The legacy form took customers an average of 15 minutes to complete. By pre-filling the new digital form with existing data, the process would become faster and make it less overwhelming. It took participants an average of 4 minutes to fill out basic fields (name, address, phone number, and email) and 11 minutes to complete the remaining sections of the form. Only 7 of the 24 participants preferred the existing process of manually entering this information, while the rest would like to see it changed.

The approach taken was to omit questions asking for basic information already on file would be omitted, but users could update this information on the review page if corrections are required.46 minutes saved: The average saved by users by not filling out basic information from 15 minutes to 11 minutes. 185% increase. 20 of 24 participants preferred skipping questions where the answer was already on file.

The legacy form made it difficult for customers to understand the continuation of ownership (who inherits ownership after the original owner’s death). My assumption that presenting this information in a clearer way—only achievable through a digital solution—could significantly reduce confusion. With over 27 different variations of possible inheritance orders, none of the 24 participants could easy keeping track of the inherits order with multiple family members. While 12 of 24 participants could fully understand the definitions of roles such as contingent owner and beneficiaries.

The approach taken was to show both the role with the name of the person that role was attributed with. This would appear whatever a new person could be added to the inheritance order and on the final review page for customers to approve before submitting the form.100% of people. 24 of 24 participants preferred the feature of having a persons name and their role side by side.

Since the legacy form was paper-based, customers encountered a list of irrelevant questions, making it unclear which ones they needed to complete. I believed that a digital solution that shows only the questions specific to their situation would greatly reduce this confusion. Research indicated that only 8 of 24 participants were entirely confident about which questions to answer.

As customers answered, only the relevant follow-up questions pertaining to their situation would be shown. They wouldn’t see or know about other questions that didn’t apply to them. 175% increase. 22 of 24 participants preferred the new approach of seeing questions that were only irrelevant to them.

ParagWith the legacy form being paper-based, all questions were presented at once. In my experience, showing all the questions at once can feel overwhelming and stressful for the customer. I user tested three ways of presenting questions to customers: all at once, one at a time, and grouped together. Additionally, I tested a solution both with and without a progress bar.

With the legacy form being paper-based, all questions were presented at once. In my experience, showing all the questions at once can feel overwhelming and stressful for the customer. I user tested three ways of presenting questions to customers: all at once, one at a time, and grouped together. Additionally, I tested a solution both with and without a progress bar.

User testing revealed that the best approach was to bundle similar questions into manageable groups. To achieve this, some questions needed to be rearranged from their original sections to improve the overall flow. The progress bar was eliminated because the number of questions varied across user flows. 75% of people. 18 of 24 participants preferred “grouped” questions instead of “all at once” or “one at a time.”

The legacy form included financial terminology that was often difficult for customers to understand. While it’s widely believed that such language is necessary for ‘legal’ reasons, my experience has shown that isn’t always true. Simplifying these terms and rewriting certain questions could significantly improve the process for customers. From the initial research, only 3 of the 24 participants understood financial terms like “right of survivorship” and “tenants in common.

I collaborated with the Business Analyst to rewrite certain questions and added additional text or tooltips to the ones I couldn’t change. I consider this a “long-term” solution, as it was difficult to get approval but easy to implement. This approach made the process clearer for customers while still meeting business requirements. 500% increase. 18 of 24 participants understood all of the questions being asked.

The legacy form took customers an average of 15 minutes to complete. By pre-filling the new digital form with existing data, the process would become faster and make it less overwhelming. It took participants an average of 4 minutes to fill out basic fields (name, address, phone number, and email) and 11 minutes to complete the remaining sections of the form. Only 7 of the 24 participants preferred the existing process of manually entering this information, while the rest would like to see it changed.

The approach taken was to omit questions asking for basic information already on file would be omitted, but users could update this information on the review page if corrections are required.46 minutes saved: The average saved by users by not filling out basic information from 15 minutes to 11 minutes. 185% increase. 20 of 24 participants preferred skipping questions where the answer was already on file.

The legacy form made it difficult for customers to understand the continuation of ownership (who inherits ownership after the original owner’s death). My assumption that presenting this information in a clearer way—only achievable through a digital solution—could significantly reduce confusion. With over 27 different variations of possible inheritance orders, none of the 24 participants could easy keeping track of the inherits order with multiple family members. While 12 of 24 participants could fully understand the definitions of roles such as contingent owner and beneficiaries.

The approach taken was to show both the role with the name of the person that role was attributed with. This would appear whatever a new person could be added to the inheritance order and on the final review page for customers to approve before submitting the form.100% of people. 24 of 24 participants preferred the feature of having a persons name and their role side by side.

Since the legacy form was paper-based, customers encountered a list of irrelevant questions, making it unclear which ones they needed to complete. I believed that a digital solution that shows only the questions specific to their situation would greatly reduce this confusion. Research indicated that only 8 of 24 participants were entirely confident about which questions to answer.

As customers answered, only the relevant follow-up questions pertaining to their situation would be shown. They wouldn’t see or know about other questions that didn’t apply to them. 175% increase. 22 of 24 participants preferred the new approach of seeing questions that were only irrelevant to them.

ParagWith the legacy form being paper-based, all questions were presented at once. In my experience, showing all the questions at once can feel overwhelming and stressful for the customer. I user tested three ways of presenting questions to customers: all at once, one at a time, and grouped together. Additionally, I tested a solution both with and without a progress bar.

With the legacy form being paper-based, all questions were presented at once. In my experience, showing all the questions at once can feel overwhelming and stressful for the customer. I user tested three ways of presenting questions to customers: all at once, one at a time, and grouped together. Additionally, I tested a solution both with and without a progress bar.

User testing revealed that the best approach was to bundle similar questions into manageable groups. To achieve this, some questions needed to be rearranged from their original sections to improve the overall flow. The progress bar was eliminated because the number of questions varied across user flows. 75% of people. 18 of 24 participants preferred “grouped” questions instead of “all at once” or “one at a time.”

The legacy form included financial terminology that was often difficult for customers to understand. While it’s widely believed that such language is necessary for ‘legal’ reasons, my experience has shown that isn’t always true. Simplifying these terms and rewriting certain questions could significantly improve the process for customers. From the initial research, only 3 of the 24 participants understood financial terms like “right of survivorship” and “tenants in common.

I collaborated with the Business Analyst to rewrite certain questions and added additional text or tooltips to the ones I couldn’t change. I consider this a “long-term” solution, as it was difficult to get approval but easy to implement. This approach made the process clearer for customers while still meeting business requirements. 500% increase. 18 of 24 participants understood all of the questions being asked.