mathematics

Article
A Hybrid MCDM Model for Evaluating Open Banking
Business Partners
Alexander Kuan Daiy 1 , Kao-Yi Shen 2, * , Jim-Yuh Huang 3 and Tom Meng-Yen Lin 1

1 Department of Business Administration, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology,

Taipei 106335, Taiwan; mail4alexdaiy@yahoo.com.tw (A.K.D.); tomlin@ba.ntust.edu.tw (T.M.-Y.L.)
2 Department of Banking & Finance, Chinese Culture University, Taipei 11114, Taiwan
3 IEMBA Program, Graduate School of Business, National Taipei University, New Taipei City 23741, Taiwan;
jimhuang0902@gmail.com
* Correspondence: kyshen@sce.pccu.edu.tw

Abstract: Open banking (OB) is an emerging business field in the financial sector, which relies on
intensive collaboration between banks and non-banking service providers. However, how to evaluate
OB business partners from multiple perspectives for banks is underexplored. Therefore, this study
proposed a hybrid decision model with supports from seasoned domain experts. This study also
adopts a domestic bank from Taiwan and four non-banking service providers to illustrate the hybrid
approach with the confidence-weighted fuzzy assessment technique. The proposed model might be
the first attempt to explore the OB adoption strategy by the novel approach. However, its limitations
are the presumed independent relationship among the factors of this hybrid model. Additionally,
the results hinge upon domain experts’ knowledge. In practice, the research findings identify the
relative importance of banks’ crucial factors to select OB strategic partners, which provide managerial
insights and valuable guidance for the banking sector.






Keywords: open banking (OB); financial technology (FinTech); multiple criteria decision-making
Citation: Daiy, A.K.; Shen, K.-Y.;
Huang, J.-Y.; Lin, T.M.-Y. A Hybrid
(MCDM); best-worst method (BWM); fuzzy set theory (FST)
MCDM Model for Evaluating Open
Banking Business Partners.
Mathematics 2021, 9, 587. https://
doi.org/10.3390/math9060587 1. Introduction
Through advanced digital technology, various industries and diverse services can
Academic Editor: James Liou now be integrated into a single platform. On one side, the adoption of digital platform
business models can, in turn, enhance the competitive advantage of a business through
Received: 22 February 2021
operation optimization, data sharing and transaction convenience [1]. On the other side,
Accepted: 7 March 2021
conservative financial institutes are reluctant to share their valuable customer information
Published: 10 March 2021
with other businesses for reasons such as regulations, information security and customer
privacy. Therefore, most of the digital platforms developed by financial institutes apply
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
only to their own business groups’ products or services.
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
However, this circumstance has changed when the Revised Payment Service Directive
published maps and institutional affil-
(PSD2) was launched in January 2018 [2]. Under PSD2, financial institutes in the EU were
iations.
requested to share their customer data with other service providers. Consequently, in recent
years, the pressure of sharing customer data with other businesses has spread throughout
the financial industry, which has become an irresistible global trend [3].
In recent years, to follow the trend, the innovative open banking (OB) is then becoming
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
a twilight for the banking industry because it not only promotes transaction security and
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
data sharing but also improves efficiency and convenience—both of which are critical for
This article is an open access article
serving customers in this digital era [4]. OB is a cross-industry collaboration model that
distributed under the terms and
consists of banking and non-banking members providing a series of financial products and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
services. Additionally, members of this model utilize innovative open technology platforms
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
to serve potential customers by sharing information, knowledge, business environments
4.0/).
and customer data [5].

Mathematics 2021, 9, 587. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9060587 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/mathematics

Mathematics 2021, 9, 587 2 of 19

The banking and non-banking members form a financial ecosystem comprising users’
banks, financial technology companies (FinTechs) and customers (Figure 1). According to
the UK Open Banking Implementation Entity (OBIE), an OB ecosystem can be classified
into the three categories [6]: (1) account providers, including banks, mortgage companies
and payment companies; (2) third party providers (TPPs), including account information
service providers (AISPs) and payment initiation service providers (PISPs) and (3) technical
service providers (TSPs). In this study, we focus on evaluating TPPs for banks to develop
OB business.

Figure 1. Open banking (OB) ecosystem.

Within the OB context, consumers are empowered to control their own financial
information. Furthermore, with the consent of consumers, account providers and TPPs
are capable to access consumers’ financial data in exchange for better financial products
and services [7]. Additionally, most of these products and services are served through
open application interfaces (Open APIs) that are mainly developed by TPPs [8], which
may categorize their domains in telecomm, e-commerce, integrated instant messaging
platform, payment and others. Nevertheless, financial institutes undertake substantial
risk when adopting an innovative business model [9]. The banking sector is under strict
regulation and monitored by authorities; there are various concerns to collaborate with new
partners to devise innovative services. Therefore, selecting alliance partners is a critical
issue for financial institutes to manage risks and enhance their competitive advantage
while adopting OB.
However, only limited studies have paid attention to OB adoption, particularly the
topic of selecting alliance partners to improve competitive advantage. At present, the major-
ity of relevant OB literature seems to focus on regulation and technology issues. Therefore,
a gap exists in the literature on creating value and enhancing competitive advantage for
financial institutes after adoption of the OB business model. In addition, OB emphasizes
providing better customer experience by applying APIs to exchange data between banks
and non-banking businesses [7]. While adopting OB, it is a challenge for traditional banks
to select ideal TPP partners to complement the deficiencies in the innovation service, and
to increase service value, market share and competitive advantage [10].
In sum, the banking literature is underdeveloped in the practical financial domain to
assist traditional banks to select appropriate TPPs. To reach this goal, the current study
has the following objectives. First, the current study constructs a decision model to assist
traditional banks in assessing their competitive advantage while adopting OB. Second, by
adopting the decision model, banks may select apt TPPs to provide superior OB services.
Through collaboration with TPPs, new OB products and services can enhance brand value
and market share, which, in turn, can increase the bank’s long-term competitive advantage.
However, to meet this goal, decision-makers (DMs) have to consider multiple aspects
(e.g., the technology issues, fast-changing external environment and internal management)
while complying with relevant regulations. Therefore, to achieve the aims mentioned
above, the present study employs the multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach
to construct a decision model for traditional banking to evaluate OB business partners. In
this context, MCDM can help DMs construct decision models with multi-hierarchy factors
in a complex environment [11,12]. The current study makes two main contributions to the
Mathematics 2021, 9, 587 3 of 19

finance literature. First, it develops an OB adoption model for banks’ top management
teams to assessing their competitive advantages while devising OB services. Second, it
provides a practical example of applying the decision model to evaluate suitable TPPs to
increase their competitiveness.
In the following sections, we discuss the criteria of OB adoption, describe the research
method and data analysis, present a practical case example, discuss managerial implications
and provide recommendations for future research.

2. Literature Review
2.1. Introduction to Open Banking
According to Open Banking Europe (OBE) [13], OB refers to “how banks can make
data and services available via APIs to authorized service providers or third parties who
act on behalf of the customer who owns the account”. OB plays a promising role because it
facilitates financial innovation under the widespread use of machine-facilitated support to
provide customers with enhanced user experiences [14].

2.1.1. Development of Open Banking

The financial industry is a conservative industry. The last major change in the global
financial service industry dates back to the 1980s when the German Federal Post Office in-
troduced digital finance [15]. Between 1980 and 2018, only banks and government agencies
were authorized to perform payment transactions. However, as Internet technology and
e-commerce become a part of everyday life, consumer demand for digital financial services
has grown steadily. This demand was not met until the European Union launched the
PSD2 in 2018. The PSD2 regulations grant nonbank companies (i.e., TPPs) in the European
Economic Area access to some customer account information and, with customers’ consent,
the ability to make payments. The OB service prototype was thus established.

