Influence of Customer Perception Factors on AI-Enabled Customer Experience in the Ecuadorian Banking Environment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this research Influence of Customer Perception Factors on AI- enabled Customer Experience in the Ecuadorian Banking Environment is investigated. This study contributes with a complete statistical and econometric model for determinants of AI-enabled customer experience.

My comments are as follows:

- Add important results in abstract

-The implementation method is not clear, it should be explained further.

-The advantages and disadvantages of AI-enabled customer experience should be added to the discussions.

-The results should be added in the form of a figure.

N/A

Author Response

Reviewer 1, Concern #1: Add important results in abstract.

=> Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have included detailed results in abstract (see p. 1).

Reviewer 1, Concern #2: The implementation method is not clear, it should be explained further.

=> Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have included the implementation method in the discussion section (see pp. 20-22).

Reviewer 1, Concern #3: The advantages and disadvantages of AI-enabled customer experience should be added to the discussions.

=> Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have included the advantages and disadvantages of AI-enabled customer experience in the discussion section (see p. 20-23).

Reviewer 1, Concern #4: The results should be added in the form of a figure.

=> Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have included the results in Table 6 (see pp. 19-20).

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for inviting me to review this meaningful paper. Here is my suggestion.

Introduction:

1.     I suggest that the author includes a paragraph emphasizing the niches, which will help to link the importance of AI with the gap identified.

2.     Perhaps paragraph 3 can address the reader's concerns, and some of the content could be used to create a new paragraph between paragraphs 1 and 2. This is up to the author's discretion.

3.     The author should state the research question and its significance in this section.

Literature review:

1.     Section 2.1 is well-structured and highly appreciated.

2.     The author should acknowledge the limitations of AI in section 2.2, particularly in 2.2.1, where some literature argues the limitations of its human touch.

3.     The author should try to condense the wording in section 2.2, as the first three sentences of section 2.2.2 are discussing the same thing. However, the author should also clarify any unclear points that need to be uncovered.

4.     In section 2.3.1, there may be some studies that have addressed this issue before. The author should explore any argumentative points among those studies.

5.     The same issue arises in 2.3.3.

6.     In 2.3.4, there may be some interrelationship among the five factors. Therefore, the author should conduct Factor analysis for those five factors, revise the hypothesis, and show it in the theoretical framework. The hypothesis H1-H5 becomes useless.

Methodology:

1.     The author should rewrite the entire section, as it is too brief. The following issues should be addressed:
i. What is the sampling procedure?
ii. Why were these measures chosen, and are they validated?
iii. What is the standard for the analysis procedure, EFA and CFA?

Results:

1.     The author should explain how they know that those five factors are not nested into "customer perception factors."

Discussion:

1.     The author should condense the first paragraph and state the purpose more clearly, linking it to the major findings.

2.     The author's conceptualization of the construct of customer perception factors is innovative. However, there is no argumentative paragraph highlighting the importance of these findings. The author should rerun the construct to test whether it is nested or hierarchical. This will help to distinguish the findings from other studies.

Conclusions:

1.     The author should consider the policy implications of their study and think about regulating the use of AI.

NA

Author Response

Reviewer 2, Concern #1: Introduction: I suggest that the author includes a paragraph emphasizing the niches, which will help to link the importance of AI with the gap identified.

=> Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have included a paragraph in the introduction explaining that not similar studies have been developed for Ecuador and how financial institutions can benefit from it (see p. 2).

Reviewer 2, Concern #2: Introduction: Perhaps paragraph 3 can address the reader's concerns, and some of the content could be used to create a new paragraph between paragraphs 1 and 2. This is up to the author's discretion.

=> Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have included a new paragraph in the introduction, between paragraphs 1 and 3, addressing the meaning of customer perception factors (see p. 2).

Reviewer 2, Concern #3: Introduction: The author should state the research question and its significance in this section.

