Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Purpose This study aims to develop an expert-supported framework of contemporary banking challenges using a sequential mixed-methods design and a fuzzy Delphi study involving senior managers from Bank Melli Iran. Design/methodology/approach This research began with a systematic review of 15 studies to create an initial framework for current banking challenges. The framework was improved after three interviews with senior banking executives. Next, a fuzzy Delphi study was used to evaluate the updated indicators, drawing on a panel of 30 senior managers and experts from Bank Melli, Iran. All questionnaires were distributed and collected by the end of 2025. Findings The analysis identified five key dimensions of contemporary banking challenges and retained 46 of the 48 proposed indicators after the fuzzy Delphi evaluation. Anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing, cybersecurity with consumer data privacy protection, weak internet infrastructure, generational gaps in technology adoption and lack of integration across banking systems were among the indicators receiving the strongest expert support. The results indicated a high level of expert consensus (overall Kendall’s W = 0.890, p < 0.001), and threshold sensitivity and robustness analyses confirmed the stability of the proposed framework. Originality/value This research advances contemporary banking literature by transcending fragmented analyses of digital transformation, cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, regulation and financial technology to establish an integrated, expert-driven indicator framework. Instead of introducing a universal taxonomy, this study presents a contextually grounded managerial assessment framework tailored to large legacy banks in developing economies, thereby establishing a robust basis for future cross-institutional and cross-country validation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ramezani et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: