CIBP ISWOT14 - Results & Findings by cibp

ISWOT14 Assessment Survey

Report

ISWOT14

International SWOT Assessment Survey Results & Findings

Shakesteer

ÂŠ Shakesteer 2014. A study conducted for CIBP.

Researcher: Dr. Fotis Filippopoulos

ISWOT14 Assessment Survey

Report

ISWOT14 Assessment Survey Table of Contents. ISWOT14 Introduction

SWOT Assessment Overview





Research Objectives Methodology, Design & Sample Pages 3 & 4

Key Findings & Capability Gaps Pages 5 & 6

Assessing the Basis of Competition

SWOT Detailed Assessment



    

a) Generic Content & Open Text Analysis, b) The Single Point of Failure. Pages 7 to 12

a) Basis of Competition, b) Value Proposition, c) Cost / Revenue, d) Infrastructure, e) Customer / Member Interface, f ) Threats & g) Opportunities. Pages 13 to 24

Segmentation Analysis

 Segmentation Analysis of key areas by Country & Role. Pages 25 to 28

2 | 28

Researcher: Dr. Fotis Filippopoulos

ISWOT14 Assessment Survey

 CONFIDENCE LEVEL

95% S. ERROR: ±8.83% RESPONSES: 99 TARGET GROUP: 500 RESPONSE RATE: 20% ITEMS / QUESTIONS

88 ASSESSMENTS

COMPETITION VALUE PROPOSITION COST / REVENUE INFRASTRUCTURE RELATIONSHIPS OPPORTUNITIES THREATS

Report

ISWOT14 Assessment Survey Introduction. Research Objectives Methodology & Design. Assessing in a detailed component level as well as on a quantified and qualitative basis the Internal (Strengths & Weaknesses) and External (Opportunities & Threats) environment of Cooperative (C) and Popular (P) Banking, is crucial in identifying and evaluating the critical factors

Participation in the survey was voluntary, it was conducted in compliance with the ICC/ESOMAR International Code on Market and Social Research and took approximately 25 minutes to complete. All responses were treated as strictly confidential and reported only in the aggregate.

for growth, stagnation or failure. In total, from the 500 targeted professionals, This report contains the results of the International SWOT Assessment Survey (ISWOT14) aiming to assist the ISDVI15 (International Strategic dialogue on Value Innovation) team of experts to design a Business Model prototype that has the potential to become the basis of Tomorrow’s C&P banks. The report is deliberately designed in a clean and minimalistic way to provide conveniently accessible information during a fast-paced strategic dialogue (ISDVI15). A selected group (Purposive Sample) of 500 professionals and members of the sector that conformed the criteria set by the researcher and CIBP, have been asked to complete a highly technical on-line questionnaire consisting of 88 items / questions corresponding to 7 diﬀerent dimensions / assessments, related to specific to the Business Model and Value Innovation building blocks. In particular, ISWOT14 includes seven assessments in the areas of: a) Basis of Competition, b) Value Proposition, c) Cost / Revenue, d) Infrastructure, e) Customer / Member Interface, f ) Threats and g) Opportunities.

3 | 28

members and customers, 99 responses were received from individuals in 5 diﬀerent organisational positions and / or roles, across 27 banks and institutions from 11 countries. This number corresponds to a response rate of 20% that is well above the expected rate of 10% to 15% for an external on-line study with no incentives. We are grateful to all individuals who participated in ISWOT14 and indeed for the insights, ideas, experience and knowledge that they shared with us. With their participation, great insights have emerged that are essential for our study entitled "Designing tomorrow’s Cooperative & Popular Banks”. The study will be presented during the 29th CIBP Congress on "Innovation for Strengthening Popular and Cooperative Banks" that will take place on 19 and 20 October 2015 in Rio de Janeiro. Thank you.

Dr. Fotis Filippopoulos Director ﬀ@shakesteer.com

Researcher: Dr. Fotis Filippopoulos

ISWOT14 Assessment Survey

 CONFIDENCE LEVEL

95%

ALPHA: 0.05 RESPONSES: 99 TARGET GROUP: 500 RESPONSE RATE: 20%

Report

ISWOT14 Assessment Survey The Sample. Participants’ Origin Institution & Roles.

11 Countries.

In total, 500 individuals that conformed the criteria set by the researcher and CIBP (purposive sample), have been targeted and contacted to participate in the study (ISWOT14). Overall, 99 responses were received from individuals in 5 diﬀerent organisational

Argentina 4% Austria 9% Belgium 12% Brazil 5% Canada 4% France 14% Germany 9% Italy 25% Morocco 14% Netherlands 3% USA 1%

positions and / or roles, across 27 banks and institutions from 11 countries. The survey’s results are subject to a margin of error of ±8.83% at a 95% confidence level, and the significance level (alpha - a) has been pre-set at 0.05.

27 Banks & Institutions. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Participants’ Roles.

ADG Assopopolari & Italian Popular Banks Banca Etruria Banca Popolare di Cividale Banca Popolare del Frusinate Banca Popolare di Puglia Basilicata Banca Valsabbina Banco Credicoop Bancoob - Sicoob Banque Centrale Populaire du Maroc Banque Populaire de Marrakech BPCE CIBP CPH Banque Creval Group [Gruppo Credito Valtellinese] Desjardins DZ BANK AG FNBP ICBPI Informatique Banques Populaires NewB Nova Scotia Credit Unions Oklahoma Credit Union Rabobank UBI Banca Volksbank WGZ BANK

7% Customers

13% Members

45% Employees



16% Board Members

19% Elected Managers

4 | 28

Researcher: Dr. Fotis Filippopoulos

ISWOT14 Assessment Survey

 STAR RATING

3.51 SD: 2.53 DIMENSION 1

Column Variables < 0.05, correlated

Report

SWOT Assessment Key Findings. Internal Environment Major Strengths (>8)

Internal Environment Major Weaknesses (<6.9)

Classification

Description

Classification

Description

Value Propositions

• Value Propositions (VPs) are well aligned with customer/member needs. • VPs have strong network eﬀects.

Value Propositions

• NA

Costs & Revenue Infrastructure

Costs & Revenue

• Predictable costs. • Focused & work with partners when necessary. • Good working relationships with Key Partners.

Customer / Member • The rate of customers/members who cut Interface ties with the services & or bank is low. • Continuous acquisition of new customers / members. • Channel reach is strong among customers / members. • Customers / members can easily see the channels. • Strong Customer/Member relationships. • Strong brand.

• C&P banks do not benefit from strong margins. • C&P banks generally do not collect revenues before expenses are incurred. • Pricing mechanisms do not capture full willingness to pay • Operations are not cost efficient. • The Cost Structure is not correctly matched to the business model. Infrastructure • Key Resources are not difficult for competitors to replicate. • Key Activities are not difficult to copy. • Balance of in-house versus outsourced execution is not ideal. • Key Resources are not deployed in right amount at the right time. Customer / Member • Relationships do not bind customers/ Interface members through high switching costs.

