The Preparedness of Retail Banking CustomersEssay Preview: The Preparedness of Retail Banking CustomersReport this essayThe Preparedness of Retail Banking CustomersIntroductionI have been working as a bank teller since June 2010 at a retail bank in Cherry Hill, NJ. This branch is very busy as it is at a high traffic intersection, so the tellers there have many responsibilities, both inside the bank and in the drive-thru. The study performed and presented in this paper is to analyze and determine whether or not there are major differences between the customers that prefer to do their transactions through the lobby or through the drive-thru. These “differences,” or more scientifically, “variables,” will focus on the preparedness of the banks customers.
Statement of HypothesisWhile forming my hypothesis, I originally felt that those customers in the drive-thru would be less prepared than those in the lobby. This was my first notion, but it may have been skewed due to the fact that in the drive-thru a teller deals with multiple customers at once (there are four drive-thru lanes) rather than in the lobby where it is one customer at a time. If only one out of four customers is unprepared in the drive-thru, it could mess up the flow of traffic, and therefore make more of an impression on the teller than one in four in the lobby. Therefore, after doing some exploratory research, i.e. discussing with my supervisor, and performing a trial run of the data collection process, I changed my hypothesis for the final study: banking customers in the lobby will be less prepared than those in the in the drive-thru. I did this because I realized many customers who are unprepared require some help with their banking needs and therefore come into the lobby.
Observation ProcessTo observe the preparedness of customers, I developed three main variables that could be evaluated during a single transaction: the presentation of the proper documents (V1), such as a checking deposit slip, the knowledge of ones account number (V2), and whether or not the transaction was hassle free (V3), which includes having sufficient funds when withdrawing from ones account, writing ones account number on the back of a non-TD check, presenting identification when cashing a check, etc. These variables are completely under the customers control and therefore only relate to the preparedness of the customers. I performed a trial run on a Wednesday night where I worked one and a half hours in the lobby and two and a half hours in the drive-thru. Obviously, the data collected during this trial could not be used in the final data analysis because the data were collected at different times and for different lengths of time. The actual data used in the analysis were collected during a Sunday from eleven a.m. to four p.m., where I observed customers in the drive-thru and a coworker observed customers in the lobby.
Data Collection and ResultsWhen a customer is prepared according to all three preparedness variables, he or she would receive a Y for “yes” in all three of the columns on the spreadsheet created for this study. However, if, for example, he or she did not know his or her account number, he/she would receive an N for “no” in the “knowledge of account number” column. The only preparedness variable that would usually require more of an explanation than a yes or a no is the “hassle free” variable because this is more of a subjective and miscellaneous area, and many problems could occur over the course of a transaction that would fall into this column.
The Study
Our results showed that only 2% of the total cost of a given plan was devoted to research and development.
Our results also indicated that research and development costs are often more costly than the costs of other types of personal services (e.g. housing, education, medical care).
We calculated this information using a model that assumed that the price and cost sharing of personal expenses on private accounts is a fixed amount per individual, and that they are always less than the costs for all a plan must cover. Our method used a simple model that assumed that both cost and cost sharing occur over a short period, with some time spent on the individual in the personal plan to cover the time spent on other, necessary service. This model provided us with a comprehensive analysis of the cost and cost per user of a plan on an individual basis in a wide variety of settings. The model was more complex than the model we originally used in our study, and it still does not address the same fundamental questions that are now frequently asked about most of us:
What do we do most efficiently, when we spend less on research and development costs than we do on other services for which we can pay?
What should our organization and organization’s employees do besides the work of developing data sets about them?
What could we do to reduce the costs of private health care services? If we decided to increase our expenses, would they necessarily be better treated by doing less research and development, less time spent elsewhere, or both?
Should we limit or eliminate such studies at our expense to reduce long-term administrative costs or the need for longer-term employee training?
What is the cost of each cost-sharing policy that can be applied to your organization? Can I charge for or against my own expenses?
If you require additional information or a question for the research project, please do not hesitate to fill out our form or call the research project number at 1-877-433-6151. The costs and services provided in our study may differ from the costs and charges in other types of personal services, such as sales, consulting, or other business activities such as education. Please note: The data is for data collections for the study purposes only, and we do not collect data for personal expenses. We do not undertake research or policy review of any kind.