=> Thank you very much for your suggestion. We included the research question in introduction (see p. 2).

Reviewer 2, Concern #4: Literature review: Section 2.1 is well-structured and highly appreciated.

=> Thank you very much for kind comment.

Reviewer 2, Concern #5: Literature review: The author should acknowledge the limitations of AI in section 2.2, particularly in 2.2.1, where some literature argues the limitations of its human touch.

=> Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have included the limitations of AI in section 2.2.1 (see p. 6).

Reviewer 2, Concern #6: Literature review: The author should try to condense the wording in section 2.2, as the first three sentences of section 2.2.2 are discussing the same thing. However, the author should also clarify any unclear points that need to be uncovered.

=> Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have condensed the information of section 2.2 (see pp. 4-5).

Reviewer 2, Concern #7: Literature review: In section 2.3.1, there may be some studies that have addressed this issue before. The author should explore any argumentative points among those studies.

=> Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have included argumentative points using previous studies in section 2.3.1 (see pp. 6-7).

Reviewer 2, Concern #8: Literature review: The same issue arises in 2.3.3.

=> Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have included argumentative points using previous studies in section 2.3.3 (see p. 8).

Reviewer 2, Concern #9: Literature review: In 2.3.4, there may be some interrelationship among the five factors. Therefore, the author should conduct Factor analysis for those five factors, revise the hypothesis, and show it in the theoretical framework. The hypothesis H1-H5 becomes useless.

=> Thank you very much for your suggestion. We included exploratory factor analysis, reliability analysis, validity analysis, and correlation analysis in section 4.2, section 4.3, Table 3, and Table 4 (see pp. 13-16).

Reviewer 2, Concern #10: Methodology: The author should rewrite the entire section, as it is too brief. The following issues should be addressed: i. What is the sampling procedure? ii. Why were these measures chosen, and are they validated? iii. What is the standard for the analysis procedure, EFA and CFA?

=> Thank you very much for your suggestion. We included sampling procedure, and detailed analyses for the tests employed to validate the sample and each construct (see p. 10).

Reviewer 2, Concern #11: Results: The author should explain how they know that those five factors are not nested into "customer perception factors."

=> Thank you very much for your suggestion. We included exploratory factor analysis, reliability analysis, validity analysis, and correlation analysis in section 4.2, section 4.3, Table 3, and Table 4 (see p. 13-16).

Reviewer 2, Concern #12: Discussion: The author should condense the first paragraph and state the purpose more clearly, linking it to the major findings.

=> Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have modified the first paragraph of the discussion to make the goal of the study clearer (see pp. 20-22).

Reviewer 2, Concern #13: Discussion: The author's conceptualization of the construct of customer perception factors is innovative. However, there is no argumentative paragraph highlighting the importance of these findings. The author should rerun the construct to test whether it is nested or hierarchical. This will help to distinguish the findings from other studies.

=> Thank you very much for your suggestion. We included exploratory factor analysis, reliability analysis, validity analysis, and correlation analysis in section 4.2, section 4.3, Table 3, and Table 4 (see pp. 13-16).

Reviewer 2, Concern #14: Conclusions: The author should consider the policy implications of their study and think about regulating the use of AI.

=> Thank you very much for your suggestion. We included the policy implications and regulation of AI in conclusions (see pp. 23-24).

Reviewer 3 Report

As far as the paper is clear to me, I understand that the conclusion is that the five mentioned factors compound customers perception (according to me 'normal' prerequisits of all products and services), while the use of the two AI-enabled exeriences can (or will) be influenced by the five factors.

It is claimed in the study with a questionnaire among 250 people this influence is significantly positive. But this could be expected, because, when AI is included, AI is able to improve the bank's knowledge of its customers for insance through constructing a profile of acustomer. It provides the bank with information that can be used to improve its productes and services.

So, I don't see how this study provide new scientifically interesting new insights.