MEAN: 2.99 SD: 0.85

MEAN: 3.74 SD: 0.86

 External Environment Major Opportunities (>8) Classification Value Propositions Costs & Revenue

Infrastructure

S.W.O.T

Description • Partners could complement the VPs. • Generation of recurring revenues by introducing novel services. • Better integration of services. • Replacement of one-time transaction revenues with recurring revenues. • Cross-selling opportunities either internally or with partners. • Standardisation of some Key Activities • Greater collaboration with partners could help C&P banks focus more on core business. • Novel or existing partner Channels could help C&P banks better reach customers / members. • Better integration of Channels. • C&P banks could better align Channels with customer / member segments.

Customer / Member • Customers /members could be better Interface served through finer segmentation. • Potential to improve customer / member follow up. MEAN: 3.87 SD: 0.95 © Shakesteer 2014. A study conducted for CIBP.

5 | 28

External Environment Major Threats (>8)

Classification

Description

Value Propositions

• There are substitute products & services available.

Costs & Revenue

• Competitors threaten the margins. • Competitors are threatening the market share.

Infrastructure

• The quality of resources is threatened. • The quality of activities is threatened. • Competitors threaten the channels. • Channels are in danger of becoming irrelevant to customers / members.

Customer / Member • Some customer relationships are in Interface danger of deteriorating. • Relationships do not bind customers / members through high switching costs. MEAN: 3.45 SD: 1.03 Researcher: Dr. Fotis Filippopoulos

ISWOT14 Assessment Survey

 WEIGHTED SWOT SCORE

2.56 SD: 2.72

Report

SWOT Overall Score Capability Gaps. Calculating the Current Position. ΦS = (S – W) + (O – T) In this section, all items and dimensions included in ISWOT14 are consolidated and quantified to produce practical and actionable data related to the assessments of the Basis of Competition, Value Propositions, Costs / Revenues, Infrastructure, Customer / Member Interface, Threats and Opportunities. Through Diﬀerential Analysis an overall SWOT score is produced, deriving from the

Moreover, although the Strengths (7.46) outweigh the Weaknesses (6.33), that is an indicator of a “Capability surplus” also shown in the relatively high Infrastructure assessment (7.32) and Customer / Member Interface (7.77) scores, however, the near equal distance between Strengths and Opportunities (0.7) and Strengths and Threats (0.73) is also an indication of a

quantification of (S) Strengths, (W) Weaknesses, (O) Opportunities and (T) Threats, in order to identify and measure the “Current Position” and capability gaps of C&P banks Business Model.

Business Model that does not provide high levels of competitiveness and protection from the competition and especially from new non-bank entrants with innovative Business Models and Value Propositions to could attack the system from below and inevitably change the industry and in their favour.

In contrast to classical SWOT analysis that is based on largely subjective techniques that fail to quantify the level / status of the “current position” of a given “system” and for each of the four elements, here units of measurement were obtained from a Likert-type 10-point scale with fixed choice response formats, corresponding to the level of agreement or disagreement with the supplied statements [from (1) low to (10) high]. The “position” refers to the present SWOT status of the C&P banking Business Model. To calculate the “Current Position” (ΦS) the following formula was applied: ΦS = (S – W) + (O – T). Surprisingly, analysis produced a near zero (2.56) overall SWOT score (out of an unrealistically maximum score of 20), across the four elements indicating that participants do not perceive the “current status” of C&P banking Business Model as being neither Strong or Weak. A low SWOT score (2.56) may also indicate that the “current” Business Model provides a limited capacity to C&P banks to exploit the plethora of Opportunities (8.16) in the market.

6 | 28

Opportunity surplus

Capability surplus Capability surplus

Strenghts SD: 2.59

Weaknesses SD: 2.83

Opportunities SD: 2.69

Threats SD: 2.77

7.46

6.33

8.16

6.73

Researcher: Dr. Fotis Filippopoulos

ISWOT14 Assessment Survey

 TOTAL RESPONSES

830 KEY AREAS

9 KEY ITEMS

562

Report

Assessing the Basis of Competition. Generic Content & Open Text Analysis. Apart from the fixed choice response formats, the ISWOT14 also included a set of open ended / text questions with the intent to provide qualitative insights related to key areas / elements of the C&P banking business model. In this section to assess the Basis of Competition of C&B banking 9 open ended questions / dimensions were employed to generate a total of 830 responses (constructs),

Specifically, in Q.1 participants were asked to identify the 8 key competitive factors that “currently” characterise C&P banking in order to include these as such in the Value Profiling process during the strategic dialogue (ISDVI15). Analysis showed that the following competitive factors are considered as the most important in descending order, namely: 1) Customer / Member

from the 99 participants in the study.

Acquisition & Relationship Management (75 or 25,5% of responses in this question), 2) Locality / Proximity and Branch network (55 or 18,7%), 3) Brand & Brand Values (Trust, Transparency, Honesty, Solidarity) (45 or 15,3%), 4) Decision Eﬀectiveness & Democratic Governance (39 or 13,3%), 5) Product / Service Mix & Quality Management (24 or 8,1%), 6) Information Technology & New Technologies (18 or 6,1%), 7) Price of Products & Services (10 or 3,4%) and 8) Talent Development & HR Management (8 or 2,7%).

Specifically, these areas include: a) an assessment of the Basis of Competition (Q.1), b) insights regarding the elements that participants think must change immediately in the sector (Q.2), c) the identification of the “Single Point of Failure” (Q.3, Q.4 & Q.5), d) the key Problems (Q.6) and e) key Cost elements (Q.7), f ) the identification of the Key Factors for Success (Q.8) and finally g) insights on relevant, adjacent or entirely diﬀerent to C&P banking industries / applications (Q.9) that could provide inspiration on possible future trajectories during the strategic dialogue (ISDVI15). The points of distinctions over multiple responses formed the dimensions of each of these key areas and their sub-components / dimensions, upon which the elements / statements were evaluated and responses were generated. The resulting data was placed in a C x E matrix, where C equals the number of constructs or rows and E equals the number of elements. The results provide evidence of strong unifying themes in participants’ responses that were analysed in terms of frequency of occurrence. More specifically, the core categorisation procedure of the responses in this section, resulted in 38 distinct and key elements with 562 corresponding items or responses. © Shakesteer 2014. A study conducted for CIBP.

7 | 28

The second dimension, referring to the 3 key elements that participants think that must change immediately in the sector (Q.2) generated 41 responses, corresponding to 4 key elements that include 26 responses (63.4% of 41 responses) in the areas of Operations Management, Service mix, Governance and Human Resources, reflecting: a) Faster, more Efficient / Effective Operations & Process Optimisation Management (8), b) Integration, Personalisation & Diversification of Products / Services & Systems (8), c) Improvement of decision effectiveness & Governance (5) and d) Talent Development, HR Management & opportunities for better education in Finance (5).

Researcher: Dr. Fotis Filippopoulos

ISWOT14 Assessment Survey

Report

Assessing the Basis of Competition. Generic Content & Open Text Analysis. The third dimension, referring to the identification of the “Single Point of Failure” (Q.3, Q.4 and Q.5) or SPF, generated 155 responses, corresponding to 8 main emergent subcategories (87 or 56,1% of 155 responses) that relate to the part of the system that, if it fails, will stop the entire system from working, from the business / user / member and brand combined

These 3 key cost-generation elements (53 or 55,2% of 96 responses) correspond to: a) Human resources (21 or 39,6% of 53 responses in this category), b) Information systems and Technology costs (17 or 32%) and c) Local presence / Proximity / Branch network costs (15 or 28,3%). In suggesting ideas / concepts on what shall be the basis of future success for C&P banks

perspectives. Results showed that among other fundamental SPFs in the C&P banking system, like IT / Technology (10 or 11,4% of 87 responses), Liquidity (5), Customer / Member Relationships (5), Proximity (9) and Credit provision (7), the loss of Trust and Credibility (20 or 22,9% of responses), the loss of Values, ethics, reputation and Brand (16 or 18,3%) and a decline in Service Quality and Expertise (15 or 17,2%) where found to be the most integrated (overlapping) SPFs across all 3 perspectives, thereby the most important ones.

(Q.8 - sixth dimension), participants produced 72 ideas corresponding to 4 main categories or dimensions (39 of 72 responses) related to Technology, Corporate Values, Service Quality, and Relationship Management. Specifically, the key sub-dimensions include: a) Customer / Member Acquisition, Relationship & Knowledge Management / Proximity & Close contact (20 of 39 responses), b) Preservation of cooperative values (7), c) Service quality (6) and d) Investment in Information Technology & other new related technologies (6).

The fourth dimension related to the 3 biggest problems that Cooperative and Popular Banking faces (Q.6) includes 132 responses reflecting 4 key emergent sub-categories (50 or 37,8% of 132 responses) in the areas of: a) Competition on a large scale and from non-bank players (16 or 32% of 50 responses), b) strict regulations & misunderstanding of the cooperative sector (especially by the government) (12 or 24%), c) lack of innovation in Products, Services & Business Model (11 or 22%) and d) Challenges deriving from Information and technology progress and digitalisation (11 or 22%). Moving on, in the fifth dimension (Q.7), participants also identified the 3 key elements of the business that contribute the most to the overall Cost structure(96 responses) related to Human Capital, Technology and Network. © Shakesteer 2014. A study conducted for CIBP.

8 | 28

Finally, the seventh dimension, referring to the assessment of the “Basis of Competition”, related to suggestions about non-competitive or nondirectly related industries whose value oﬀerings; Business Model and competitive parameters could be used as a source of inspiration by the ISDVI15 team to develop entirely novel Value Propositions for the C&P banking sector (Q.9) includes 41 responses, reflecting 3 related and non-related industries (33 responses) in the areas of Information Technology & New Technologies, Crowd sourcing and various Platform providers like: a) Google’s and social media (Facebook, twitter) business models (17 of 33 responses), b) Micro financing model and Crowdfunding / Crowd sourcing Model (10) and c) Apple “like” (Platform provision, i.e Apple Pay services NFC) (6). Researcher: Dr. Fotis Filippopoulos

ISWOT14 Assessment Survey

Report

Assessing the Basis of Competition. Key Competitive Factors in C&P Banking.

What Participants Think Must Change Immediately.

Q1. In your view, what are the 8 key competitive factors in Cooperative and Popular Banking?

Q2. When it comes to Cooperative and Popular Banking what are the 3 key elements of the sector, you think must change immediately?

Category

Frequency

Category

Customer / Member Acquisition, Relationship & Knowledge Management

Locality / Proximity & Branch network

Brand & Brand Values

Faster, more Eﬃcient / Eﬀective Operations & Process Optimisation Management

Integration, Personalisation & Diversification of Products / Services & Systems

Improve decision eﬀectiveness & Governance

Talent Development, HR Management & Finance Education

5 4

Need for stronger marketing / brand strategy (Communication about diﬀerentiators)

Greater adaptation of Information Technology & New Technologies

Greater collaboration amongst members

Greater & more eﬃcient use of social media

New regulation for cooperatives (eu-law for cooperatives)

More focus on sustainable practices

Develop & Deliver Values that are more appealing to younger people

Increase local initiatives

Stop imitating capitalist banks

Adapting the rules taylor made for joint stock companies to a cooperative environment

Constant Comparison & Market monitoring

OmniChannel development

Not to relocate activities

Invest in transparency

Branch network

General conditions of loans

Strengthen the international network to support the corporate customers

Decision Eﬀectiveness & Democratic Governance

Frequency

Product / Service Mix & Quality Management

Information Technology & New Technologies Price of Products & Services Talent Development & HR Management

Channel Management

Credit Monitoring & Risk Management Regulations Total

293

Total

9 | 28

Researcher: Dr. Fotis Filippopoulos

ISWOT14 Assessment Survey

Report

Assessing the Basis of Competition.





 IT / Technology

Liquidity

 Trust & Credibility



Identifying the Single Point of Failure.

Customer / Member Relationships

The “Single Point of Failure” or SPF is a new concept and an integral part of the Total Value Innovation (TVI) methodology that will be applied during the ISDVI15. The SPF is the part of the system that, if it fails, will stop the entire system from working. The SPF helps participants to identify, understand and develop protective measures against the combination of parameters that could lead to a systemic critical failure. To provide a holistic SPF analysis the business / user / member and brand perspectives should be considered and combined. The more integrated an SPF element is across the 3 perspectives the more important it is.

 Service Quality & Expertise







Proximity

Loss of the values, ethics, reputation & brand

Granting Credit

RESPONSES

155 Business Perspective Member Perspective Brand Perspective

Q3. From the business perspective, which part of the system, if it fails, will stop the entire system from working?

Q4. From the user / member perspective, which part of the system, if it fails, will stop the entire system from working?

Q5. From the brand’s perspective, which part of the system, if it fails, will stop the entire system from working?

Category

Frequency

Loss of the values, ethics, reputation and brand

Trust and Credibility

Service Quality and expertise

Trust and Credibility

Keep Promises

Customer Satisfaction and Loyatly

loss of confidence

Performance

Financing SME needs

Brand diﬀerentiation

Proximity

Loss of Autonomy (albeit partial

Loss of authenticity

IT / Technology

Service Quality and expertise

Liquidity

Proximity

Granting Credit

The values, reputation / brand

Relationships with Members

Trust

Governance / Loosing the democracy

Frequency

Customer deposits

Retail banking

Information systems / Technology

Attraction of new financial resources

The values, ethics and brand of the institution

Confidence

Speculation and lack of reinvestment

interest rate mechanism

Confidentiality

law and regulation

Non-innovative products and lack of competitiveness High Prices

Brand inconsistency

Loss of Expertise

Accessibility

lack of strategic vision of cooperatives

Loss of Proximity

1 1

Lack of territorial strategy

Notoriety

Popularity

Brand Update

Partnerships

Not updated IT / Technology

Confidentiality

Big corporate credit risks and default of government bonds.

Recession hitting the real economy

Democratic participation in decision making process

Management of savings

Decay of families

Cost structure

Self Responsibility

Associated growth

Payment Services

Total

10 | 28

Total

Researcher: Dr. Fotis Filippopoulos

ISWOT14 Assessment Survey

Report

Assessing the Basis of Competition. Identifying the Problems that C&P banks Face.

Identifying the Key Cost Elements.

Q6. What are the 3 biggest problems that Cooperative and Popular Banking faces?

Q7. What 3 elements of the business contribute the most to the overall cost?

Category

Frequency

Competition on a large scale and non-bank players Strict Regulations & misunderstanding of the cooperative sector (especially by the government) Lack of Innovation ( Products / Services / Business Model) Information and technology progress / Digitalisation

Operational costs vs. eﬃciency (Cost Structure)

Demographic development aﬀecting customer base

Recovery of the confidence and trust of the client

Governance and Resistance to change

Limited investment in marketing

International presence and NPLs

Human resources

Information systems / Technology costs

Local presence / Proximity / Branch network

Corporate / infrastructure costs

Regulation compliance costs

Network maintenance and management costs

Channel costs

Cost of Risk

Cost of Resources

Logistical costs

Taxation

Free customer one to one services

Dying members

Cost of money

Back oﬃce operations for regulatory reporting

Compliance costs and supervisory costs

Investments

Marketing oﬀers

Refinancing costs

Losses

Bureaucracy

Bank Levies

Adjustments to loans

Access to capital

Lack of Knowledge on C&P Banking Business Model

Low margins

Members’ declining participation

The incapacity to communicate the advantages of our business model Corporate Culture and Staﬀ adherence to the values of the cooperative Lack of responsiveness and inability to follow new customer needs

3 3 2

Management of growth and development

Loss of identity

Reorganise the business on the retail market

Intermediary certification

Notoriety

Access to new and / or younger customer groups

Loss of focus on core business

High Taxation

Declining member influence

Lack of diﬀerentiation

Increasing willingness to change bank by customers

Brand Update

Oversised foreign investment banks

Management of impaired loans

Globalisation

Talent Development & HR Management

Distribution channels

Pricing

Diﬃculty in the corrections of high credits

Monitoring of investments abroad

1 Total

Frequency

Total

132

11 | 28

Researcher: Dr. Fotis Filippopoulos

ISWOT14 Assessment Survey

Report

Assessing the Basis of Competition. Identifying the Key Factors for Success.

Drawing Inspiration from other Industries.

Q8. What do you believe the future success of our business is going to be based on?

Q9. Name one (or more) non-competitive or non-directly related industry whose value oﬀerings; Business Model and competitive parameters could help us develop entirely novel Value Propositions for the Cooperative and Popular Banking sector.

Category

Frequency

Customer / Member Acquisition, Relationship & Knowledge Management / Proximity & Close contact

Preservation of cooperative values

Service quality

Category

Frequency

Information Technology & New Technologies (Google, and social media (Facebook, twitter) model

Investment in Information Technology & New Technologies

Micro financing model and Crowdfunding / Crowd sourcing Model

Integration, Personalisation & Diversification of Products / Services & Systems

Apple (Platform provider - Apple Pay services NFC)

Faster, more Eﬃcient / Eﬀective Operations & Process Optimisation Management

Paypal

Innovation of Products / Services / Business Model

4 Amazon

Starbucks Coﬀee with atractive meeting-point for his customers

Membership programs (especially from airlines!)

Strategic Diﬀerentiation

Restoration of public confidence and trust

Multichannels

Services for internationalisation of SMEs

Netflix

Democratic governance and change management

Telecommunications

Involvement in sustainability

Focus on SME Customers

Digital Bank

Regulator’s support and understanding

Flexibility

Partners

Strong Marketing

Talent Development & HR Management

1 Total

Total

12 | 28

Researcher: Dr. Fotis Filippopoulos

ISWOT14 Assessment Survey

 WEIGHTED MEAN

7.88 SD: 2.53 DIMENSION 1

Major Strengths Minor Strengths 10 / Entirely Agree Major >8 Strengths Minor >7 Strengths

5 / Neither Agree or Disagree

1 / Entirely Disagree

Report

Value Proposition (VP) Assessment. The Value Offered to the Customers & Members. The assessment of Value Propositions refers to the service and product mix that creates Value for the customers and members of C&P banks. This assessment consists of 3 key items related to a) the level of alignment of the Value Propositions (VP) with customer / Member needs (Q.10), b) The network effects of the VPs offered (Q.11) and c) The synergies between the service mix (Q.12). Analysis produced an overall score of 7.88 indicating that C&P banking offers high levels of Value to the customers / members that is well aligned with their needs and with strong network effects but with moderate synergies within the service mix.

Thus, the null hypothesis, that there is no link between VP, Brand and BM alignment in the current state of the C&P banks BM, is rejected. Additionally, the two categories of: a) the existence of strong synergies between the services (Q.12) and b) the opportunity to generate recurring revenues by introducing novel services (Q.67) were also found to be strongly correlated (p-Value: 0,0004), reinforcing the evidence provided by the research that further integration of services and the introduction of new ones constitute major opportunities for growth in C&P banking.

To better understand what is driving the summary results, the trends and patterns and how the key (categorical) variables are related to each other and the significance of their association, Cross-tabulations (CT) were performed throughout ISWOT14. On that basis only the Chi-square values (alpha) that were statistically significant at p < 0,05 ("cutoﬀ" point) are included in the report. Specifically, here CT was applied to see if there is a relationship between the level of alignment of VPs with Customer / Member needs (Q.10) and the level of alignment of the Brand with the Business Model (BM) and VPs (Q.48). The CT analysis indicated that with a p-Value of 0,0032 [Chi-square values (alpha) were statistically significant at 0.05] there is a significant association between these two variables.

SD: 2.3 Min: 3

SD: 2.8 Min: 1

SD: 2.5 Min: 2

8.14

8.1

7.4

Q10. Our VPs are well aligned with customer / member needs.

13 | 28

Q11. Our Value Propositions have strong network eﬀects.

Q12. There are strong synergies between our services.

Researcher: Dr. Fotis Filippopoulos

ISWOT14 Assessment Survey

Report

Cost / Revenue Assessment. Q13. We benefit from strong margins.

5.7

Margins, Pricing Mechanisms Costs & Predicability.

Min: 1 | SD: 2.9 Q14. Our revenues are predictable.

7.1 7.4

The Cost / Revenue assessment describes the Strengths and Weaknesses related to the Cost structure referring to the costs incurred to operate the current C&P banking business model and the Revenue structure referring to the way C&P banks capture value in relation to customers’ / members’ willingness to pay for the Value oﬀered.

Min: 2 | SD: 2.7 Q15. We have recurring Revenue Streams & frequent repeat purchases / transactions. Min: 1 | SD: 2.5 Q16. Our Revenue Streams are diversified.

7.2 Min: 2 | SD: 2.9

Analysis produced an overall low score of 6.87, indicating that the current Cost / Revenue structure is not competitive, with low margins (5.7), limited ability to collect revenues before any expenses are incurred (6.0), pricing mechanisms that do not capture full willingness to pay (6.9), a Cost structure that is not correctly matched to the business model (6.2) and operations that could be more cost eﬃcient (6.4). The analysis also showed that the only major strength in this category is the predictably of costs (8.0).

Q17. Our Revenue Streams are sustainable.

7.4 Min: 2 | SD: 2.9 Q18. We collect revenues before we incur expenses.

6.0 7.2

Min: 1 | SD: 2.8 Q19. We charge for what customers / members are really willing to pay for. Min: 2 | SD: 3 Q20. Our pricing mechanisms capture full willingness to pay.

6.9 Min: 2 | SD: 2.5

WEIGHTED MEAN

Q21. Our costs are predictable.

8.0 Min: 2 | SD: 2.5 Q22. Our Cost Structure is correctly matched to our business model.

6.2

SD: 2.77 DIMENSION 2

Major Strengths

Min: 2 | SD: 3

Minor Strengths

Q23. Our operations are cost eﬃcient.

6.4

6.87  Weaknesses

10 / Entirely Agree Major >8 Strengths Minor >7 Strengths

Min: 1 | SD: 2.8 5 / Neither Agree or Disagree

Q24. We benefit from economies of scale.

7.0 Min: 2 | SD: 2.8

1 / Entirely Disagree

14 | 28

Researcher: Dr. Fotis Filippopoulos

ISWOT14 Assessment Survey

 WEIGHTED MEAN

7.32 SD: 2.61 DIMENSION 3

Major Strengths Minor Strengths Weaknesses & Threats 10 / Entirely Agree Major >8 Strengths >7

Minor Strengths

5 / Neither Agree or Disagree

1 / Entirely Disagree

Report

Infrastructure Assessment. Resources, Activities Operations & Partners. The Infrastructure assessment includes the Resources, Activities and Partnerships (network) required to deliver the Value Propositions to the Customers / Members, whilst achieving operational eﬃciency. With a relatively high score (7.32) the “current” position of the C&P banking business model appears to be “operations centric” with special emphasis on execution quality (7.7), focus on the core business (8.2) and in maintaining good working relationships with the key partners (8.7). However, analysis showed that in this dimension the current C&P business model is not able to protect the banks from Resource (6.9) and Activity (6.2) replication by the competitors.

Q25. Our Key Resources are diﬃcult for competitors to replicate.

6.9 Min: 2 | SD: 3.2 Q26. Our Resource needs are predictable.

7.8 Min: 2 | SD: 2.5 Q27. We deploy Key Resources in right amount at the right time.

6.6 Min: 2 | SD: 2.7 Q28. We eﬃciently execute Key Activities.

7.3 Min: 2 | SD: 2.6 Q29. Our Key Activities are diﬃcult to copy.

6.2 7.0

Min: 1 | SD: 3.2 Q30. Our key activities and operations are interconnected and supportive of each other. Min: 2 | SD: 2.3 Q31. Our key activities and operations are scalable.

7.6 7.4

Min: 1 | SD: 2.3 Q32. Our Activities and Operations are in line with the growth needs and size of our business. Min: 2 | SD: 2.4 Q33. Execution quality is high.

7.7 Min: 2 | SD: 2.4 Q34. Balance of in-house versus outsourced execution is ideal.

6.5 Min: 2 | SD: 2.6 Q35. We are focused and work with partners when necessary.

8.2 Min: 2 | SD: 2.6 Q36. We enjoy good working relationships with our Key Partners.

8.7

15 | 28

Min: 1 | SD: 2.6

Researcher: Dr. Fotis Filippopoulos

ISWOT14 Assessment Survey

Report

Customer / Member Interface Assessment.  WEIGHTED MEAN

7.77 SD: 2.58 DIMENSION 4

Major Strengths Minor Strengths Weaknesses 10 / Entirely Agree Major >8 Strengths Minor >7 Strengths

SD: 2.9 Min: 2

SD: 2.8 Min: 2

SD: 2.9 Min: 2

8.2

7.5

8.4

29. The rate of customers / members who cut ties with our service and / or bank is low.

30. Our customer / member base is well segmented.

5 / Neither Agree or Disagree

31. We are 1 / Entirely continuously Disagree acquiring new customers/members.

Q37. Our Channels are very eﬃcient.

7.1 7.6 8.0

7.2 7.3

The Customer / Member interface appears to be one of the key Strengths (7.77) of the current C&P banking business model, with low churn rates (8.2), continuous new customer acquisition (8.4), exceptionally strong brand (9.3) and strong channel reach (8.0), channel visibility (8.0) and relationships (9.1) with customers / members, being amongst the key major strengths. However, one of the key findings of ISWOT14 is the major Weakness as well as Threat of the inability of the current relationship framework to bind customers / members with high switching costs (5.76). Moreover, Cross Tabulation was used to investigate the significance of association among key variables in this category. Specifically analysis showed that three strongly correlated areas include: a) level of Channel integration (Q.41) and competitors threatening the Channels (Q.64) (p- Value: 0,0003), b) Channel eﬀectiveness (Q.38) and danger of Channels becoming irrelevant to Customers / Members (Q.65) (p- Value: 0,0056) and c) level of Channel integration (Q.41) and danger of Channels becoming irrelevant to Customers / Members (Q.65) (p- Value: 0,0298).

Q43. Channels are well matched to Customer / Member segments.

7.5 Min: 2 | SD: 2.8

Min: 3 | SD: 2.6

Q38. Our Channels are very eﬀective.

Q44. We enjoy strong Customer / Member relationships.

9.1 Min: 3 | SD: 2.6

Min: 1 | SD: 2.6

Q39. Channel reach is strong among customers /members.

Q45. Relationship quality correctly matches Customer / Member Segments.

7.9 Min: 3 | SD: 2.6 Q40. Customers / members can easily see our channels.

8.0

Channels, Relationships & Brand Strength.

5.76

Min: 1 | SD: 2.6 Q46. Our Relationships bind customers / members through high switching costs.

Min: 2 | SD: 2.6

Min: 1 | SD: 2.8

Q41. Channels are strongly integrated.

Q47. Our brand is strong.

9.3 Min: 1 | SD: 2.8

Min: 2 | SD: 2.6

Q42. Channels provide economies of scope.

Q48. Our brand is well aligned with our Business Model and Value Propositions.

7.8 Min: 2 | SD: 2.6

16 | 28

Min: 2 | SD: 2.7

Researcher: Dr. Fotis Filippopoulos

ISWOT14 Assessment Survey

Assessment of Threats.



How the External Forces Influence C&P Banking.

WEIGHTED MEAN

6.72 Major Threats Minor Threats Strengths & Opportunities 10 / Entirely Agree Major >8 Threats Minor Threats

Strengths & <7 Opportunities 5 / Neither Agree or Disagree

1 / Entirely Disagree

Yes

41.3% 33.7%

25%

Don't Know

Q49. There are substitute products & services available.

8.4

This dimension of ISWOT14 looks at Threats specific to the business model innovation building blocks as these will be included in the TVI process during the strategic dialogue on Value Innovation (ISDVI15). Specifically, analysis showed that on the whole, Threats with a low score of 6.72 are perceived the lesser part of the problem with major Threats mainly coming from substitute products and services (8.4) and competitors threatening the margins (8.5), market share (8.1) and channels (79.3% agree). All in all, these results and despite the overall positively low score, indicate that the industry operates in a Red Ocean and that there is a justified need for C&P banks to pursue Value and Business Model Innovation.

SD: 2.77 DIMENSION 5

Report

Q62. Is the quality of our resources threatened in any way?

Yes

Q50. Competitors are likely to oﬀer better price or value.

6.86 Min: 1 | SD: 2.9 Q51. Competitors threaten our margins.

8.5 Min: 2 | SD: 2.8 Q52. Technology threatens our margins.

7.3 Min: 1 | SD: 3.3 Q53. We depend excessively on one or more Revenue Streams.

6.7 Min: 1 | SD: 2.9 Q54. We could face a disruption in the supply of certain resources.

6.0 Min: 1 | SD: 2.2 Q55. We are in danger of losing any partners.

5.1

51.3% 33.3%

Min: 1 | SD: 2.8

Min: 1 | SD: 2.6 Q56. Our partners might collaborate with competitors.

6.6

Don't Know 15.4%

Min: 1 | SD: 2.7

Q63. Is the quality of our activities threatened in any way?

Q57. We are highly dependent on certain partners.

Yes

79.3%

No 19.5%

48.8%

5.6 7.5

37.8%

Don't Know 1.2%

Don't Know 13.4%

Q64. Do competitors threaten our channels?

Q65. Are our Channels in danger of becoming irrelevant to customers / members?

Min: 1 | SD: 2.5 Q58. Our market could become even more saturated in the near future. Min: 1 | SD: 3.2 Q59. Competitors are threatening our market share.

8.1 Min: 2 | SD: 2.7 Q60. How likely are customers/members to defect?

5.8 Min: 1 | SD: 2.5 Yes No

53.7% 32.9%

Don't Know 13.4%

Q61. How quickly will competition in our market intensify?

5.0 Min: 1 | SD: 2.9

Q66. Are any of Customer Relationships in danger of deteriorating? © Shakesteer 2014. A study conducted for CIBP.

17 | 28

Researcher: Dr. Fotis Filippopoulos

ISWOT14 Assessment Survey

Report

Assessment of Opportunities. î&#x20AC;Ş Q67. We could generate recurring revenues by introducing novel services.

WEIGHTED MEAN

Min: 1 | SD: 2.6 Q68. We could use less costly resources to achieve the same result.

8.16

8.52 7.5

Major Opp/ties Minor Opp/ties

Q69. We could standardise some Key Activities.

8.1 8.0

The assessment of Opportunities also looks at specific to the business model innovation building blocks as these will be included in the TVI process during the strategic dialogue on Value Innovation (ISDVI15). It appears clear that there is a plethora of Opportunities (8.16) that C&P banks could exploit and also provide a source of inspiration for Value Innovation,

SD: 2.69 DIMENSION 6

Min: 1 | SD: 2.8

8.7

How the External Forces Influence C&P Banking.

10 / Entirely Agree Major >8 Strengths

Min: 1 | SD: 2.5 Q70. Greater collaboration with partners could help us focus on our core business.

Min: 1 | SD: 2.7 Q71. We could better serve our customers / members through finer segmentation.

Minor Strengths

improvement and renewal. Major Opportunities include the generation of recurring revenues by the introduction of novel services (8.52), the standardisation of some key activities (8.7), the greater collaboration with partners (8.1) and better customer / member service through a finer segmentation (8.0).

5 / Neither Agree or Disagree

Min: 1 | SD: 2.9

1 / Entirely Disagree

97.5%

88.9%

81%

54.3% 41.3% 42.5% 29.6% 16.1%

2.5% Yes

No Don't Know

Q72. Could we better integrate our services?

Yes

2.5%

No Don't Know

Q73. Can we replace one time transaction revenues with recurring revenues?

92.4%

Yes

No Don't Know

Q77. Could partners complement our Value Proposition?

2.5% Yes

8.6%

No Don't Know

Q74. Do we have cross selling opportunities either internally or with partners?

Q78. Could we integrate our Channels better?

ÂŠ Shakesteer 2014. A study conducted for CIBP.

Yes

No Don't Know

Q75. Can we increase prices for our services?

2.5% 11.4%

5.1%

No Don't Know

Yes

10.1% 8.9%

No Don't Know

Q79. Could we find new complementary partner Channels?

18 | 28

Yes

90%

2.5% 11.2% Yes

No Don't Know

Q76. Could partner Channels help us better reach customers / members?

86.3%

86.1%

79.8%

10.1% 10.1%

Yes

16.2%

10%

No Don't Know

Q80. Could we better align Channels with customer/ member segments?

Yes

No Don't Know

Q81. Is there potential to improve customer / member follow up?

Researcher: Dr. Fotis Filippopoulos

ISWOT14 Assessment Survey

 TOTAL RESPONSES

451 KEY AREAS

7 KEY ITEMS

Report

Open Text Analysis. Generic Content & Diﬀerential Analysis. In this section, 7 open ended questions were employed to generate a total of 451 responses (constructs), from the 99 participants in the study. Specifically, these areas include: a) Identification of potential Bottlenecks (Q.82), b) Revenue Stream sustainability (Q.83), c) Predictability of Costs (Q.84), d) Potential disruption of Key Activities (Q.85), e) Ways to improve Channel Eﬃciency (Q.86), f ) Satisfaction of additional Customer / Member needs (Q.87), and g) Ways to tighten relationships with Customers / Members (Q.88). The results provide evidence of strong unifying themes in participants’ responses that were analysed in terms of frequency of occurrence. More specifically, the core categorisation procedure of the responses resulted in 43 distinct and key elements and 274 corresponding items or responses. In particular, the first dimension, referring to the identification of key potential Bottlenecks (Q.82) in the system, includes 64 responses, consisting of 7 main emergent sub-categories (51 or 79,6% of 64 responses) related to Finance and Credit Risk, Customer/ Member Service, Governance and Technology, reflecting in descending order: a) Credit decision making process / Loans (18 or 35,2% of 51 responses in this category), b) IT / Information systems / Digital capabilities (8), c) Credit Risk Assessment (including SME’s (7), d) Responsiveness to client needs (6), e) Governance / Decision making & strategy implementation (4), f ) Retail Business (4) and g) International / domestic Money Transfers (4).

19 | 28

The second dimension, referring to Revenue Stream sustainability (Q.83) includes 50 responses, related to 5 key elements (23 or 46% of 50 responses) in the areas of Fees / Revenues and Margins under threat of extinction, namely a) Transaction fees (5), b) Account fees (5), c) Interests margin (5), d) Revenue from payment services (5) and e) Commission fees (3). The third dimension referring to the Costs that threaten to become unpredictable (Q.84) includes 68 responses corresponding to 6 main emergent sub-categories (39 or 57,3% of 68 responses) reflecting: a) Information systems / Investments in Technology (9), b) Rules and regulations compliance costs (7), c) Branches and real estate cost of “network" (6), d) Taxation (6), e) Credit Risk associated costs (6) and f ) Costs for legal advice (5). Moving on, the fourth dimension, referring to the potential disruption of Key Activities (Q.85), includes 59 responses, consisting of 5 main emergent sub-categories (26 or 44% of 59 responses) related to Finance, Services, Human Resource Management and key Activities, reflecting in descending order: a) Receipts / Payment services and handling (9), b) Services in branches / branch network (8), c) Battle for talent / Human capital (3), d) SMEs financing (3) and e) Outsourcing of activities like administration, accounting & IT (3).

Researcher: Dr. Fotis Filippopoulos

ISWOT14 Assessment Survey

Report

Open Text Analysis. Generic Content & Differential Analysis. In suggesting ways to improve channel efficiency or effectiveness (Q.86 - fifth dimension), participants produced 50 responses (ideas) corresponding to a large number of categories (7) related to Technology, Communication, Operations, Data and Relationship Management. Key emergent sub-dimensions include: a) Investments in new relative technologies (10 or

Finally, the seventh dimension, referring to suggestion of “Ways” to further tighten relationships with Customers / Members (Q.88) includes the majority of responses (86), corresponding to 6 key elements (58 or 67,4% of 86 responses) in the areas of Communication, Relationship Management, Brand Strategy, Technology and Database management,

20% of responses), b) Better communication (5), c) Finer market segmentation (4), d) Channel integration and synergies among services (4), e) Faster, more Eﬃcient / Eﬀective Operations & Process Optimisation Management (4), f ) Elimination of silos and integration of more corporate services (3) and g) Data analytics and database management (big data) (3).

reflecting: a) Proximity and Close contact with the customers / intimacy and follow up (12 or 20,6% of 58 responses in this category), b) Integration, Personalisation & Diversification of Products / Services & Systems / Private scheme service (12), c) Protection and better Communication of Brand Values / Make members / customers / partners part of the "story" (10), d) Finer Relationship & Knowledge Management / Improve data mining (CRM tools) (9), e) Better generic communication (8) and f ) utilisation of social media tools and Web 2.0 (7).

Moreover, in the sixth dimension (Q.87), participants also produced a wealth of ideas (74) related to the Satisfaction of additional Customer / Member needs located in 7 key areas (44 or 59,4% of 74 responses), reflecting in descending order: a) Technology support / Electronic banking / mobile / internet services / Live chat room and Omni-channel (14 of 44 responses), b) Provision of a better partner network amongst members and on a worldwide basis / Reinforcement of the relation between bank / customer / member (8), c) Satisfaction of Start-up needs (5), d) Personal and business financial consulting (5), e) Use of data to support / manage SMEs assurances (4), f ) Data protection and security (4) and g) Satisfaction of seniors' needs and retirement services (4).

20 | 28

Researcher: Dr. Fotis Filippopoulos

ISWOT14 Assessment Survey

Report

Open Text Analysis The Responses. Identification of potential Bottlenecks.

Revenue Stream sustainability.

Q82. Are some of our key processes, activities and operations faster than others? If yes which ones are these?

Q83. Which Revenue Streams are likely to disappear in the future?

Category

Frequency

Credit decision making process / Loans

IT / Information systems / Digital capabilities

Credit Risk Assessment (including SME’s)

Responsiveness to client needs

Governance / Decision making & strategy implementation

Retail Business

International / domestic Money Transfers

Transaction fees

Account fees

Interests margin

Revenue from payment services

Commission fees

Up front fees

Customers operational commissions

ATM charges

Strong Reduction of Net Interest Income

Service costs

None

Provisions for insurance products and advisory services

Binding or Constraint fees

Financial logistics

National and International Payments

Capital market trading

Short term financing fees - other competitors outside of the regulatory framework (amazon / google) will be able to oﬀer much cheaper alternatives

Resources for the diaspora

Contracting services fees

Traditional deposit-lending activities

Brick and mortar branches

Deposit book

Brokerage margins

Retail commissions

Bank rates

Provision-based services

Account opening

Signing contracts

Development support

Cash Transactions

Credit Cards

Trade operations

Deposit collection

Securities

Mortgages

Cross border retail operations

Total

Frequency

21 | 28

Total

Researcher: Dr. Fotis Filippopoulos

ISWOT14 Assessment Survey

Report

Open Text Analysis The Responses. Predictability of Costs.

Potential disruption of Key Activities.

Q84. Which costs threaten to become unpredictable?

Q85. What Key Activities might be disrupted?

Category

Frequency

Information systems / Investments in Technology

Rules and regulations compliance costs

Frequency

Receipts / Payment services and handling

Services in branches / branch network

Battle for talent / Human capital

SMEs financing

Branches and real estate cost "network"

Taxation

Outsourcing of activities like administration, accounting, IT.

Credit Risk associated costs

No disruption

Costs for legal advice - the regulatory framework is exploding in number, scope and complexity

Agencies due to a mobile banking system

Delivery channels

Credit portfolio

Property finance / mortgage

Cash handling

Cost of resources (i.e deposits)

Operations costs

Infrastructure costs

Payment services

Control of the agricultural sector

Human ressources

Landing activities

Market making activities

Prosecution

Digitalisation

Financial logistics

Loan losses linked to global economy evolution

Service costs

Implementation of Basel III and other international standards IFRS

Banks Levies

Legal activities

Access to capital depending on credit rating

Savings deposit

Product lines

Transaction activities

Business in securities

Specific assets management services

Area Support activities

Consumer protection measures

Innovation practises costs

Foreign exchange rates

Refinancing costs

Interest rate margins

Accessibility in the Regions

Depreciation

Electronic transactions

International services

Money transfers

Flow of savings

Conventional banking vs Islamic banking credit granting

Financial crisis type 2008 costs

Security in electronic transactions

Accounting costs

1 Total

ÂŠ Shakesteer 2014. A study conducted for CIBP.

22 | 28

Total

Researcher: Dr. Fotis Filippopoulos

ISWOT14 Assessment Survey

Report

Open Text Analysis The Responses. Ways to improve Channel Eﬃciency.

Satisfaction of additional Customer / Member needs.

Q86. How could we improve channel eﬃciency or eﬀectiveness?

Q87. Which additional customer / member needs could we satisfy?

Category

Frequency

Invest in new relative technologies / mobile

Better communication

Finer market segmentation

Category

Frequency

Technology support / Electronic banking / mobile / internet services / Live chat room (Omnichannel) Provide a better partner network amongst members and on a worldwide basis / Reinforce the relation between bank / customer / member

14 8

Start-up needs

Personal and business financial consulting

Use of data to support / manage SMEs assurances

Channel integration and synergies

Faster, more Eﬃcient / Eﬀective Operations & Process Optimisation Management

Data protection and security

Break silos and integrate more corporate services

Seniors' needs and retirement services

Search for finance (other than banking) / Crowd funding services

SME support

Savings products / services

Insurance services

Faster and reliable payment systems

Data analytics and database management (big data) Use of social media

Training of personell and talent management

Competitive pricing

Direct more budgets into online channels

Consulting on real estate investments

Partnership with foreign banks for worldwide services

Younger age group needs

Administrative services

Council tax and legal services

Fee based models instead of provision based models

Special services for wealthy members

Stronger collaboration

Outsourcing

Self service

Better management of (human, technical and financial) resources

Finding solutions for issues aﬀecting many members at the same time in co-making

Exchange of "Best practices" amongst Members

Protection / transfer of assets

Partnership with local companies for domestic money transfer putting incentives at a group level

Invent new ways of financing

Strong focus on simplicity

Co-operative corporate "all inn service" - integrated advisors (the legal structure as a co-operative, the basic financing, guaranteeing other external investors or at least give them a professional certificate to ease their decision to invest with the customer

Financial education

Eﬃcient credit process

Simplification of processes

Guarantee of trade on both directions

1 Total

23 | 28

Total

Researcher: Dr. Fotis Filippopoulos

ISWOT14 Assessment Survey

Report

Open Text Analysis The Responses. Ways to tighten relationships with Customers / Members. Q88. How could we tighten our relationships with customers / members? Category

Frequency

Proximity and Close contact with the customers / intimacy and follow up

Integration, Personalisation & Diversification of Products / Services & Systems / Private scheme service

Safeguard and Communicate the Brand Values / Make members / customers / partners part of the "story"

Finer Relationship & Knowledge Management / Improve data mining (CRM tools)

Better communication

Implementing social media tools and Web 2.0

Invest in greater service quality

Improve agility and speed / Responsiveness

Transparency

Competitive price-performance-ratio

Provide training on taxes / investment / corporate foundation and administration

Reduce costs

Improved and simplified on-boarding process

Professional conferences and workgroups

Cross selling opportunities

Discount system based on contribution

With more animation of our networks at the higher level

Create intergenerational links

Don't be completely depended on risk models and systems

Focus on real clients

Greater involvement in a democratic governance

Provide life-time planning and value

Provide opportunities for greater participation and contribution to the life of the bank

Attract customers as members

1 Total

ÂŠ Shakesteer 2014. A study conducted for CIBP.

