Читать книгу Service Design - Ben Reason - Страница 25

Anders Kjeseth Valdersnes, the design team’s Microsoft Excel maestro, built a prototype of the product in Excel, which had all the tools required to handle the actuarial tables and live information visualization. Rather than spending a week or two designing and coding a Web prototype with a functioning back-end database, Anders did it in two days and designed it to look like a website so that it could be tested with customers (Figure 1.4).

FIGURE 1.4 An experience prototype of the insurance website built in Excel so that the real data could be used when testing with customers.

With this prototype, Gjensidige were able to carry out experience prototype testing with customers discussing and buying insurance, a salesperson selling insurance, and someone trying to make a claim. They tested what it was like for customers to try to buy the services face to face and what it was like for the sales staff. They also tested this process over the phone and observed the process from both sides of the call. To test the claims process, they went through the material with someone who had just had an accident. Actual staff and actual customers took part, and even though they knew they were taking part in testing, the conversations they had were very real. Through this process, the project team learned a lot about what needed to be done to shape, explain, and sell the new service proposition.

It was clear from the prototyping that the new approach changed the conversation from being about buying products to one about service. It meant that customers considered what they could afford on a monthly basis, taking into account what they earned, what was in their “rainy day” savings account, and what they would need in the event of a tragedy. They were able to see the difference their decisions about excess and payout levels made to their premiums, and the conversation was much more open, with the customers in control.

A series of touchpoints were prototyped—the one-page contract, informational leaflets, fake advertisements in a financial newspaper and a tabloid newspaper (Figure 1.5), and the bill customers would receive at the end—so that a broad range of the service experience could be tested.

FIGURE 1.5 Creating fake newspaper ads—one for a financial broadsheet, the other for a tabloid—helped the team understand how the marketing of the service would feel in different contexts.

The one-page contract prototype was a good example of the difference between what people say and what they do (Figure 1.6). Many interviewees said that they did not read long contracts and thus did not know what was in them, leading to a lack of trust in the insurance company. They suggested that a one-page contract would be much friendlier. During prototyping, however, it turned out that customers did not trust a one-page contract either, fearing that too much important detail was hidden from them, as their previous policies had been about 40 pages. Gjensidige ended up creating contracts with around 5 to 10 pages.

Prototypes were also made of the claim process confirmation documents. Traditionally, customers simply received a letter stating, “We have received your claim,” which left them uncertain about how the claims process was handled within the company. The redesigned confirmation shows the customer how the process unfolds over time and helps to manage their expectations (Figure 1.7). This way they know when to be patient and let the process take its course, and when they have cause to follow up.

FIGURE 1.6 A prototype of the one-page contract so many interviewees claimed they would prefer. Evidence showed that they did not trust it.

FIGURE 1.7 A prototype of a redesigned claim confirmation. This document manages customer expectations by illustrating how the process unfolds over time.

Lastly, the team prototyped an offer sent out in the mail after a sales call or meeting (Figure 1.8). The insights research showed that this was one of the most crucial touchpoint failures, and the company did not realize the potential of improving it. Previously, customers had an interaction with a salesperson in which they talked through a complicated policy, then would go home and explain it to their partners, but could not remember the details well enough to explain it. Because they could no longer understand it, customers could not make a decision. Redesigning this touchpoint helped people make a decision at home, and the company avoided losing customers because of this hidden problem. This is a good example of how services are created and experienced by interactions between people, often in a completely different context than the usual customer-provider paradigm.

FIGURE 1.8 A prototype of the mailed offer, which is an important touchpoint for customers. This document serves as the focal point for discussion and making a decision. This prototype shows an offer that could be revised by customers before the contract is signed.