Further, I miss an analysis of the quality of AI-enabled applications. The quality of AI is determined by the quality of the used algorthims ánd of the data set(s) the application is supposed to 'learn' from.

In line 571 there is a typo: mathematical.

Author Response

Reviewer 3, Concern #1: As far as the paper is clear to me, I understand that the conclusion is that the five mentioned factors compound customers perception (according to me 'normal' prerequisites of all products and services), while the use of the two AI-enabled experiences can (or will) be influenced by the five factors. It is claimed in the study with a questionnaire among 250 people this influence is significantly positive. But this could be expected, because, when AI is included, AI is able to improve the bank's knowledge of its customers for instance through constructing a profile of a customer. It provides the bank with information that can be used to improve its products and services. So, I don't see how this study provide new scientifically interesting new insights.

=> Thank you very much for your comment. We firmly believe our study will contribute to the bank sector with a general understanding of the advantages that AI can give to their services. Moreover, even when similar studies have been developed in other countries in Asia, Europe, or North America, the results obtained could not be directly extended to the Ecuadorian use case. With our study, we have proved that a positive relationship, similar to the one found in other countries, exists in the Ecuadorian case. In addition, our study provides new insights into the bank sector that can be used to create competitive advantages when investing and implementing AI in bank services, knowing beforehand that these services will be welcomed by clients as their user experience will improve.

=> Additionally, we included theoretical and practical contribution in introduction (see p. 2), section 2.2 (see pp. 4-5), section 2.2.1 (see p. 6), section 5 (see pp. 20-23), and section 6 (see pp. 23-24).

 

Reviewer 3, Concern #2: Further, I miss an analysis of the quality of AI-enabled applications. The quality of AI is determined by the quality of the used algorithms and of the data set(s) the application is supposed to 'learn' from.

=> Thank you very much for your comment. We have set a different scope for this study, where the goal is to evaluate the customers perceptions of bank sector clients when they interact with AI enabled services. In this case, bank customers will not know, and probably won’t be interested on the used algorithms working in the backend of the applications. Therefore, this investigation was centered on five factors for customer perception (convenience in use, personalization, trust, customer loyalty, and customer satisfaction) and two categories for AI-enabled customer experience (AI-hedonic customer experience and AI-recognition customer service). The quality evaluation of the used algorithms can be part of the future work. Given that there is no common framework when working with AI for specific services, a small set of bank institutions that are willing to share information about their AI implementation, can be used to this end. However, given the confidentiality and sensitivity of data involved it could be challenging to get the collaboration from bank institutions.

=> In addition, we included the quality of the used algorithms as limitation of the study (see p. 24).

 

Reviewer 3, Concern #3: In line 571 there is a typo: mathematical.

=> Thank you very much for your suggestion. We fixed the typo error (see line 811).

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewer 2, Concern #1: Introduction: I suggest that the author includes a paragraph emphasizing the niches, which will help to link the importance of AI with the gap identified.

=> Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have included a paragraph in the introduction explaining that not similar studies have been developed for Ecuador and how financial institutions can benefit from it (see p. 2).

Follow-up comment: Good.

Reviewer 2, Concern #2: Introduction: Perhaps paragraph 3 can address the reader's concerns, and some of the content could be used to create a new paragraph between paragraphs 1 and 2. This is up to the author's discretion.

=> Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have included a new paragraph in the introduction, between paragraphs 1 and 3, addressing the meaning of customer perception factors (see p. 2).

Follow-up comment: Good to do so. I suggest you should add some references there.

Reviewer 2, Concern #3: Introduction: The author should state the research question and its significance in this section.

=> Thank you very much for your suggestion. We included the research question in introduction (see p. 2).

Follow-up comment: Much better.

Reviewer 2, Concern #4: Literature review: Section 2.1 is well-structured and highly appreciated.

=> Thank you very much for kind comment.

