Citi - Improving Lending & Borrowing Experiences
Given the confidential nature of my work at Citi, specific project details are off-limits. Yet, I can share insights into my research process, methodologies, and reflections, adhering to NDA agreements.
Context
In this project, I led the research efforts to enhance the user experience of a payment feature within Citi's lending/borrowing services. This initiative aimed at providing customers with a flexible way to manage their purchases, ensuring the solution was both user-friendly and aligned with customer needs.
My Role
As the lead researcher, my daily tasks included:
Leading ideation & visioning workshops with stakeholders.
Planning research studies from start to finish and managing research ops.
Gathering and synthesizing user insights through interviews, unmoderated studies, and surveys.
Sharing findings with the product, design, and legal teams.
Research Goals
Evaluate customer perceptions of the payment feature.
Identify how customers expect payment options to be presented.
Assess the feature's impact on customer satisfaction and trust.
Research Process
I developed a 3-part interview guide to meet research objectives.
I collaborated with design team on prototype flows for tests:
Test 1: Language Comparison
Test 2: Impact of incorporating a payment method on perception
Test 3: Customer experience of consolidating transactions into a single plan
I synthesized findings via team debriefs and affinity diagramming.
Communicating Findings
I compiled and presented research findings to stakeholders, focusing on:
Customer perceptions and needs fulfillment by the payment feature.
Strategies to enhance communication and presentation of payment options.
Design recommendations for better user experience and higher adoption.
Developed a ”proto-persona'“ summarizing user needs, goals, and challenges.
Further Validation
After launching two payment options (for the flexible payment feature mentioned above)—we noted a significantly higher drop-off for one payment option over the other on the final confirmation screen. To investigate, we opted for unmoderated studies, allowing for efficient, broad-based participant feedback.
The study comprised two segments, each focusing on one payment model, with ten participants per segment. This setup aimed to reduce bias and facilitate a straightforward comparison between the options.
Study Phases (going from surface level initially to deeper probing in order to reduce bias):
Initial Thoughts: Participants went through the 'setting up a payment plan' prototype flow while think aloud their thoughts - this was so we can get an overall idea of their experience and provide them initial context of the scenario.
Focused Feedback: Concentrated on the review screen where drop-offs occurred, probing whether participants would proceed with the plan and their understanding of the payment structures.
Comparative Analysis: Showed participants different payment plan summaries, to gauge which layout best supported decision-making.
Key Findings:
Misunderstanding emerged as a key issue; many thought that one type of payment plan is in addition to the other, and not an alternative to it (as it was intended). This highlighted the need for clearer communication.
Recommendations:
Clarify payment options with straightforward explanations.
Improve layout for better comprehension of payment structures.
Add an FAQ link near payment details to address misunderstandings and questions.