2.1.2. State of Global OB Development

To ensure that banks are no longer the only institutions holding financial information
while facilitating digital technology development, the UK government demanded in 2016
that major banks should begin releasing open information by 2018 [16]. In the same year,
the Competition and Markets Authority established the Open Banking Implementation
Entity (OBIE) and issued the open API standards.
In September 2020, OB user number exceeded two million [17]. In 2016, the EU
founded OBE to help its payment service providers and other TPPs to meet the PSD2, and,
then, the OBE announced API protocols [18]. Owing to the favorable environment created
by the EU, 410 TTPs have been registered by September 2020 in the European Economic
Area, where UK (189), Germany (36) and Sweden (28) have the most TPPs [19].
In Asia, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and Association of Banks in Sin-
gapore co-launched the API Playbook in 2016, providing banks and TPPs with safety rules
and standards to follow when developing APIs. Additionally, thus, the APIs in Singapore
facilitates data exchange and communication between banks and FinTech companies [20].
The Australian government requires major banks and all banks to start offering OB services
by 2020 and 2022, respectively [21].
In China, OB emerges as tech giants engage in market competition. For example,
Ant Financial (subsidiaries of Alibaba, an e-commerce platform) and Tencent analyze
user behavior and offer OB-related services on both e-commerce and instant messaging
platforms. Currently, Ant Financial and Tencent play significant roles in the global TPP
market [22]. In Hong Kong, the authority released the Open API Framework to ensure that
OB can be implemented by 2021 [23]. In Japan, the Financial Service Agency encouraged
banks to sign collaboration contracts with at least one TPP by 2020 [24].
In Taiwan, OB is implemented after product and service information, account infor-
mation and transactions (i.e., a three-phase approach) are made accessible [25]. By the
third quarter of 2020, Taiwan had completed Phase II, registering eight banks and six TPPs
Mathematics 2021, 9, 587 4 of 19

and offering 18 APIs that allow consumers to search for account information and apply to
banks for financial products and services [25].

2.1.3. OB-Related Research and Major Discoveries

OB is an innovative financial service created for the financial industry to meet regu-
lations for consumer information control. Related studies in the field of OB have mostly
focused on OB technology and regulations and have rarely examined how banks manage
OB and relevant consumer behavior and banking strategies. Concerning OB technology,
Borgogno and Colangelo [26] claim that OB APIs are the most suitable tools to satisfy the
banking industry’s demands because of their compliance with data portability, technolog-
ical practicality and PSD2. In terms of security, Wang et al. [27] propose that blockchain
technology can solve security- and privacy-related problems for OB.
Concerning studies related to OB regulations, Wolters and Jacobs [28] investigate how
regulations equalize among payment service market development, transaction security
and confidentiality. Their analysis results indicate that the PSD2 and regulations prioritize
payment service market development over transaction security and privacy issues. Thus,
the aforementioned researchers suggest that banks, payment service providers and author-
ities should coestablish legal norms to ensure transaction security and protect consumer
privacy [28].
In terms of consumer behavior, Shaikh et al. [29] conclude that mobile banking app
user-behavior is driven by their product knowledge, usefulness of the app and ease of
use. Dratva [30] explores OB from the views of platform technology and PSD2, declaring
to promote OB successfully in the electronic markets, consumers must perceive OB as a
highly convenient and trustworthy service.

2.2. Critical Factors of Adopting OB to Strengthen Competitiveness

Technology, organization and environment (TOE) are the three aspects in TOE framework
that organizations often consider when adopting innovative technology [31]. Zhu et al. [32]
observe that these three factors influence organizations’ intention to adopt innovative
technology. Since most banks lack experience incorporating TPPs on open APIs, based on
the OB ecosystem proposed by the OBIE, this study devises a research model that integrates
the TOE framework with the “superintendency and regulation” dimension for modeling.
The four dimensions are explained in the following subsections.

2.2.1. Superintendency and Regulation

Financial innovation’s primary goals are to provide new products and services, in-
crease market share, and elevate business performance [33]. However, excessive financial
innovation leads to financial crises [34]. The presence of adequate financial regulations can
shield the financial industry from such concerns and engender financial market stability
and prosperity [35].
On the other hand, government-support programs and tax incentives can consider-
ably assist TPPs and FinTech start-ups in lowering operational costs [36]. Nevertheless,
innovative businesses may violate current rules during the early stages [37]. This requires
them to lobby the authorities to amend existing laws or promulgate special regulations.
Otherwise, certain innovative service providers would be constrained or even excluded.
In summary, whether the OB ecosystems or TPPs can meet government requirements is a
critical concern in OB business.

2.2.2. Technology
OB operations are generally performed through APIs [16]. Therefore, the quality of
API technologies is crucial to elevating the competitive advantage of financial institutes.
Since financial services are strictly concerned with customer data security and privacy,
particularly in the era of rampant cybercrimes, Internet security has become an essential
topic [38]. Additionally, authenticated APIs enable consumers, banks, TPPs and businesses
Mathematics 2021, 9, 587 5 of 19

to communicate and transmit data safely [39]. Moreover, digital technology and automation
techniques support the growth of PayTech (payment technology) businesses, such as mobile
payments, mobile wallets, mobile money and cryptocurrency [40]. Therefore, banks that
collaborate innovative PayTechs with their service platforms may provide high security
and convenience benefits to their customers [3].
Furthermore, OB operations entail TPPs accessing customers’ financial account infor-
mation from their financial account providers and carrying out various payments. There-
fore, identity authentication is crucial in OB operations [40]. In this viewpoint, identity
authentication and Internet security are critical to online banking users [38,40].
Additionally, OB provides real-time services in which clients can obtain account or
transaction information from their account providers or TPPs in the OB ecosystems [20,38],
which implies that data transmitted between banking and non-banking institutes on the
APIs must be compatible and interoperable [26]. Furthermore, the new OB systems must
operate smoothly and integrate adequately with the banks’ legacy systems to ensure
stability and reliability [38].

2.2.3. Environment
In the TOE framework, the environment dimension refers to the industry, competitors,
service providers and legal environment that businesses must confront [41]. Baker [41] af-
firms that the fierce competition and members in the value chain affect business innovation.
Thus, before implementing OB, traditional banks should analyze the market competition
and OB potential market scale to figure out future profit margins [42]. To develop po-
tential markets and increase profits, traditional banks form alliances with banking and
non-banking companies [43].
Besides, traditional banks that may utilize digital platforms to offer new service
channels should plan to integrate both the original and API channels [38] to prevent the
channel cannibalization effect [44]. Thus, as the banks obtaining potential customers by
developing new API channels, it is also essential to retain existing customers.

2.2.4. Organization
According to the TOE framework, the organizational context includes organizational
size and scope, internal resources, human resources quality and internal communication
procedures [32,41]. As to internal communication procedures, the top management has
the authority to control and allocate internal and human resources during OB’s adoption.
Therefore, OB adoption’s success depends on top management’s support to reform the
organization, reconcile resistance to change, and resolve organization conflicts [45].
The adoption of OB services requires banks to increase setup costs, including infras-
tructure cost, hardware and software facilities cost, recruiting technological HR cost and
training cost [46]. As to operational expenditure, it is a critical indicator of market perfor-
mance after adopting OB [46]. Many studies reported that e-banking increases the usage
of automation banking services and operations, which causes operational efficiency and
cost reduction [46]. Del Gaudio et al. [47] indicate that information and communication
technology can increase bank–customer transaction frequency, lower transaction costs, and
reduce the number of bank branches, which then diminish banks’ operational costs.
On the other hand, adopting OB services must also consider human resource allocation
and the switching cost of transforming incumbent systems to new systems [48]. In addition
to monetary expenditure during the transition process, switching cost also includes users’
resistance to new technology [49]. Frizzo-Barker et al. [48] discover that 80% of adoption
barriers are due to the switching process. Furthermore, banks must also account for risk
management when adopting the OB service [50]. Risks that pertain to new OB systems
include cyber fraud, embezzlement, new system failure and cyberattacks [50].
Mathematics 2021, 9, 587 6 of 19

2.3. Applications of MCDM Methods on Selecting TPPs

The model proposed in this study is constructed by revising the TOE framework.
Although the revised framework features only four dimensions, the total involved factors
are not few. Since DMs often need to make decisions in dynamic environments with
multiple conflicting objectives, this study selects the MCDM approach for modeling [51].
Typical MCDM methods include the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) [52], analytic
network process (ANP) [53], decision-making and trial evaluation laboratory (DEMA-
TEL) [12], DEMATEL-based ANP (DANP) [54], best–worst method (BWM) [55], VlseKri-
terijuska Optimizacija I Komoromisno Resenje (VIKOR) [56], the technique for order
performance by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) [57] and fuzzy sets incorporated eval-
uations [58,59]. MCDM is used in various domains such as corporate governance [12,60],
risk assessment [61], financial management [53] and transportation decisions [62]. Accord-
ingly, this study applied the MCDM approach to solve the addressed problem.

