A collections journey for vulnerable customers
Sopra Banking Software created white label products that were sold to banks and building societies throughout the UK. This project was raised with our team as an innovative solution to a Request for Proposal (RFP). The goal was to create an ethical, online collections journey incorporating Open Banking technology.
Working on this project was an exciting experience for several reasons. Along with collaborating with an ethics team, it was the first time I had worked on a project involving vulnerable end users. This introduced me to the unique challenges and nuances of user-testing in this context.
Context
Within a two-month time-boxed period we were to create an online, ethical collections journey, incorporating Open Banking technology that would be supplied by a third party.
The aim was to ensure that the debt would be repaid without pushing the debtor into further detriment resulting in a more successful long-term outcome for all involved.
Team setup
The team working on this project consisted of the internal Design team for Sopra Banking Software (SBS), an Ethics team from Sopra Steria (sister company) and an external design agency (CX Partners).
My role
Research / Wireframing / Design / Development
Ways of working
The project was time boxed into eight weeks. We were going to incorporate two rounds of testing and feedback into that.
Tools used
Figma, Notion, Miro, Zoom (for interviews), Google Docs
Key challenges
Researching a new topic and competitive landscape
Working with ‘vulnerable’ end-users
This project was time-boxed and a lean, agile approach was adopted
Working with a third party who would provide the OpenBanking technology
Combining three teams to work as one within a short space of time
Introducing a ‘new way’ of doing things to the end user
Introducing new technology to the end user
Who were our end user?
There are many reasons why a person may find themselves in debt; as a starting point we referenced the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) 4-drivers of vulnerability: Health, Life events, Resilience and Capability.
Recruitment brief
As a team we drew up recruitment brief for our participants. We wanted to work with people who had ‘recovered from debt’ as well as those who were currently ‘experiencing chronic debt problems’. We asked for the following from our recruiters:
Segments
Recovered from debt – people who have ‘end-to-end’ experience of personal debt and managed to resolve their situation and not relapse
Chronic debt problems – have recurring problems with personal debt over a sustained period of time, and from multiple sources.
Currently experiencing debt – are currently experiencing financial instability and personal debt (most likely from multiple sources).
At least 1 participant should have experience of ‘punitive’ personal debt e.g. a tax fine
Other vulnerabilities to include:
Participants with a range of financial instabilities at the time of debt, such as:
Low-income/savings, exhibiting a scarcity mindset
Income instability/irregularity
Life event that has lead to a significant mismatch between their income and expense
Participants with a range of cognitive limitations / impairments that affects their ability to manage debt and/or the way creditors communicate with them, such as:
Condition – e.g. ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia, dysgraphia, autismEnglish is not first language
Low financial literacy (relevant to situation)
Some participants with low emotional resilience / stability (and therefore emotionally reactive and vulnerable to stress)
Identified as high neuroticism on the ‘Big Five’ personality traits
Demographics
A 50/50 split of genders
A mix of ethnicities (at least 33% non-white)
A mix of education levels
Digital competency
2 participants who are at level ‘2’ for several tasks on the digital competency scale (see below)
If they can’t use Zoom video call, they can dial into the research session using their phone.
All other participants should be at levels “3” or “4”.
User research testing with vulnerable customers
Approach
An initial kick-off meeting was held which identified who was on the project, what we would be doing along with the suggested timelines.
We had some two-weeks before testing began with end-users which would be used to:
Research current collections journeys
Confirm what tech would be used
Identify potential end-users
What biases could be applied?
Write testing scripts
Create initial journey designs to be reviewed by the entire team and their feasibility confirmed
Agree on ‘success criteria’
We planned for two-rounds of user testing, using five participants each time.
As a UX-er I’m familiar with designing in-person testing scripts and the benefits of being prepared. However, I was surprised to learn that extra steps were considered necessary when dealing with ‘vulnerable customers’.
Safeguarding participants
‘Check in’ with each participant the day before testing so that we could introduce ourselves and set expectations
Reassure them that they would not be judged and that they were in a ‘safe space’
Suggest (if we thought it necessary) that recording and showing their face was optional
Have a ‘debrief’ sheet with recommended contact numbers for charities that may be able to provide additional support
Safeguarding researchers
The researchers would work in pairs - taking it in turn to lead and pick up conversations where necessary
We allowed longer than normal time - slots to ensure time for the researchers to ‘decompress’ from a session
They were also made aware that:
There was a chance of getting caught up in the participants story, losing focus on the questions that they needed to ask
Some of the stories told may be difficult to hear
Their mood may be affected by the stories they heard
The researchers were therefore asked to ensure:
That their discussion points and guides were well prepared
Be ready to deviate from the guide and let the conversation flow naturally
To talk in a slow and calm fashion
Use similar language to that which the participant is using for example if they referred to their ‘mental condition’ rather than their ‘mental illness’ - copy
Be ready to hear some hard core sharing traumas!
Always to show their face whenever possible to help build trust
We had recently completed a large body of work on ‘Savings accounts’ that included multiple rounds of testing. We would make use of these findings in our initial designs.
We would adopt a mobile-first approach
We would pose one question per page
Two rounds of testing were built into our design plan
At the end of each round we would collate our findings, feedback to the wider team and then incorporate the updates into our designs.
Muddled problem statement: it was a great project however I think the initial problem statement was muddled. We were trying to connect with customers emotionally by asking them to reveal their vulnerabilities however, the aim was to solve their problems in a logical and unemotional way. Next time I approach a project like this I would very much like to spend more time in the Discovery phase.
Introducing new technology: Although Open Banking had been around for a number of years it was still a fairly new concept to many outside of finance. Most of our participants were distrustful of what this might mean for them. Further investigation was also needed in what it meant if the debtor had a joint bank account.
Working with an ethics team: this was a new approach and I don’t think enough time had been given to ensuring wants, needs and outcomes were in alignment. In future I would spend more time upfront in confirming what success looked like for either team.
Emotional design: we were asking participants to reveal their vulnerabilities to garner trust. However, the revelation of these vulnerabilities would have no impact on the outcome which was wholly defined by logic. Today with the advent of Consumer Duty there is an obligation on behalf of the provider to ensure customers don’t fall into further detriment. I think this project could be revisited with these regulations in mind and different outcomes could be defined.
Outcome
These sessions were most certainly among the most fascinating I’ve ever attended. Each participant had an interesting story to tell as to how they found themselves in debt. One or two stories were so heartbreaking I remember them to this day.
Essentially however this journey failed. Only one participant would have completed this journey online. Every other participant would have chosen to speak to someone at the first opportunity.
Too much too soon
Introducing both a new way of ‘doing things’ along with new technology proved too much for our participants.
One size does not fit all
An online only journey would be unsuitable for many in vulnerable circumstances.Be careful what you ask
Digging into people’s vulnerabilities can build trust, but can just as easily trigger strong emotions.
Lessons learnt
Original screen
Updated screen