Skip to main content

Table 8 The final weights of the fuzzy DEMATEL-ANP decision-making technique

From: Risk identification and prioritization in banking projects of payment service provider companies: an empirical study

Main risks Sub-risks Weights
Recipient production process (A)   0.074
A1: Inappropriate marketing of the executive staff 0.2711
A2: Inappropriate marketing of the bank 0.2211
A3: Inappropriate marketing of the agencies 0.097
A4: Absence of a suitable program for identifying and attracting specific recipients (VIPs) 0.4108
Terminal establishment process (B)   0.006
B1: No timely allocation of the devices 0.3723
B2: No timely installation of the devices 0.3788
B3: Lack of adequate training of staff on how to work with the devices 0.2489
Supporting process (C)   0.031
C1: No timely repairing of faulty terminals 0.3487
C2: Undesirable rolled up to the recipients 0.2693
C3: Inappropriate call center response to financial problems 0.3821
Recipient retention and satisfaction process (D)   0.094
D1: Failure to provide the devices with desirable quality and hardware specifications 0.1069
D2: Inappropriate quality of device software 0.1711
D3: Frequent technical problems 0.1854
D4: Failure to meet customer needs 0.0989
D5: Not paying attention to specific recipients (VIPs) 0.1522
D6: No paying attention to complaints 0.2124
D7: Lack of suitable program for keeping specific recipients (VIPs) 0.073
Executive interaction with bank (E)   0.218
E1: Successive changes of the project managers and experts 0.0043
E2: Changes of bank managers and their approaches to the PSP company 0.0875
E3: Inappropriate strategy of central office personnel 0.1141
E4: Failure to comply with work ethics 0.1192
E5: No timely response to bank requests 0.1006
E6: Timely request for status 0.1054
E7: Inappropriate behavior of personnel of agencies with the bank branches 0.109
E8: Bank’s dissatisfaction with the company 0.1589
E9: No timely delivery of the devices 0.0557
E10: Repeating infringements 0.1092
E11: Failure to provide reports and clarifications for highlighting company achievements 0.0361
The terms of contract and commitment (F)   0.099
F1: Inappropriate contract with unreasonable terms 0.2676
F2: Failure to adhere to the terms of the contract and mutual obligations 0.2434
F3: Lack of proper planning for achieving the goals of the project 0.1549
F4: Disclosure of confidential information and documents of bank’s customers 0.3341
Company credibility and power (G)   0.16
G1: Background of failure in other banking projects 0.2393
G2: Increasing dissatisfied recipients 0.1613
G3: Absorbing undesirable recipients 0.1111
G4: Decreasing special recipients (VIPs) and attracting them by competitors 0.2299
G5: Lack of covering the operating costs with incoming payments 0.2585
Efficiency of agencies (H)   0.125
H1: The inability and inappropriate financial situations of the provincial agencies 0.2461
H2: No financial support of agencies from the central office 0.2064
H3:Lacking sufficient standards and capabilities 0.5475
Technical and operational (I)   0.071
I1: Failure to establish a secure, stable and high-speed network 0.5113
I2: Failure to quickly implement market needs 0.4887
Research and development (J)   0.068
J1: Lack of innovation and initiative in accordance with customer needs 0.2405
J2: Lack of study and identification of market needs 0.378
J3: Being behind of competitive market 0.3815
Advertising (K)   0.031
K1: Being unknown in the market 0.5246
K2: Lack of a quick notification of the company’s latest achievements for market penetration 0.4754
\