3. Research Methods
This study proposed a hybrid MCDM model to explore the complicated OB adoption
strategy for the Taiwanese banking sector. A hybrid approach that integrates the BWM,
modified-VIKOR and fuzzy evaluation is devised to collect domain experts’ knowledge
to model this challenging problem. Compared with other MCDM methods, the BWM
has the advantage to reduce experts’ judgment fatigue (fewer pairwise comparisons), and
the modified-VIKOR method may use different parameters to test the robustness of the
ranking result. The research flow involves the following steps: (1) form the framework
of this decision model, (2) retrieve experts’ experience by the BWM questionnaire and
fuzzy evaluations on alternatives and (4) aggregate alternatives’ performances by the
modified-VIKOR method [51].
In the first stage, we referred to OB related research to identify a pool of criteria for
experts to select. We applied the Delphi method to obtain the crucial dimensions and
criteria for forming the BWM questionnaire during the interactions with experts. The
details of this case study will be reported in the next section.
This study adopted the BWM to collect experts’ knowledge to fulfill the evaluation
procedures. Compared with the other well-known MCDM methods (e.g., AHP, ANP or
DEMATEL-based ANP (DANP)), the BWM requires fewer pairwise comparisons from
domain experts. However, it has to assume the independent relationship among its criteria,
also its limitation. A brief introduction of the BWM is in Section 3.1, and the details can
found in [63,64].

3.1. Best–Worst Method (BWM)

The MCDM approach has been prevailing in business and technology research for
decades [65]. Owing to the complexity involved in practical problems, decision makers
(DMs) often have to confront multiple conflicting (or competing) factors to make a com-
promised decision. The mainstream problem in MCDM research is to make a selection or
ranking decision based on the preference or knowledge of DM(s), and this type of problem
is also termed as multiple attribute decision-making (MADM) research. In general, the
additive type (in here, ⊗ is a linear aggregator) of the MADM problem can be denoted as
Equation (1):

C1 C2 · · · Cn W
s11 s12 · · · s1n
   
a1 w1
E( a) = a2 
 s21 s22 · · · s2n  ⊗ 
  w2 
 (1)
..  .. .. .. ..   .. 
.  . . . .   . 
am sm1 sm2 · · · smn wn
 C1 C2  Cn W
a1  s11 s12  s1n   w1 
E ( a ) = a2 s s22  s2n  ⊗  w2 
 21 (1)
         
Mathematics 2021, 9, 587     7 of 19
am  sm1 sm 2  smn   wn 

where am , C n and wn denote the m-th alternative, the n-th criterion and the relative
where a(importance
weight m , Cn and wnor denote the m-th
influence) alternative,
of the the n-th
n-th criterion, criterion and
respectively. the relative weight
Additionally, s m n is
(importance or influence) of the n-th criterion, respectively. Additionally, nsmn is the perfor-
the performance score of the m-th alternative on the n-th criterion, n and  wi = 100% .
mance score of the m-th alternative on the n-th criterion, and ∑ wi = 100%. i =1
i =1
Various MADM methods were proposed to obtain W
Various MADM methods were proposed to obtain W for a MADM problem. for a MADM problem. How-
However,
ever, based on the bounded rationality theory [66], DM would encounter
based on the bounded rationality theory [66], DM would encounter difficulty to identify difficulty to
identify the relative
the relative importance importance of all involved
of all involved criteria criteria
clearly clearly
while nwhileis toon large
is too(e.g.,
largelarger
(e.g.,
larger
than 7than 7 or more).
or more). Therefore,
Therefore, the pairwise
the pairwise comparison
comparison approach
approach was was
created created to re-
to resolve
solve this issue.
this issue. However,
However, the prevailing
the prevailing AHP AHP or ANP
or ANP method
method requires
requires DM(s)
DM(s) to to conduct
conduct at
least
at n ×n(×n( −
least n −11))/22 pairwise
pairwisecomparisons
comparisons toto
calculate
calculateW,W,which
which might
mightcause
cause hindrance
hindrance for
for domain experts to fill a lengthy questionnaire in practice. Therefore, BWM proposed aa
domain experts to fill a lengthy questionnaire in practice. Therefore, BWM proposed
more efficient
more efficient method
method to to collect
collect experts’
experts’ opinions
opinions (or
(or knowledge).
knowledge). The The required
required stepssteps toto
adopt BWM are as
adopt BWM are as follows. follows.
First, we
First, we define
define aa decision
decisionmatrix
matrixDDasasEquation
Equation(2)(2)toto
explain
explain thethe
pairwise
pairwise comparison
compar-
as a MADM problem. Since most MADM problems comprise
ison as a MADM problem. Since most MADM problems comprise two layers: (1) dimen- two layers: (1) dimension
and (2) criterion (associated with a dimension) layers, we assumed that there are p di-
sion and (2) criterion (associated with a dimension) layers, we assumed that there are p
mensions and n criteria of a decision problem. Thus, D comprises of p × p submatrices in
dimensions and n criteria of a decision problem. Thus, D comprises of p × p submatrices
Equation (2). By assuming the independence relationship among the dimensions, we may
in Equation
further (2). By
simplify theassuming the independence
needed pairwise comparisons relationship among
by obtaining the the dimensions,
importance we
of each
may further simplify the needed pairwise comparisons
dimension and the relative weights of criteria under each dimension. by obtaining the importance of
each dimension and the relative weights of criteria under each dimension.
Dim1 Dim j Dim p
c11c1 m1 ... c j 1c jm j  cn1cnmn
Dim1 c11
c12  M CD11  MC
D1 j
 MC 
D1n



 
    
c1 m
1


D= Dim i ci 1
ci 2  M Di1  M
Dij
 M CDin  , where p ≤ n.
(2)

c im  C C 
   
i
 

 Dn1 
c n1
Dnj
 M CDnn 
cn 2
Dim p 
 M C  M
C
c nm
n n× n

D11
Take the subdecision matrix MCD11 for instance, it denotes that there are m1 criteria
Take the subdecision matrix MC for instance, it denotes that there are m1 criteria
in
in dimension
dimension 11 (i.e., D im 11 ,, and
(i.e., Dim and the
the associated
associated criteria
criteria are c11, .,…,
are c11 . . ,cc1m ). Among the m
1m1 ). Among the m11 1
i
criteria, the
criteria, the relative
relative importance
importance of of the
the best
bestcriterion
criterionover overthethei-th
i-thoneone(1( 1<<m mi ≤ ≤m m1)) can
1
can bebe
regarded as a secondary comparison: d B × dmi = d B,mi , where d B denotes the importance of
regarded as a secondary
the best criterion and dmicomparison:
the importance × dthe
dB of = dB, mcriterion),
mi i-th i , where and dB denotes
the relative the importance
importance
j
< m d≤i mthe
of the j-th
of the bestcriterion
criterion(1and 1 ) over the worstofone
importance the is:
i-th j × dW = dand
dmcriterion), j
m ,W (d
the W denotesim-
relative the
m
importance of the worst criterion). j
portance of the
Second, the j-th criterion
procedures 1 < m relative
to (obtain ≤ m1 ) over the worst
importance is: dm j × dW or
one dimension
of each = dthe ( dW
m j ,Wrelative
weight of
denotes theeach criterionofin
importance thea worst
dimension are similar. In here, we take the case of how
criterion).
to obtain the relative weights
Second, the procedures to obtain relative(importance of strength)
importance of of
theeach
criteria in Dim1ortothe
dimension explain
rela-
BWM. Researchers
tive weight of each criterion have to collect
in a opinions
dimension from
are a DM
similar. and
In form
here, we two preference
take the case vectors:
of


T how
to
PBobtain
= d B,1the B,,2 , ·
, drelative · · , weights
d B,m1 (importance
(i.e., of
best-to-others)strength)
and P of
W the
= criteria
d , d
1,W 2,W in , · ·
D ·im , d to
1 m1 ,W
explain
(i.e.,
others-to-worst). To do so, BWM presumes that a DM
BWM. Researchers have to collect opinions from a DM and form two preference vectors: can identify the best and worst
criteria as two references. Additionally, the importance scale is the same as the one in AHP
or ANP, ranges from 9 to 1/9.
Third, BWM applies the concept of linear programming to calculate the optimal/estimated
weights (i.e., wce11 , . . . ,wce1m ) of c11 to c1m1 . Since each pair of w B /w1mi or wc1m /wW is de-
1 j
noted as d B,mi or dm j ,W respectively, a linear solution that minimize the maximum absolute
Mathematics 2021, 9, 587 8 of 19

wB w1m
differences of w1m − d B,1mk and wW
k
− d1mk ,W for all k can be defined as Equation (3),
k
where 1 < k ≤ m1 :

minmaxk w B/w1m
k
− d B,1mk , w1mk /wW − d1mk ,W
s.t.
e =1
∑ wm k (3)
k
wke ≥0
, for all k.

By solving Equation (3), the relative weights of c11 to c1m1 can be obtained. Simi-
larly, the relative importance of the p dimensions (i.e., weD1 , . . . ,weD p ) or the criteria in
a different dimension can be obtained. The final weight of each criterion can be calcu-
lated by weDj × wceim (1 < j ≤ p) to have the final weight of the i-th criterion in the j-th
j
dimension. Besides, Rezaei [63] proposed a measure for the consistency ratio of each linear
programming result (refer Equation (3)).

3.2. Modified-VIKOR Aggregator

Once a MADM problem obtains the relative weights of all criteria (i.e., W in Equation (1)),
it needs to collect the performance scores of each alternative (from s11 to smn in Equation (1))
and aggregates the scores on each criterion for all alternatives. Most linear aggregators,
such as the simple additive weighting (SAW) method, aggregate the weighted performance
scores for each alternative; the higher the better. On the other side, VIKOR takes another
approach to aggregate the weighted “performance gaps” for each alternative, the lower
the better.
The conventional VIKOR method adopts the best and worst scores of a group of
alternatives to calculate the performance gaps for all alternatives. This approach sometimes
might yield unwanted ranking reversion [51]. Therefore, the modified-VIKOR avoids
this potential issue by assigning the ideal (or termed as the aspiration level) and the
worst scores on each criterion (among a group of alternatives) to calculate performance
gaps. The modified-VIKOR can be regarded as a predefined Lp-metric for conducting
compromise programming.
Assume that there are m alternatives and n criteria of a MADM problem, and sij is the
performance score of the i-th (1 ≤ i ≤ m) alternative on the j-th (1 ≤ j ≤ n) criterion. In the
present study, the relative weight of each criterion can be obtained by BWM, denoted as
w1 , · · · wn . Then the Lp-metric indicates the aggregated performance gap of alternative r
on all criteria, shown in Equation (4).
( )1/z
n h    iz
Lpr = ∑ wi si∆ − sri / si∆ − si∇ , for 1 ≤ z < ∞ and i = 1, . . . , n. (4)
i =1

In Equation (4), si∆ and si∇ denote the ideal and the worst performance scores on the
i-th criterion, and sri is the performance score of alternative r on the i-th criterion. The ideal
and the worst performance scores in each criterion are defined as “10” and “0” respectively.
However, to retrieve the imprecise knowledge of domain experts for this evolving OB
problem, we proposed a confidence-based fuzzy evaluation to acquire performance scores,
which will be explained in Section 3.3.
The modified-VIKOR method relies on three indices to conduct the final ranking: S, R
and Q. While z = 1 and z ' ∞, the compromise programming may derive
n 
Sr = ∑ wi si∆ − sri / si∆ − si∇ and Rr = maxi wi si∆ − sri / si∆ − si∇ i = 1, 2, . . . , n ,


 


i=1
respectively. In modified-VIKOR, Sr and Rr denote the weighted average performance
gap and the maximal weighted performance gap among all the criteria for alternative r.
The modified-VIKOR relies on the synthesized Q index to make the final ranking, which is
Mathematics 2021, 9, 587 9 of 19

defined as: Q = γ × S + (1 − γ) × R, where γ may be applied as a sensitivity analysis to

see the influence of R for the overall ranking.

3.3. Confidence-Weighted Fuzzy Assessment

Since OB adoption strategy is an emerging and evolving topic, even domain experts
might not have full confidence in its evaluation in all aspects. Thus, we proposed the
confidence-weighted fuzzy assessment technique [67] for this study. The key benefit of
using the fuzzy assessment is to capture the semantic opinions from experts. In other
words, we assumed that it would be more intuitive and more comfortable for experts
to indicate their views as “Good”, “Mediocre” or “Bad” than providing an exact figure
between 0 and 10.
The most widely adopted fuzzy triangular membership function is incorporate to in-
dividualize each expert’s semantic scales. Furthermore, the defuzzified assessment figures
will be multiplied with each expert’s confidence on each criterion for each alternative. The
details will be provided in Section 4 with discussions.

4. Exemplary Case Study and Discussions

This study adopted a domestic bank (E.Sun Bank) in Taiwan to illustrate the hybrid
MCDM evaluation approach. E.Sun Bank has 139 branches, and its registered capital is
USD 87.82 billion, ranked as the 8th among 36 banks in Taiwan [68]. The bank’s operational
performance is well-recognized by domestic and international institutions. It has been
included in Dow Jones’ sustainability index for six consecutive years until 2020 and rated
as the top performed bank by the Taiwan Banking Bureau.
To form an OB adoption evaluation model for E.Sun Bank, we invited domain experts
from the banking or FinTech sectors and senior consultants from a reputable international
institution. All the experts have over 10 years’ working experience in the related fields.
The number of participated experts in each stage is not the same, based on their availability.
The involved experts in different stages of surveys are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of experts’ background.

Number of Experts
Banking or FinTech Consulting Firm Academics Total
Delphi Survey 5 3 1 9
BWM
3 4 1 8
Weighting Model
Four Alternatives’
1 4 - 5
Assessments
Senior Vice President,
CEO, Vice President, Full
Job Titles
IT Department Head, Senior Consultant Professor
Senior Manager

After two rounds of discussions with the experts, we devised and collected the Delphi
questionnaires from nine experts in the first stage. The questionnaire contains more than
30 criteria from previous research, and the present study identified 14 criteria with a higher
than 85% consensus rate in four dimensions. The definitions of those 14 criteria and the
associated dimensions are summarized in Table 2.
Mathematics 2021, 9, 587 10 of 19

Table 2. Dimensions and Criteria of the best–worst method (BWM) model.

Dimensions Criteria Description

Massive government restrictions or
supervisions on OB business, or
Financial Regulations (C1 )
inappropriate regulations on OB
innovation services.
Superintendency and Regulation (D1 )
Banks, TPPs, and the government facing
conflicts with different laws or
Conflicts in policies or regulations (C2 )
regulations, and trying to reconcile
among them.
Banks being competent for providing
mobile API interfaces to serve customers
API Technology (C3 )
and to experience various OB
financial services.
Banks capable of providing secure and
convenient user authentication
Authentication Technology (C4 ) technology to facilitate customers to
verify account identity and to
Technology (D2 ) complete transactions.
OB neo systems operating smoothly and
integrating adequately with the banks’
OB System Reliability (C5 )
legacy systems to ensure stability
and reliability.
Bank providing strictly protection of
Internet Security (C6 ) customer data and privacy to
prevent cybercrimes.
OB service providing a profitable
Potential Market Scale (C7 )
potential market scale for the bank.

Environment (D3 ) Analyzing OB market competition and

Response to Competitors’ Action (C8 )
response to competitors’ action
Enabling OB system to provide rapid and
Rapid Services Delivery (C9 )
prime quality service.
Original business sales growing due to
Sales increase in original business (C10 ) the increase of market scale of
collaborating alliance.
Incomes from newly developed OB
New Incomes from OB (C11 )
service or customers.
Authority of controlling and allocating
internal and human resources; support to
Top Management Support (C12 ) reform the organization, reconcile
Organization (D4 ) resistance to change, and resolve
organization conflicts
Employees’ resistance or resources
Resistance to Change (C13 ) dispute due to organization reforming or
resource re-allocation.
Conflicts causing by differences in
demands, objections, and values among
Organization Conflict (C14 )
internal organizational departments
when OB adoption.

In the second stage, eight experts participated in the survey. Refer to Equations (2)
and (3), the eight experts’ opinions formed the best-to-others (BO) and others-to-worst
(OW) vectors for the four dimensions (in Table 3) and the associated criteria (in Table 4),
respectively. In this BWM survey, we adopted the pairwise comparison scale from [63]; the
Mathematics 2021, 9, 587 11 of 19

relative importance of one criterion over the others ranges from 1/9 (the least important)
to 9 (the most important).

Table 3. Best-to-others (BO) and others-to-worst (OW) vectors of the four dimensions.

Best-to-Others (BO) Others-to-Worst (OW)

Best Worst
D1 D2 D3 D4 D1 D2 D3 D4
Expert 1 D3 1 5 1 3 D2 1/9a 1 1/7 1/5
Expert 2 D2 5 1 3 3 D1 1 1/3 1/5 1/5
Expert 3 D3 2 1 1 9 D4 1/5 1/7 1/9 1
Expert 4 D1 1 3 1 2 D2 1/4 1 1/3 1/2
Expert 5 D1 1 9 1 2 D2 1/9 1 1/7 1/5
Expert 6 D3 2 2 1 2 D2 1/2 1 1 1
Expert 7 D3 8 6 1 7 D2 1/7 1 1/9 1/8
Expert 8 D1 1 2 1 1 D2 1/2 1 1 1
Mathematics 2021, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW
In the original “Other-to-Worst” vector, it should be (9, 1, 7, 5) from Expert 1 (D2 is the worst). To conform12 of 20
with
the table’s layout, we transformed it into (1/9, 1, 1/7, 1/5). Same for the rest of OW vectors in Tables 4 and 5.

Table 4. BO and OW criteria vectors in the four dimensions.

Table 4. BO and OW criteria vectors in the four dimensions.

D1 (BO) D1 (OW) D2 (BO) D2 (OW)

Best Worst Best Worst
C1 C2 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C3 C4 C5 C6
Expert 1 C1 1 3 C2 1/3 1 C6 9 7 5 1 C3 1 1/5 1/7 1/9
Expert 2 C1 1 5 C2 1/5 1 C6 7 9 3 1 C4 1/3 1 1/5 1/7
Expert 3 C1 1 1 C2 1 1 C6 3 1 2 1 C3 1 1/2 1/2 1/3
Expert 4 C1 1 1 C2 1 1 C5 3 2 1 2 C3 1 1/2 1/4 1/3
Expert 5 C1 1 2 C2 1/2 1 C6 9 3 2 1 C3 1 1/3 1/5 1/9
Expert 6 C2 1 1 C1 1 1 C5 2 1 1 1 C3 1 1 1/2 1
Expert 7 C2 8 1 C1 1 1/8 C6 9 6 6 1 C3 1 1/7 1/6 1/8
Expert 8 C1 1 1 C2 1 1 C4 3 1 2 1 C3 1 1/3 1 1/2
D3 (BO) D3 (OW) D4 (BO) D4 (OW)
Best Worst Best Worst
C7 C8 C9 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14
Expert 1 C8 3 1 5 C9 1/3 1/7 1 C12 9 7 1 3 5 C11 1/3 1 1/7 1/5 1/5
Expert 2 C9 5 3 1 C7 1 1/3 1/5 C12 5 3 1 5 7 C14 1/5 1/5 1/7 1/3 1
Expert 3 C7 1 1 3 C9 1/3 1/2 1 C10 1 2 1 3 9 C14 1/9 1/5 1/7 1/3 1
Expert 4 C9 2 3 1 C8 1/3 1 1/4 C11 3 1 2 4 4 C11 1 1/4 1/3 1/2 1/2
Expert 5 C9 2 1 1 C7 1 1/2 1/3 C12 1 2 1 3 8 C14 1/7 1/5 1/9 1/3 1
Expert 6 C7 1 3 2 C8 1/3 1 1/2 C12 5 3 1 1 1 C10 1 1 1/5 1/4 1/4
Expert 7 C7 1 8 6 C8 1/8 1 1/6 C12 8 8 1 5 6 C13 1/7 1/7 1/9 1 1/2
Expert 8 C7 1 2 1 C8 1/2 1 1 C12 2 1 1 1 2 C14 1 1 1/2 1 1

Table 5. BWM model’s local and global weights.

All the BWM analytical results passed the consistency check [64]. The eight experts’
averaged dimensional
Dimensional weightsCriteria
Weights were multiplied with
Local the associated
Weights averaged
Global criteria
Weights
weights (or called “local weights”)Cto
1 form the global weights,
64.24% reported in Table 5.
17.43% (Top)
TheD 1 (27.14%)
experts recommended four
C2 plausible TPPs from different fields, namely
35.76% 9.71% Taiwan
Mobile (T), momo e-Shop (M), Line (L) and JKOPay (J) as the potential strategic partners
C3 9.92% 1.62%
(alternatives) for E.Sun Bank. The first company T engages in mobile telecom and fixed
C4 22.30% 3.65%
network D services, which accounts for 24.30% market share in Taiwan [69]. M is a leading
2 (16.37%)
C5 23.74% 3.89%
domestic e-commerce retailer, which also owns TV and catalog shopping businesses. L is
C6 platform in Taiwan,
the most prevailing instant messaging 44.03% which offers various7.21%services in
C 7 37.73% 14.44%
its integrated APP. Last, company J is the second largest mobile payment service (Second)
provider
in Taiwan.D3 In
(38.26%) C8is not controlled
addition, E.Sun Bank 28.64%
by any consortiums,10.96%
which is more
C9 33.63% 12.87% (Third)
C10 16.43% 3.00%
C11 17.95% 3.27%
D4 (18.23%) C12 37.77% 6.89%
C13 15.26% 2.78%
Mathematics 2021, 9, 587 12 of 19

flexible to forge a strategic collaboration with TPPs that have deep ties with consortiums
(e.g., momo e-Shop). The four TPPs’ backgrounds are summarized in Table 6.

Table 5. BWM model’s local and global weights.

Dimensional Weights Criteria Local Weights Global Weights

C1 64.24% 17.43% (Top)
D1 (27.14%)
C2 35.76% 9.71%
C3 9.92% 1.62%
C4 22.30% 3.65%
D2 (16.37%)
C5 23.74% 3.89%
C6 44.03% 7.21%
C7 37.73% 14.44% (Second)
D3 (38.26%) C8 28.64% 10.96%
C9 33.63% 12.87% (Third)
C10 16.43% 3.00%
C11 17.95% 3.27%
D4 (18.23%) C12 37.77% 6.89%
C13 15.26% 2.78%
C14 12.59% 2.30%

Table 6. Four third party providers’ (TPPs’) background.

Registered Capital a No. of Users b

TPPs Business Category Official Websites
(In Million TWD) (Million)
english.taiwanmobile.
Taiwan Mobile (T) Telecom. 35,124 7.09 com (accessed on 16
February 2021)
en.fmt.com.tw
momo e-Shop (M) e-Commerce 1400 9.17 (accessed on 16
February 2021)
line.me/zh-hant
Line (L) Instant Communication 841 21.00 (accessed on 16
February 2021)
www.jkos.com
JKOPay (J) Mobile Payment 612 4.00 (accessed on 16
February 2021)
a Source: https://findbiz.nat.gov.tw (accessed on 16 February 2021). b The numbers of the four TPPs’ users were collected from local news
reports during 2019–2020.

In Table 5, environment (D3 ) is the most crucial dimension (i.e., 38.26%), and the top
three important criteria are financial regulations (C1 ), potential market scale (C7 ) and rapid
services delivery (C9 ), respectively. Those are the primary practical contribution.
In the third stage, five experts participated the assessments of the four TPPs. The
experts were requested to rate each alternative’s relative attractiveness on each criterion to
enhance the long-term competitiveness of E.Sun Bank while developing the OB service in
Taiwan. We conducted two types of assessments: the crisp (1–10) and fuzzy ones (from
low to high, three grades). In addition, we extended the conventional fuzzy assessments
into the confidence-weighted ones.
During the Delphi survey stage, several experts revealed that they might not have full
confidence in all aspects of the assessments of those TPPs’ attractiveness on each criterion.
This acknowledgment led us to the confidence-weighted fuzzy evaluations. Four of the five
experts are from one prominent international consulting firm, and they are familiar with
the local banking sector and well-known TPPs of Taiwan. The five experts’ semantic scales
of “Low (L)”, “Middle (M)” and “High (H)” are reported in Appendix A (Table A1) in the
Mathematics 2021, 9, 587 13 of 19

form of the fuzzy triangular membership function. Additionally, their confidence-weighted

fuzzy assessments for the four TPPs are in Table A2.
We also applied two aggregators—the simple additive weighting (SAW) and the
modified VIKOR—with the BWM weights to form the final evaluations. The BWM+SAW
model’s evaluations are in Table 7, and the BWM+VIKOR model’s assessment in Table 8.
Additionally, the conventional fuzzy assessment indicated the same ranking order as the
confidence-weighted one.

Table 7. BWM+ simple additive weighting (SAW) model.

BWM Crisp Assessment Confidence-Weighted Fuzzy Assessment

Criteria Weights T M L J T M L J
C1 17.43% 5.80 5.60 7.60 5.20 3.96 3.24 5.71 3.64
C2 9.71% 6.00 5.40 6.40 4.80 4.48 3.34 4.12 2.73
C3 1.62% 5.80 5.80 7.40 6.40 4.20 4.04 6.78 5.16
C4 3.65% 7.00 4.80 6.60 5.40 5.14 2.74 5.58 3.64
C5 3.89% 7.40 5.00 6.40 5.80 6.14 2.66 5.32 4.46
C6 7.21% 6.60 5.00 6.00 6.00 5.28 2.48 5.54 4.60
C7 14.44% 7.40 6.80 8.40 5.40 5.93 5.99 7.26 2.97
C8 10.96% 5.80 6.20 6.60 6.00 4.50 5.29 5.58 5.44
C9 12.87% 6.40 6.40 6.80 5.80 6.16 5.70 5.36 3.84
C10 3.00% 5.80 7.20 7.20 6.40 4.22 6.18 5.85 3.50
C11 3.27% 6.00 6.40 7.40 5.40 4.20 4.92 5.49 3.05
C12 6.89% 5.60 7.00 6.60 5.00 3.18 4.90 5.04 1.91
C13 2.78% 5.60 5.60 6.40 6.80 3.40 3.58 4.46 5.50
C14 2.30% 5.60 5.60 6.00 6.80 3.21 3.25 4.06 4.78
Final Score 6.27 6.00 7.03 5.57 4.79 4.37 5.58 3.74
(Ranking) (2) (3) (1) (4) (2) (3) (1) (4)

Table 8. BWM+VlseKriterijuska Optimizacija I Komoromisno Resenje (VIKOR) model.

BWM Crisp Assessment Confidence-Weighted Fuzzy Assessment

Criteria Weights T M L J T M L J
C1 17.43% 0.42 0.44 0.24 0.48 0.60 0.68 0.43 0.64
C2 9.71% 0.40 0.46 0.36 0.52 0.55 0.67 0.59 0.73
C3 1.62% 0.42 0.42 0.26 0.36 0.58 0.60 0.32 0.48
C4 3.65% 0.30 0.52 0.34 0.46 0.49 0.73 0.44 0.64
C5 3.89% 0.26 0.50 0.36 0.42 0.39 0.73 0.47 0.55
C6 7.21% 0.34 0.50 0.40 0.40 0.47 0.75 0.45 0.54
C7 14.44% 0.26 0.32 0.16 0.46 0.41 0.40 0.27 0.70
C8 10.96% 0.42 0.38 0.34 0.40 0.55 0.47 0.44 0.46
C9 12.87% 0.36 0.36 0.32 0.42 0.38 0.43 0.46 0.62
C10 3.00% 0.42 0.28 0.28 0.36 0.58 0.38 0.42 0.65
C11 3.27% 0.40 0.36 0.26 0.46 0.58 0.51 0.45 0.70
C12 6.89% 0.44 0.30 0.34 0.50 0.68 0.51 0.50 0.81
C13 2.78% 0.44 0.44 0.36 0.32 0.66 0.64 0.55 0.45
C14 2.30% 0.44 0.44 0.40 0.32 0.68 0.68 0.59 0.52
S 37.26% 39.99% 29.73% 44.27% 52.06% 56.28% 44.16% 62.60%
R 7.32% 7.67% 4.18% 8.37% 10.53% 11.79% 7.47% 11.08%
Q (γ = 0.95) 35.76% 38.38% 28.45% 42.48% 49.99% 54.05% 42.32% 60.02%
Q (γ = 0.90) 34.27% 36.76% 27.17% 40.68% 47.91% 51.83% 40.49% 57.45%
Q(γ = 0.85) 32.77% 35.15% 25.90% 38.89% 45.83% 49.60% 38.65% 54.87%
(Ranking) (2) (3) (1) (4) (2) (3) (1) (4)

In Table 8, by setting γ as 0.95, 0.90 and 0.85, all revealed the same ranking order:
L  T  M  J; this could be deemed a sensitivity analysis, which suggests the validity
Mathematics 2021, 9, 587 14 of 19

and robustness of the findings. By adopting the hybrid MCDM approach, Line (L) is
recommended as the best OB business collaboration partner for E.Sun Bank.

5. Conclusions
The present study bridges the gap between existing research and practical obstacles
banks face in adopting OB. This study provides a holistic framework, including superin-
tendency and regulation (D1 ), technology (D2 ), environment (D3 ) and organization (D4 ), to
model this complex issue.
A major finding is that environment (D3 ) is the most critical dimension, which partially
explains why most banks in Taiwan hesitate to invest in the OB business. Only eight of
36 banks have registered OB business until late 2020. One of the possible reasons might be
the lack of understanding of OB from the public. Besides, though many studies [16,38–40]
emphasized the technological aspect of implement OB, the BWM result indicates that
domain experts deem it the least essential.
The contributions of this study are threefold, two in practical insights the other relates
to the novelty of the hybrid MCDM approach:
(1) The seasoned domain experts helped identify the crucial criteria and their relative
importance on evaluating OB partners for the banking sector;
(2) The top three criteria for banks to consider OB are: financial regulations (C1 ), potential
market scale (C7 ) and rapid services delivery (C9 );
(3) The confidence-weighted fuzzy assessment revealed consistent ranking results as
the other conventional ones, which may reflect the confidence level of an expert’s
judgment on each evaluation. This hybrid approach contains originality and novelty
in retrieving experts’ knowledge.
In Section 4, we adopted E.Sun Bank as an exemplary case and chose four plausible
TPPs to conduct the analyses. E.Sun Bank is among the minority banks that have registered
the OB business in Taiwan. Its devotion to adopting FinTech is widely recognized. The
proposed hybrid approach (with multiple experiments) suggested consistent ranking order
for E.Sun Bank. This approach has shown its potential on decision aids for the banking
sector to choose their OB strategic partners.
Despite the practical insights brought by this study, it still has limitations. First, the
BWM weighting method presumes the independent relationship among criteria, which
might be enhanced by other MCDM methods. Second, both the SAW and VIKOR are linear
aggregators, future research may consider non-linear ones to capture the synergy among the
variables. Third, the fewer pairwise comparisons required by the BWM sometimes might
cause an unwanted ranking reversal. It is recommended to conduct multiple sensitivity
analyses to reduce this risk. Last, the validity of the findings hinges upon the experience
and knowledge of the experts.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, K.-Y.S., A.K.D., J.-Y.H.; methodology, K.-Y.S.; validation,

K.-Y.S.; investigation, A.K.D., J.-Y.H.; resources, J.-Y.H.; data curation, A.K.D.; writing—original draft
preparation, A.K.D., K.-Y.S.; writing—review and editing, K.-Y.S.; visualization, K.-Y.S.; supervision,
T.M.-Y.L.; project administration, K.-Y.S., T.M.-Y.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: All calculations required data are available in the text.
Acknowledgments: We are grateful for the help from a group of senior consultants from PwC
Consulting in Taipei and all the domain experts’ valuable opinions.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Mathematics 2021, 9, 587 15 of 19

Glossary of the Acronyms

Acronyms Full Names

OB Open Banking
PSD2 Revised Payment Service Directive
FinTech Financial Technology
OBIE Open Banking Implementation Entity
TPPs Third Party Providers
AISPs Account Information Service Providers
PISPs Payment Initiation Service Providers
TSPs Technical Service Providers
Open APIs Open Application Interfaces
DMs Decision-Makers
MCDM Multiple Criteria Decision-Making
OBE Open Banking Europe
MAS Monetary Authority of Singapore
TOE Technology, Organization, and Environment
PayTech Payment Technology
AHP Analytical Hierarchy Process
ANP Analytic Network Process
DEMATEL Decision-Making and Trial Evaluation Laboratory
DANP DEMATEL-Based ANP
BWM Best–Worst Method
VIKOR VlseKriterijuska Optimizacija I Komoromisno Resenje
TOPSIS Technique for Order Performance by Similarity to Ideal Solution
MADM Multiple Attribute Decision-Making
SAW Simple Additive Weighting
BO Best-to-Others
OW Others-to-Worst

Appendix A. Fuzzy Assessments

Table A1. Triangular fuzzy membership functions of the five experts.

Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4 Expert 5

High (H) (0.7, 1.0,1.0) (0.7, 0.9, 0.9) (0.7, 1.0,1.0) (0.7, 1.0,1.0) (0.8, 1.0,1.0)
Moderate (M) (0.3, 0.6, 0.9) (0.4, 0.6, 0.8) (0.2, 0.5, 0.8) (0.2, 0.5, 0.8) (0.6, 0.7, 0.8)
Low (L) (0.0, 0.0, 0.5) (0.0, 0.0, 0.5) (0.0, 0.0, 0.3) (0.0, 0.0, 0.3) (0.0, 0.0, 0.6)

Table A2. Confidence-based fuzzy assessments for the four TPPs (Expert 1).

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14

H M M H H H H H H H H M M H
T
50% 70% 70% 80% 80% 60% 90% 80% 90% 80% 80% 60% 70% 70%
H H H M H H H H H H H M M H
M
50% 60% 90% 80% 80% 70% 90% 90% 90% 90% 80% 60% 70% 70%
M L H H H H H H M H H H M M
L
70% 60% 90% 70% 80% 80% 90% 80% 90% 80% 80% 60% 70% 80%
L M H L M M M M M M M M M M
J
80% 70% 70% 60% 70% 70% 90% 80% 70% 80% 80% 60% 80% 80%
Mathematics 2021, 9, 587 16 of 19

Table A2. Cont.

(Expert 2)
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14
M H H H H H M H H H H M M L
T
50% 70% 80% 90% 80% 90% 55% 80% 70% 70% 80% 55% 45% 40%
H M H H M M H H H H H H M L
M
70% 50% 70% 70% 50% 50% 80% 70% 90% 90% 90% 80% 60% 50%
H H M M M M H M H H H H M M
L
90% 80% 50% 50% 50% 50% 80% 60% 70% 80% 90% 80% 60% 50%
L L L M M M L M M M L L H H
J
20% 20% 40% 40% 50% 50% 40% 40% 40% 50% 30% 40% 80% 70%
(Expert 3)
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14
M M L L M M H M M M L H M M
T
60% 60% 50% 50% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 60% 50% 40% 40% 40%
M M L L L L H M M H L M M M
M
60% 60% 50% 50% 60% 60% 65% 65% 70% 60% 50% 40% 40% 40%
M M H H M H H H H H H M H H
L
50% 50% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 70% 65% 65% 40% 60% 60%
L L H H H H H H H H H H H H
J
50% 50% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 70% 65% 40% 60% 60%
(Expert 4)
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14
M M M H H M H M M M H H M M
T
60% 80% 70% 90% 80% 90% 50% 60% 90% 60% 50% 60% 50% 30%
L M M L L L M M M M M H M M
M
60% 70% 70% 50% 70% 70% 50% 50% 50% 60% 50% 60% 50% 30%
H H H M M M H H H H H H M M
L
70% 40% 80% 60% 80% 80% 60% 90% 80% 80% 50% 80% 70% 30%
H L H M M M M H H M H L H H
J
85% 20% 75% 40% 60% 60% 20% 80% 50% 40% 30% 30% 50% 20%
(Expert 5)
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14
M M M L M M H L H L L L M M
T
90% 70% 80% 90% 80% 70% 80% 80% 90% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80%
L L L L L L M M M M M M M M
M
90% 90% 90% 80% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 80% 80%
H M H H H M H L L L L L M M
L
80% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 80% 90% 90% 90% 80% 80%
H H M M M M L M L L L L M M
J
90% 90% 70% 80% 70% 80% 90% 80% 90% 70% 70% 70% 80% 80%

References
1. Aneesh, Z.; Grilo, A. The emergence of digital platforms: A conceptual platform architecture and impact on industrial engineering.
Comput. Ind. Eng. 2019, 136, 546–555. [CrossRef]
2. Payment Services Directive: Frequently Asked Questions. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/
detail/en/MEMO_15_5793 (accessed on 23 October 2020).
3. Polasik, M.; Huterska, A.; Iftikhar, R.; Mikula, Š. The impact of Payment Services Directive 2 on the PayTech sector development
in Europe. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2020, 178, 385–401. [CrossRef]
4. Mansfield-Devine, S. Open banking: Opportunity and danger. Comput. Fraud. Secur. 2016, 10, 8–13. [CrossRef]
Mathematics 2021, 9, 587 17 of 19

5. Open Banking... So What? Available online: https://www.pwc.com/it/en/industries/banking/future-open-banking.html

(accessed on 28 June 2020).
6. Get Started. Available online: https://www.openbanking.org.uk/providers/ (accessed on 8 October 2020).
7. What is Open Banking? Available online: https://www.openbanking.org.uk/ (accessed on 8 October 2020).
8. Premchand, A.; Choudhry, A. Open Banking & APIs for Transformation in Banking. In Proceedings of the 2018 International
Conference on Communication (IEEE), Computing and Internet of Things (IC3IoT), Chennai, India, 15–17 February 2018.
[CrossRef]
9. Yip, A.W.H.; Bocken, N.M.P. Sustainable business model archetypes for the banking industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 174, 150–169.
[CrossRef]
10. Bouncken, R.B.; Fredrich, V.; Kraus, S.; Ritala, P. Innovation alliances: Balancing value creation dynamics, competitive intensity
and market overlap. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 22, 240–247. [CrossRef]
11. Huang, J.Y.; Shen, K.Y.; Shieh, J.C.P.; Tzeng, G.H. Strengthen financial holding companies’ business sustainability by using a
hybrid corporate governance evaluation model. Sustainability 2019, 11, 582. [CrossRef]
12. Shen, K.Y.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Tzeng, G.H. Updated discussions on “hybrid multiple criteria decision-making methods: A review
of applications for sustainability issues”. Ekon. Istraz. 2018, 31, 1437–1452. [CrossRef]
13. Our Scope. Available online: https://www.openbanking-europe.eu/who-we-are/ (accessed on 9 October 2020).
14. Atzori, M.; Koutrika, G.; Pes, B.; Tanca, L. Special issue on “Data exploration in the web 3.0 age”. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2020,
112, 1177–1197. [CrossRef]
15. The History of Open Banking. Available online: https://knowledge.fintecsystems.com/en/blog/the-history-of-open-banking
(accessed on 20 October 2020).
16. Background to Open Banking. Available online: https://www.openbanking.org.uk/about-us/ (accessed on 8 October 2020).
17. Real Demand for Open Banking as User Numbers Grow to More Than Two Million. Available online: https://www.openbanking.
org.uk/about-us/latest-news/real-demand-for-open-banking-as-user-numbers-grow-to-more-than-two-million/ (accessed on
8 October 2020).
18. Open Banking Europe: Security & Identification Standards for APIs & Communications. Available online: https://www.
openbankingeurope.eu/media/1943/oasis-obe-api-identification-and-security-standards-for-apis-and-communications.pdf
(accessed on 20 February 2021).
19. Number and Type of TPPs Per Country. Available online: https://www.openbankingeurope.eu/media/1841/tpp-map-
september.pdf (accessed on 23 October 2020).
20. ABS-MAS Financial World: Finance-as-a-Service API Playbook; Monetary Authority of Singapore: Singapore, 2016; pp. 6–16.
21. Open Banking. Available online: https://www.ausbanking.org.au/policy/the-future/open-banking/ (accessed on 2 October
2020).
22. The Global Open Banking Report 2020–Beyond Open Banking, Into the Open Finance and Open Data Economy. Available
online: https://thepaypers.com/reports/the-global-open-banking-report-2020-beyond-open-banking-into-the-open-finance-
and-open-data-economy/r1244913 (accessed on 27 November 2020).
23. Hong Kong Monetary Authority. Open API Framework for the Hong Kong Banking Sector; Hong Kong Monetary Authority: Hong
Kong, 2018; pp. 3–24.
24. Open Banking around the World: Towards a Cross-Industry Data Sharing Ecosystem. Available online: https://www2.deloitte.
com/tw/en/pages/financial-services/articles/open-banking-around-the-world.html (accessed on 23 October 2020).
25. iThome News Report (in Chinese). Available online: https://www.ithome.com.tw/news/137909 (accessed on 12 September
2020).
26. Borgogno, O.; Colangelo, G. Data sharing and interoperability: Fostering innovation and competition through APIs. Comput. Law
Secur. Rev. 2019, 35. [CrossRef]
27. Wang, H.; Ma, S.; Dai, H.N.; Imran, M.; Wang, T. Blockchain-based data privacy management with nudge theory in Open Banking.
Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2020, 110, 812–823. [CrossRef]
28. Wolters, P.T.J.; Jacobs, B.P.F. The security of access to accounts under the PSD2. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 2019, 35, 29–41. [CrossRef]
29. Shaikh, A.A.; Alharthi, M.D.; Alamoudi, H.O. Examining key drivers of consumer experience with (non-financial) digital
services?—An Exploratory study. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 55, 102073. [CrossRef]
30. Dratva, R. Is open banking driving the financial industry towards a true electronic market? Electron. Mark. 2020, 30, 65–67.
[CrossRef]
31. Nam, D.; Lee, J.; Lee, H. Business analytics adoption process: An innovation diffusion perspective. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 49,
411–423. [CrossRef]
32. Zhu, K.; Kraemer, K.L.; Xu, S.; Dedrick, J. Information technology payoff in e-business environments: An international perspective
on value creation of e-business in the financial services industry. J. Manag. Inform. Syst. 2004, 21, 17–54. [CrossRef]
33. Yang, M.; He, Y. How does the stock market react to financial innovation regulations? Financ. Res. Lett. 2019, 30, 259–265.
[CrossRef]
34. Van Loo, R. Making innovation more competitive: The case of FinTech. UCLA Law Rev. 2018, 65, 232–279.
35. Fratzscher, M.; König, P.J.; Lambert, C. Credit provision and banking stability after the Great Financial Crisis: The role of bank
regulation and the quality of governance. J. Int. Money Finan. 2016, 66, 113–135. [CrossRef]
Mathematics 2021, 9, 587 18 of 19

36. Buffart, M.; Croidieu, G.; Kim, P.H.; Bowman, R. Even winners need to learn: How government entrepreneurship programs can
support innovative ventures. Res. Policy 2020, 49, 104052. [CrossRef]
37. Chik, W.B. ‘Customary Internet-ional Law’: Creating a body of customary law for cyberspace. Part 1: Developing rules for
transitioning custom into law. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 2010, 26, 3–22. [CrossRef]
38. Shah, M.H.; Siddiqui, F.A. Organisational critical success factors in adoption of e-banking at the Woolwich Bank. Int. J. Inf. Manag.
2006, 26, 442–456. [CrossRef]
39. Yu, W.; Ding, Z.; Liu, L.; Wang, X.; Crossley, R.D. Petri Net-based Methods for analyzing structural security in e-commerce
business processes. Futur. Gener. Comp. Syst. 2020, 109, 611–620. [CrossRef]
40. Choi, H.; Park, J.; Kim, J.; Jung, Y. Consumer preferences of attributes of mobile payment services in South Korea. Telemat. Inform.
2020, 51, 101397. [CrossRef]
41. Baker, J. The technology–organization–environment framework. Information Systems Theory: Explaining and Predicting Our Digital
Society; Dwivedi, Y.K., Wade, M.R., Schneberger, S.L., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2012; Volume 1, pp. 231–245.
42. Sengupta, A.; Sena, V. Impact of open innovation on industries and firms—A dynamic complex systems view. Technol. Forecast.
Soc. Chang. 2020, 159, 120199. [CrossRef]
43. Markovic, S.; Jovanovic, M.; Bagherzadeh, M.; Sancha, C.; Sarafinovska, M.; Qiu, Y. Priorities when selecting business partners
for service innovation: The contingency role of product innovation. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2020, 88, 378–388. [CrossRef]
44. Sharma, D.; Pandey, S.K.; Chandwani, R.; Pandey, P.; Joseph, R. Internet channel cannibalization and its influence on salesperson
performance outcomes in an emerging economy context. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018, 45, 179–189. [CrossRef]
45. Piderit, S.K. Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational
change. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2000, 25, 783–794. [CrossRef]
46. He, D.; Ho, C.Y.; Xu, L. Risk and return of online channel adoption in the banking industry. Pac. Basin Financ. J. 2020, 60, 101268.
[CrossRef]
47. Del Gaudio, B.L.; Porzio, C.; Sampagnaro, G.; Verdoliva, V. How do mobile, internet and ICT diffusion affect the banking
industry? An empirical analysis. Eur. Manag. J. 2020. [CrossRef]
48. Frizzo-Barker, J.; Chow-White, P.A.; Adams, P.R.; Mentanko, J.; Ha, D.; Green, S. Blockchain as a disruptive technology for
business: A systematic review. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 51, 102029. [CrossRef]
49. Kim, H.W. The effects of switching costs on user resistance to enterprise systems implementation. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2011,
58, 471–482. [CrossRef]
50. Stamoulis, D.; Kanellis, P.; Martakos, D. An approach and model for assessing the business value of e-banking distribution
channels: Evaluation as communication. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2002, 22, 247–261. [CrossRef]
51. Opricovic, S.; Tzeng, G.H. Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur. J. Oper.
Res. 2004, 156, 445–455. [CrossRef]
52. Bakioglu, G.; Atahan, A.O. AHP integrated TOPSIS and VIKOR methods with pythagorean fuzzy sets to prioritize risks in
self-driving vehicles. Appl. Soft. Comput. 2020, 99, 106948. [CrossRef]
53. Shen, K.Y.; Tzeng, G.H. A decision rule-based soft computing model for supporting financial performance improvement of the
banking industry. Soft Comput. 2015, 19, 859–874. [CrossRef]
54. Shen, K.Y.; Yan, M.R.; Tzeng, G.H. Combining VIKOR-DANP model for glamor stock selection and stock performance improve-
ment. Knowl. Based Syst. 2014, 58, 86–97. [CrossRef]
55. Gupta, H.; Barua, M.K. Identifying enablers of technological innovation for Indian MSMEs using best-worst multi criteria decision
making method. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2016, 107, 69–79. [CrossRef]
56. Feng, Y.; Hong, Z.; Tian, G.; Li, Z.; Tan, J.; Hu, H. Environmentally friendly MCDM of reliability-based product optimisation
combining DEMATEL-based ANP, interval uncertainty and Vlse Kriterijumska Optimizacija Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR). Inf.
Sci. 2018, 442-443, 128–144. [CrossRef]
57. Nouri, F.A.; Esbouei, S.K.; Antucheviciene, J. A Hybrid MCDM approach based on fuzzy ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS for technology
selection. Informatica 2015, 26, 369–388. [CrossRef]
58. Joshi, B.P.; Gegov, A. Confidence levels q-rung orthopair fuzzy aggregation operators and its applications to MCDM problems.
Int. J. Intell. Syst. 2020, 35, 125–149. [CrossRef]
59. Kilic, H.S.; Zaim, S.; Delen, D. Development of a hybrid methodology for ERP system selection: The case of Turkish Airlines.
Decis. Support. Syst. 2014, 66, 82–92. [CrossRef]
60. Wang, Y.L.; Shen, K.Y.; Huang, J.Y.; Luarn, P. Use of a refined corporate social responsibility model to mitigate information
asymmetry and evaluate performance. Symmetry 2020, 12, 1349. [CrossRef]
61. Chang, T.W.; Lo, H.W.; Chen, K.Y.; Liou, J.J. A novel FMEA model based on rough BWM and rough TOPSIS-AL for risk
assessment. Mathematics 2019, 7, 874. [CrossRef]
62. Camargo Pérez, J.; Carrillo, M.H.; Montoya-Torres, J.R. Multi-criteria approaches for urban passenger transport systems: A
literature review. Ann. Oper. Res. 2015, 226, 69–87. [CrossRef]
63. Rezaei, J. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega 2015, 53, 49–57. [CrossRef]
64. Rezaei, J. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model. Omega 2016, 64, 126–130.
[CrossRef]
Mathematics 2021, 9, 587 19 of 19

65. Zavadskas, E.K.; Turskis, Z.; Kildienė, S. State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ.
2014, 20, 165–179. [CrossRef]
66. Simon, H.A. Bounded rationality in social science: Today and tomorrow. Mind Soc. 2000, 1, 25–39. [CrossRef]
67. Fenton, N.; Wang, W. Risk and confidence analysis for fuzzy multicriteria decision making. Knowl. Based Syst. 2006, 19, 430–437.
[CrossRef]
68. Financial Institutes Information. Available online: https://www.banking.gov.tw/ch/home.jsp?id=60&parentpath=0,4&
mcustomize=FscSearch_BankType.jsp&type=1 (accessed on 14 February 2021).
69. 2020Q3 Mobile Telecommunication Statistics. Available online: https://www.ncc.gov.tw/chinese/gradation.aspx?site_content_
sn=4160&is_history=0 (accessed on 1 January 2021).