We initiated the third phase of exploration with two main goals; (1) to validate the cumulative findings from the client’s perspective of the preceding phases on a larger scale and (2) to contextualize them with the perspectives of FSP stakeholders.
To address the first goal, we conducted a purely quantitative client survey;
we addressed the second goal with interviews of the main FSP stakeholders (advisors, managers, IT managers) to get in-depth insights on their perspective regarding advisory quality. Below, we will provide details on these investigations. Both interviews and online surveys were based on items and measurements that were compiled and already used in Phase 2. These will be separately discussed in section “Items and Measurements” below.
Online survey. Surveys are well-defined sets of questions to which an individual is asked to respond, typically with no researcher present [Lazar et al. 2010:100]. Surveys seek to collect data from a larger number of people – due to their mostly quantitative items and their self-administration, they are especially appropriate to get an overview of a specific population; however, they are not particularly suited to get in-depth, detailed data [Lazar et al.
2010:101]. With the diffusion of the Internet, surveys are increasingly conducted online, i.e., using the World Wide Web [Atteslander 2006:155].
In information systems research, such surveys have been quite popular [Newstad et al. 1998; Pinsonneault and Kraemer 1993].
Our client online surveys were conducted in two waves from Sep to Oct 2008. The first wave was sampled based on self-selection and conducted in collaboration with a popular Swiss investment journal, which promoted a link to the online questionnaire on their web page. Due to length restrictions, the survey was split in two parts; one was covering questions on advisory quality (including process and IT support), the other contained questions on the clients’ information behavior. The two survey parts were promoted one after the other (one week apart). The respondents of the second wave were sampled with targeted e-mailing, i.e., invitations to participate were sent to affluent clients from the researchers’ environment, including the request to forward them to other interested parties. The respondents were presented the same two questionnaires from the first wave; however, the parts were combined into a single questionnaire, offering the possibility to end the survey after the first part (information behavior) or to additionally complete the second part (advisory quality).
Table 6-1 provides an overview of the profile of respondents of the different waves (investment journal, targeted e-mailing) per questionnaire (advisory quality, information behavior). The respondents show some diversity regarding age and reported wealth. With the majority belonging to the targeted affluent customer segment and above, this allowed the investigation of a broad client base.
Table 6-1: Profiles of sample for survey parts
Advisory quality Information behavior methods by individually evaluating each sample for both questionnaires.
Evaluations of the different samples regarding the advisory quality questionnaire revealed similar answer patterns and showed equal effects in respect of their differences to the FSP stakeholders’ assessments; thereby, both samples lead to the same conclusions of existing perceptive gaps between clients and FSPs. Thus, we decided to merge the samples into a single data set and evaluate the pooled sample (see Table 6-2). Analogously, answer patterns of the samples were similar also for the information behavior questionnaire, revealing equal effects and conclusions for both samples. Therefore, we also merged these samples into a single data set (Table 6-2). Table 6-11 and Table 6-12 in Appendix A1 provide the detailed respondent demographics of the merged data sets.
Table 6-2: Merged online survey responses Respondents Completed Respondents Completed
Advisory quality 180 72 (40.0%) 76 64 (84.2%) 136
Information
behavior 107 66 (61.7%) 126 76 (60.3%) 142
Interviews. In contrast to surveys, which are appropriate for broad investigations of the topic of interest, interviews are a common method of in-depth, qualitative investigations [Lazar et al. 2010:178]. In this respect, interviews are similar to focus group discussions, whereas they are typically conducted in one-to-one encounters of interviewer and interviewee.
Interviews may be conducted to investigate subjective perspectives of different social groups, and their results be used either as an input for further quantitative investigations or to deepen insights from previous findings [Flick 2007:201].
In order to investigate the provider perspective on our topics of interest, we conducted a total of 62 guided interviews with stakeholders of 37 major Swiss FSPs from Jun 2008 to Oct 2008. To gain insights in advisory services from a FSP perspective, we interviewed advisors, sales managers as well as IT managers concerned with advisory processes and their IT support. Table 6-3 gives an overview of the number of interviews conducted per perspective.
Table 6-3: Overview of FSP stakeholder interviews
FSP Stakeholder Role Average
Duration # Interviews
Advisor Direct contact with the client, providing
her with investment advice. 60-90min 22
Manager
Sales manager responsible for advisory processes and their implementation (typically senior executives).
60min 28
IT managers Managers responsible for providing
advisory-relevant IT support. 60min 12
The interviews were semi-structured [Atteslander 2006:125], i.e., while the interviewers followed a standardized written guideline providing questions and their order, they were encouraged to ask additional questions for clarification or to follow interviewee comments. For all stakeholders,
specific interview guidelines were developed, containing open-ended questions regarding the SERVQUAL dimensions, advisory processes as well as their IT support; the guidelines shared a specific set of identical questions that were asked all stakeholders in order to allow for comparison.
Furthermore, each guideline contained a set of quantitative items that was also used for the client survey. Thereby, we asked the interviewees to provide their estimation of client expectations in respect of the different advisory dimensions; this allowed statistical comparison of the stakeholders’
opinions with those gathered from the client survey. Interviews were audio-taped and evaluated based on the recordings; for interviews that could not be recorded (7 advisor interviews; 5 management interviews; 1 IT manager interviews), interviewer notes of the answers were used as the basis of evaluation. In two of five non-recorded management interviews, the interview partner could not be interviewed face-to-face and electronically answered the questionnaire.