Case Profile: Innovations in fleet card security

Case Profile: Innovations in fleet card security

Introduction
 
Following strong network coverage, enhanced security is the feature fleet managers across Western Europe value most from their fuel card provider. This case profile assesses demand for advanced fuel card security services and outlines how providers have responded to it. Furthermore, it recommends which of the services should be offered and which segments they should be offered to.
 

 
Scope
 
An examination of the trends that are driving growth in security services and are fostering consumer demand for advanced security products.
 
An assessment of which of the more innovative security features are valued by different segments and how customer would like them to be implemented.
 
A comparison of the core fleet card providers across Europe with regards to their card security features.
 
Suggestions as to which security features should be offered, the markets they should be offered in and the segments they should be offered to.
 
Highlights
 
There is a strong positive correlation between fleet size and the importance of vehicle-specific analysis, while card insurance is the only security service to be more valued by the smaller fleet operators. However, ``Personal Identification Number`` (PIN) codes are demanded by fleet managers irrespective of their fleet size.
 

 
Large fleets value internet based security measures more than smaller fleets. This includes e-mail based alerts which notify the fleet manager when drivers have made transactions or have attempted to make transactions which are outside of pre-defined limits.
 

 
Repsol is the only supplier of those assessed to offer four of the six main 'limit' or 'parameter' services. To provide two to three of these services is the norm. Furthermore, Repsol is the only major provider which allows fuel card users to specify the days on which the card can be used.
 

 
Reasons to Purchase
 
Benchmark your fuel card security features against those of your competitors and identify key areas of card improvement.
 
Understand the fuel card security features valued by different customer segments and ensure product development focuses on customers' priority needs.
 
Assess if card security features have influenced customers perception of their provider in terms of the level of security offered.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
 
CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
 
This case profiles investigates which security services are valued by different fleet segments and advises on which of these services should be offered 3
 
Trends 3
 
Recommendations for card providers 3
 
Protection against fraud is a key requirement of a fuel card for customers, second only to high network acceptance 4
 
The more innovative security services largely involve the implementation of technical features and card limits/restrictions/parameters 5
 
Security is the area where most fuel card product innovation has occurred 5
 
CHAPTER 2 INTRODUCTION 13
 
This case profile assesses the demand for advanced fuel card security services and outlines how providers have responded to it 13
 
This case profile comprises four further sections 14
 
Customer context 14
 
Implementation study 14
 
Seizing the innovation 14
 
Recommendations 14
 
This case profile focuses on a number of fuel card security services/features, for which definitions can be found in the Appendix 15
 
Fuel card security services 15
 
Innovative fuel card security services 15
 
Fuel card security relevant services 15
 
This report is aimed at those needing a greater insight into customer requirements in the area of fuel card security features 16
 
Strategists 16
 
Product development teams 16
 
Marketing and service managers 16
 
CHAPTER 3 CUSTOMER CONTEXT 17
 
Customer context 17
 
Protection against fraud is a key requirement of a fuel card for customers, second only to high network acceptance 18
 
Following comprehensive network coverage, enhanced security is the core feature fleet managers across Western Europe expect from their fuel card provider 19
 
Protection from employee fraud is almost as much as a concern to fleet managers as theft from an external party 20
 
Analysis of the relationship between security features and fleet size reveals that exception reporting and vehicle analysis become more important the larger the fleet size 21
 
The value of ‘security relevant’ management tools is most pronounced among larger fleets 22
 
Fraud is rated as the most significant factor preventing non-users of fuel cards from converting to this form of payment 23
 
CHAPTER 4 IMPLEMENTATION STUDY 24
 
Implementation study 24
 
The more innovative security services largely involve the implementation of technical features and card limits / restrictions / parameters 25
 
There is a high variance in the importance of more innovative security services by segment, but instant card stopping is highly valued by all 26
 
Large fleets value internet based security measures more than smaller fleets, partly because they are more informed of features such as online authorisation 27
 
Regional differences in the value placed on security features are less pronounced 28
 
Customers are generally satisfied with online implementation of all innovative security services 29
 
There are significant differences, by country, in how a transaction outside of the predefined limits should be handled 30
 
CHAPTER 5 SEIZING THE INNOVATION 31
 
Seizing the innovation 31
 
Security is the area where most fuel card product innovation has occurred 32
 
Technical security features such as velocity checking and online authorisation are now very much the norm 33
 
More innovative transaction parameters are slowly being added to the more established fuel value and product limits 34
 
Shell’s card has the greatest number of security features 35
 
Repsol is the only major provider which allows fuel card users to specify the days on which the card can be used 36
 
Customers are not always aware of the security features offered by their card 37
 
Arval compares poorly to the other suppliers in an analysis of instant online card stopping by provider 38
 
Repsol and Arval are the suppliers with a weak penetration of PIN services into their customer bases 39
 
UK suppliers lag behind in the implementation of chip and PIN 40
 
CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDATIONS 42
 
There are four key recommendations for fuel card providers hoping to alleviate their customers’ security fears 42
 
Recommendations 42
 
CHAPTER 7 APPENDIX 43
 
Glossary of terms 43
 
Research methodology 45
 
Related research 45
 
SPP writing team 46
 

 

 
LIST OF FIGURES
 
Figure 1: Card PIN codes are the third most important fuel card feature 19
 
Figure 2: PIN codes are demanded by fleet managers irrespective of fleet size 21
 
Figure 3: A fear of fraud can dissuade non-users from subscribing to this form of payment 23
 
Figure 4: The three services in the upper right quadrant are highly valued by particular market segments 26
 
Figure 5: There is a positive correlation between fleet size and the importance of instant online card stopping and online authorisation 27
 
Figure 6: Southern European fleet managers value innovative security features the most 28
 
Figure 7: The preferred method of implementation is online, although indifference is apparent, the smaller the fleet size 29
 
Figure 8: The majority of fleet managers in Southern European want transactions made outside of limits to be refused 30
 
Figure 9: Number of security services by provider 35
 
Figure 10: Number of limiting features by provider 36
 
Figure 11: Based on customers’ understanding of what features their cards have, instant online card stopping and velocity checking are the only two services with 60%+ penetration 37
 
Figure 12: 46.2% of Arval respondents have instant online card stopping as a service 38
 
Figure 13: 5.4% of Arval respondents said they have a PIN code for their card when the supplier does not yet offer it 39
 
Figure 14: Those providers which offer 7 or more services score in excess of 3.75 out of 5 for the level of security against external theft 41
 
Figure 15: European Fleet Managers Research, 2004 – Survey sample 45