative study reveals obstacles in customer comprehension of mobile banking, highlighting digital literacy and security concerns.
As banking continues to go digital, simply offering online services is no longer enough. What really matters is whether customers actually understand how to use those services. This study looks closely at how customers of INA Mobile Banking—offered by Bank INA Perdana at its UKRIDA 2 branch in Jakarta—comprehend the digital tools provided to them. Unlike most previous studies that focus on whether users adopt digital banking, this research explores the deeper issue of user comprehension, highlighting the cognitive and behavioral challenges people face when using mobile banking platforms. Using a qualitative approach, we conducted in-depth interviews with 12 customers from a range of ages, professions, and digital experience levels. Participants were selected intentionally to reflect a broad spectrum of user perspectives. Thematic analysis revealed three main obstacles that limit customer understanding: (1) limited digital literacy, especially among older users; (2) fear of data breaches and distrust in online security; and (3) unstable internet connections that disrupt the user experience. Together, these issues affect customers’ confidence and trust, and make it harder for them to fully benefit from digital banking features. Interestingly, many users saw mobile banking as both helpful and intimidating—suggesting a real gap between the value of digital services and the ability to use them effectively. The findings point to an urgent need for more user-friendly designs, targeted digital education, and clearer communication from banks. In doing so, financial institutions can support a more inclusive digital transition. This study adds a fresh perspective to digital banking research by focusing on user comprehension—an area still largely overlooked—while offering practical insights for improving customer experiences in emerging markets like Indonesia.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kinarsih et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: