Analysis of User Authentication Experience in Electronic Banking

Introduction

Electronic banking brought about innovative opportunities that focused more on customers. It is a payment system that allows customers to conduct financial transactions over the Internet (Carranza et al., 2021). It offers valued services that created competitive benefits such as checking account balances, paying bills, transfers, and text message notifications (Mostafa, 2020; Khan, 2017). E-banking enabled banking activities to be performed without being physically present in the bank (Malaquias et al., 2019). It is flexible and can be accessed 24/7 from any location (Worku et al., 2016). It is cost-saving and helps customers to compare products and services among banks (Asiyanbi, & Ishola, 2018). E-banking has added value to several businesses (Baabdullah et al., 2019). Internet services provided opportunities for interaction with companies that allow consumers to participate in the development and improvement of products and services (Carranza et al., 2021). Mobile devices and desktops are the tools customers use in e-banking to pay for products and services (Zhang et al., 2018).

Studies showed that previous works considered issues that influenced the adoption of e-banking (Mostafa, 2020). The adoption rate of e-banking is still low despite its numerous benefits (Shankar et al., 2020). Many consumers are not using e-banking facilities as they are not at ease with the authentication methods used by banks. They lack confidence in its safety and privacy. Authentication is a method that is used to identify and grant users access to transactions. It is used to ensure that access is granted to the right person (Djellali B. et al., 2014). This process is important because of the prevalence of fraud and criminal activities experienced in e-banking (Asiyanbi, & Ishola, 2018). Authentication involves a two-step process: Identification and Verification.

Bank authentication guarantees the confidentiality of delicate banking information, helps to reduce fraud, and identity theft crimes, and increases customers' trust in the institution (Orji, 2019; Sepczuk, & Kotulski, 2018; Balfe et al., 2015). However, users' or customers' experience during the authentication process is that it does not allow for a long time before the expiration of the code generated (Gerea, & Herskovic, 2022; Reese et al., 2019). For example, in the One-Time-Password (OTP) authentication method the time allow for user authentication in this process is small, which delays the success of the code provided. Sometimes the code needs to be changed severally before authentication is allowed or becomes successful. This makes the whole process of code authentication tedious, boring, tiring, and cumbersome, as well as complex for users and customers alike (Fujimoto, & Omote, 2022). The generated one-time password (authentication code) is sent to the phone number or email of the requesting user for immediate use. Since the authentication code provided often needs to be changed at any transaction due to possible login failure, customers find it inconvenience and discomforting, therefore, want to discontinue the use of the technology (Okpa et al., 2022; Inder et al., 2022). Hence, most bank customers find the process of code authentication unacceptable and lose confidence in the entire process due to login failure, and prefer transacting across the counter. Login failure occurs in the event of the expiration of the 30-second count for the user to supply the authentication code (Chen et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022; Reese et al. 2019). The authentication process is repeated to generate the authentication code needed to complete the login session (Ogbanufe, & Kim, 2018).