Reviewer 2, Concern #5: Literature review: The author should acknowledge the limitations of AI in section 2.2, particularly in 2.2.1, where some literature argues the limitations of its human touch.

=> Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have included the limitations of AI in section 2.2.1 (see p. 6).

Follow-up comment: Good.

Reviewer 2, Concern #6: Literature review: The author should try to condense the wording in section 2.2, as the first three sentences of section 2.2.2 are discussing the same thing. However, the author should also clarify any unclear points that need to be uncovered.

=> Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have condensed the information of section 2.2 (see pp. 4-5).

Follow-up comment: Thanks. I suggest the author added some references to support the second paragraph of 2.2.1. By the way, please check the format. 2.2.2 merge to last paragraph of 2.2.1.

Reviewer 2, Concern #7: Literature review: In section 2.3.1, there may be some studies that have addressed this issue before. The author should explore any argumentative points among those studies.

=> Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have included argumentative points using previous studies in section 2.3.1 (see pp. 6-7).

Follow-up comment: Good. One more suggestion: Try to avoid using ‘because’. If that study is qualitative, there is no causality. In the case of quantitative, it should be ‘related to’.

Reviewer 2, Concern #8: Literature review: The same issue arises in 2.3.3.

=> Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have included argumentative points using previous studies in section 2.3.3 (see p. 8).

Follow-up comment: Good.

Reviewer 2, Concern #9: Literature review: In 2.3.4, there may be some interrelationship among the five factors. Therefore, the author should conduct Factor analysis for those five factors, revise the hypothesis, and show it in the theoretical framework. The hypothesis H1-H5 becomes useless.

=> Thank you very much for your suggestion. We included exploratory factor analysis, reliability analysis, validity analysis, and correlation analysis in section 4.2, section 4.3, Table 3, and Table 4 (see pp. 13-16).

Follow-up comment: Good. Much better.

Reviewer 2, Concern #10: Methodology: The author should rewrite the entire section, as it is too brief. The following issues should be addressed: i. What is the sampling procedure? ii. Why were these measures chosen, and are they validated? iii. What is the standard for the analysis procedure, EFA and CFA?

=> Thank you very much for your suggestion. We included sampling procedure, and detailed analyses for the tests employed to validate the sample and each construct (see p. 10).

Follow-up comment: The author need to further explain the analysis strategies. It’s just the method you employ.

Reviewer 2, Concern #11: Results: The author should explain how they know that those five factors are not nested into "customer perception factors."

=> Thank you very much for your suggestion. We included exploratory factor analysis, reliability analysis, validity analysis, and correlation analysis in section 4.2, section 4.3, Table 3, and Table 4 (see p. 13-16).

Follow-up comment: The author haven’t addressed my suggestions.

Reviewer 2, Concern #12: Discussion: The author should condense the first paragraph and state the purpose more clearly, linking it to the major findings.

=> Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have modified the first paragraph of the discussion to make the goal of the study clearer (see pp. 20-22).

Reviewer 2, Concern #13: Discussion: The author's conceptualization of the construct of customer perception factors is innovative. However, there is no argumentative paragraph highlighting the importance of these findings. The author should rerun the construct to test whether it is nested or hierarchical. This will help to distinguish the findings from other studies.

=> Thank you very much for your suggestion. We included exploratory factor analysis, reliability analysis, validity analysis, and correlation analysis in section 4.2, section 4.3, Table 3, and Table 4 (see pp. 13-16).

Follow-up comment: What is the theoretical contribution?

Reviewer 2, Concern #14: Conclusions: The author should consider the policy implications of their study and think about regulating the use of AI.

=> Thank you very much for your suggestion. We included the policy implications and regulation of AI in conclusions (see pp. 23-24).

 

Follow-up comment: Good.

Author Response

In the attached document, you can find the response for reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In line 613 the reference to Noreen et al. shoul be removed.

Table 5 is unreadable in the present form.

Author Response

In the attached document, you can find the response for reviewers. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx