|dc.description.abstract||The Indian IT industry has grown at an impressive rate during the last decade. India's own competitive advantage in the software business is well known: cost-effectiveness, world-class quality, high reliability, and rapid delivery, all of it powered by state-of-the-art technologies. Software has penetrated different spheres of the Indian economy, namely Indian corporate sector, government and public sector units. Over the last decade, one of the sectors, which have felt the "heat" of software intrusion, has been the financial service. Indian banking industry, today is in the midst of an IT revolution. A combination of regulatory and competitive reasons have led to increasing importance of total banking automation in the Indian Banking Industry. The present level of computerization in Public Sector Banks is a result of these initiatives. RBI has also gone ahead in creating of nation wide and localized networks for integration of the entire financial system.
The Software Packages for Banking Applications in India had their beginnings in the middle of 80s, when the Banks spurred on by RBI and the Rangarajan Committee Report, started computerizing the branches in a limited manner.
The objectives are:
1. To understand the attributes of the banking software products that are
relevant to user/customer satisfaction.
2. To understand the user's perception of the above attributes.
3. To derive the key factors of user/customer satisfaction.
4. To develop an Importance-Performance map for the attributes of the software.
Based on the literature review and the discussions held with the software professionals and bank employees, we identified few relevant variables like Implementation, Maintainability, Reliability, Security, User's Performance and Output which fall under the software related variables and variables like Vendor's meeting User's needs, Vendor's mktg skill, User involvement, Training and support, and Service falling under the vendor related variables.
A structured questionnaire was developed based on these variables using a 5-pt likert scale and this instrument was checked for its construct and content validity and also Reliability by conducting Factor analysis and Computing Cronbach's alpha respectively on a small sample in the Pilot study. The questionnaire was modified and the final instrument was used for the main study. This questionnaire was administered on a sample of 141 in the main study. The collected data were subjected to Factor Analysis to arrive at the key factors of User satisfaction for banking software products. We obtained seven factors User's Performance, Output, and Vendor's Marketing skill, Implementation, Ease of Use, Security and Maintainability.
The second part of the study plot an Importance -Performance Map for all the products on all variables which gives us the best performer. Since this was subjective analysis, we conducted ONE-WAY ANOVA on the data to arrive at the best performer. However, ANOVA could give only the top performer, but we were not able to identify the second best product.
We computed the weighted scores for each of these products by giving weights to the variables and multiplying with the performance scores. The comparison of the total weighted scores of all the four products considered in the study helped us in ranking the products based on their performance. We obtained that Product 3 was on top followed by Product 4 and Product 1 and last was product 2.
Based on these analyses we suggested the following to the software vendors:
1. The key factors identified in the study should be given the highest priority
while developing and testing the software for conformance with the
2. Product 2 must be improved on variables like output by making the report
generation more flexible and maintainability should be made easier by making
additions more flexible without any errors.
3. Vendors of Product 1 and 2 should provide better user manuals using simple
language and also train the bank employees in using the software, by
involving employees during customization in a more informal way.
4. Vendor's of Product 3 and 4 should maintain the quality of their existing
products respectively and try to improve them.||en