24 | 28

Researcher: Dr. Fotis Filippopoulos

ISWOT14 Assessment Survey

Report

Segmentation Analysis by Country & Role. SD: 2.3 WEIGHTED MEAN

8.14

Our Value Propositions are well aligned with customer / member needs. By Country.

By Role. Elected Manager

9.2

Member

9.3

Board Member

9.2 7.5

Customer

8.7

Employee

Overall Argentina Austria Belgium Brasil Canada France Germany Italy Morocco Holland USA SD: 2.3 SD: 0.5 SD: 2.1 SD: 2.2 SD: 1.5 SD: 3.9 SD: 2.8 SD: 2.2 SD: 2.1 SD: 2.2 SD: 0.0 SD: 0.0

8.14 8.25 8.4 9.1 7.4 8.8 9.3 9.3 8.5 8.57 5.0 7.0 SD: 3.0 WEIGHTED MEAN

6.86

Competitors are likely to oﬀer better price or value. By Country.

By Role. Elected Manager

6.3

Member

7.5

Board Member

7.2

Customer Employee

5.7 7

Overall Argentina Austria Belgium Brasil Canada France Germany Italy Morocco Holland USA SD: 3.0 SD: 1.0 SD: 4.3 SD: 2.2 SD: 3.6 SD: 1.7 SD: 2.6 SD: 3.1 SD: 2.4 SD: 3.3 SD: 2.8 SD: 0.0

25 | 28

Researcher: Dr. Fotis Filippopoulos

ISWOT14 Assessment Survey

Report

Segmentation Analysis. Key Areas SD: 2.9 WEIGHTED MEAN

5.7

We benefit from strong margins. By Country.

By Role. Elected Manager

5.9

Member

Board Member

7.2 8.3

Customer Employee

5.4

Overall Argentina Austria Belgium Brasil Canada France Germany Italy Morocco Holland USA SD: 2.9 SD: 0.0 SD: 3.1 SD: 3.2 SD: 2.3 SD: 2.6 SD: 2.5 SD: 1.6 SD: 3.0 SD: 2.6 SD: 1.4 SD: 0.0

5.7 1.0 6.7 5.8 6.2 3.5 6.4 4.6 5.8 7.1 3.0 3.0 SD: 2.8 WEIGHTED MEAN

5.76

Our Relationships bind customers / members through high switching costs. By Country.

By Role. Elected Manager

5.8 7

Member Board Member

6.6

Customer

6.8

Employee

Overall Argentina Austria Belgium Brasil Canada France Germany Italy Morocco Holland USA SD: 2.8 SD: 2.3 SD: 3.5 SD: 2.7 SD: 2.9 SD: 2.7 SD: 2.5 SD: 2.3 SD: 2.5 SD: 1.9 SD: 2.1 SD: 0.0

5.76 3.0 4.4 6.1 6.5 5.0 5.7 7.0 5.6 8.6 8.5 3.0 ÂŠ Shakesteer 2014. A study conducted for CIBP.

26 | 28

Researcher: Dr. Fotis Filippopoulos

ISWOT14 Assessment Survey

Report

Segmentation Analysis. Key Areas SD: 2.6 WEIGHTED MEAN

8.52

We could generate recurring revenues by introducing novel services. By Country.

By Role. Elected Manager

8.6

Member

9.5

Board Member

9.6 7.8

Customer

8.8

Employee

Overall Argentina Austria Belgium Brasil Canada France Germany Italy Morocco Holland USA SD: 2.6 SD: 2.9 SD: 4.6 SD: 2.3 SD: 0.8 SD: 2.5 SD: 2.5 SD: 3.0 SD: 2.6 SD: 1.8 SD: 3.5 SD: 0.0

8.52 9.5 7.3 8.3 9.0 8.3 8.9 9.1 9.2 8.72 7.5 8.0 SD: 2.9 WEIGHTED MEAN

8.0

We could better serve our customers / members through finer segmentation. By Country.

By Role. Elected Manager

9.4 8.3

Member

8.9

Board Member Customer Employee

6.3 8.3

Overall Argentina Austria Belgium Brasil Canada France Germany Italy Morocco Holland USA SD: 2.9 SD: 1.0 SD: 3.5 SD: 2.5 SD: 1.2 SD: 1.4 SD: 2.4 SD: 3.6 SD: 2.6 SD: 2.1 SD: 0.7 SD: 0.0

8.0 9.5 5.0 8.3 8.6 9.6 7.6 7.5 9.0 8.5 4.5 10 ÂŠ Shakesteer 2014. A study conducted for CIBP.

27 | 28

Researcher: Dr. Fotis Filippopoulos

ISWOT14 Assessment Survey

Report

Segmentation Analysis. Key Areas SD: 3.0 WEIGHTED MEAN

6.2

Our Cost structure is correctly matched to our Business Model. By Country.

By Role. Elected Manager Member

7.9 7.2 8.7

Board Member Customer

6.3

Employee

6.1

Overall Argentina Austria Belgium Brasil Canada France Germany Italy Morocco Holland USA SD: 3.0 SD: 1.2 SD: 1.8 SD: 3.2 SD: 4.0 SD: 2.1 SD: 2.1 SD: 3.3 SD: 3.1 SD: 2.9 SD: 0.7 SD: 0.0

6.2 9.0 5.3 6.2 6.2 6.5 7.2 6.7 6.9 8.8 3.5 2.0 SD: 2.7 WEIGHTED MEAN

7.8

Our Brand is well aligned with our Business Model and Value Propositions. By Country.

By Role. Elected Manager Member Board Member Customer Employee

9.2 9.8 8.6 9.2 8.7

Overall Argentina Austria Belgium Brasil Canada France Germany Italy Morocco Holland USA SD: 2.7 SD: 0 SD: 3.2 SD: 2.5 SD: 0.5 SD: 1.9 SD: 2.3 SD: 1.6 SD: 2.7 SD: 0.7 SD: 1.4 SD: 0.0

7.8

10 7.0 8.0 8.75 9.5 8.5 8.77 9.0 9.3 3.0 4.0

ÂŠ Shakesteer 2014. A study conducted for CIBP.

28 | 28

Researcher: Dr. Fotis Filippopoulos