[s2If is_user_logged_in()]Download PDF[/s2If] [s2If current_user_can(access_s2member_level1)]
Application of a user-centered approach rooted in ethnographic methodologies facilitates a major European bank’s transition to a business strategy based on understanding people’s needs, behaviors, values and motivations. Three UX case studies conducted over three years illustrate our educator, moderator, partner framework for collaborating with large enterprises in flux.
Free Article: Please sign in or create a free account to access the leading collection of peer-reviewed work on ethnographic practice.
To access video, Become an EPIC Member.
INTRODUCTION
Personal banking is in a state of strong transition, impacted by the continued reverberations of the global economic crisis, and innovative technologies. The same factors are impacting how people manage their finances, crucially altering mental models, expectations and behaviors. A Youbiquity Finance #1 report notes that “more consumers are looking to financial providers for help, but they are attitudinally less loyal to them,” (Avaya & BT, 2012). In 2013, Accenture found that young people trusted banks less, considered changing banks and account types more often, and were more likely to use digital technology for banking tasks (Winch, J. 2013). But while popular, mobile banking and other digital technology seems to increase the loyalty gap – as user-friendly technology replaces branch visits and customer service centers, the bank-customer relationship becomes less personal, and feelings of loyalty are diminished (Winch, J. 2013). This poses a huge challenge as banks are required to provide more digital services on more channels (Avaya & BT, 2012, pg. 11), and engage more deeply with customers to build relationships and brand loyalty.
Within this framework, in a market where differentiation is increasingly important, financial institutions recognize the need for change. Partly as a response to successful examples from other players and new entries in the market, including non-bank parties where the experience is a greater focus of the offer (e.g. mobile and online offerings like Square, Simple, Paypal, etc.), banks have been turning to user experience (UX) design companies to try to re-engage customers. However, the deeply ingrained traditional focus on transaction and product performance often hampers the transition into building holistic offers focused on user experience instead of on the design of individual products (Smith, D, 2013). In addition, high-effort legacy systems can make it difficult to implement new technologies, as do digital-tool legal obligations addressing information privacy and security concerns. Finally, institutional cultures resist close collaboration between UX professionals and internal business planning and strategy departments. New mindsets and approaches must filter through innumerable levels of management and departments and achieving buy-in from internal stakeholders at all levels is a demanding task that requires a strong vision and commitment.
Decidedly, UX consultancies must change approach to give their concepts the best shot at becoming reality. This requires flexibility, eagerness and capacity to adapt to new practices and develop new models of thinking, whilst simultaneously dialoguing with banks to accustom them to implementing a user-centred design approach. Between 2012 and 2014 our UX consultancy, Experientia, collaborated with a major European bank on a series of projects (referred to here as Bank X). Over this time, we slowly shifted from consultancy to partner, discovering the subtly different roles UX consultancies need to play when dealing with conservative industries like finance. We needed to change our mindset from service providers for a client already convinced about the value of UX design, to educators about our methods, moderators between different institutional departments, and finally, partners in a long-term business strategy. These three roles created a “framework for value” that facilitated our collaboration and the transformation of Bank X’s approach to product and service development. It also gave us opportunities for growth, through the application of new methodology mixes, and the challenge of using leaner and more agile processes.
Approach – the diverse roles of UX professionals as agents of change
In this paper we present three projects conducted with Bank X: an ATM interface, a Personal Finance Management (PFM) tool and a mobile-service system with a strategic roadmap. The first two of these were commissioned by internal departments to address departmental, not organizational, goals. These commissioned the work independently from other departments, operating in information silos in which they were unilaterally exploring the value of UX design. The projects met the kind of constraints frequently found in large institutions: bureaucracy, organizational inertia, and reluctance to share departmental proprietary business reports which would have had value for our projects. Our user-centered approach was seen as providing a fresh perspective free from internal politics, but it was nonetheless often misaligned because it aimed at holistic change that could create a coherent and cohesive offer, company-wide. We often found ourselves working to satisfy isolated objectives that might not be able to create a strong impact on the overall perception of Bank X’s offer. Milestones and business objectives were frequently based on hunches, or on competitor’s developments (a strong “me too!” approach to innovation), rather than an overarching strategic plan for the company. Working with departments in this way is somewhat like throwing pebbles into a river one by one and hoping they create a wave.
Educators
The first challenge in developing a working relationship with Bank X was understanding how they viewed us and our services. The bank needed to be convinced of the added value that qualitative research would bring projects. Our added value as UX consultancies is not simply that we create a bespoke design rather than a boilerplate approach – our designs are closely integrated with research insights, meaning a greater understanding and focus on the customer/user. However, when dealing with research, Bank X was accustomed to quantitative methods and were hesitant to leave the comfort of numbers behind for the unknown benefits of qualitative data. Therefore, the first role we found ourselves playing was that of educators. Through ethnography we uncovered findings that more traditional research approaches hadn’t elicited, such as the finding that many people were “willing to pay for banking services if [they] felt recognized.” We presented this as a mental model that the bank were unaware of, and showed how it was relevant to developing profitable extensive service models going beyond isolated go-to-market strategies. We uncovered a mix of values and expectations that people held around personalization and contextual services and showed how tapping into these values could lead the bank in new service provision. These kind of easily understandable and actionable insights helped to establish us an authoritative voice, able to cut through misconceptions or outdated perspectives Bank X might have about its customers. This was not a one-off activity – it was a role we found ourselves continually playing.
Moderators
One reason for this ongoing educator role was the fragmentation of Bank X’s approach to customer service. Like any monolithic agency, Bank X is driven by multiple departments, each with its own targets, goals and activities. The services we were proposing involved more than one department (and sometimes a third agency for development and technology as well). Because of this, we found ourselves in our second role, that of moderator, leading slow-growing dialogue that could bridge inter-departmental divides. This was frequently done through participatory design and stakeholder engagement workshops, and facilitated meetings, where we brought different groups together to catalyze discussions. Our persistent engagement efforts sparked multi-departmental conversations where individual project goals were brought together in interconnecting design solutions. It also helped us break down departmental barriers, and overcome information silos – as outsiders, we could occasionally garner greater cooperation from “rival” departments than if requests had come directly from colleagues.
A part of our evolution as moderators was the realization that we couldn’t rely on a standard approach when working on multiple projects with the same client. Different departments had unique structures, workflows and perspectives, and we had to adapt our educator or moderator role to these each time. One size doesn’t fit all – even within the same organization.
Partners
Building on the trust achieved through transparent rapport and tangible results, we began to craft our role as a partner. That is, more value was placed on our recommendations than previously, since we had finally won a certain level of trust – that our methods led to strong outcomes, and that our strategic advice emerged from a deep understanding of business needs. However, as in any good relationship, a partner needs to know how to compromise, and this was something we steadily became better at doing. Compromises such as scaling back ethnography in the ATM project or including quantitative research for the PFM project, did not threaten project visions, but made it easier for various groups to accept each other’s approaches and methodologies. Instead, for the client, compromises involved investing in technologies that the research revealed as important. Giving and taking ultimately smoothed the way to better partnership where an aligned approach solidified our role.