BETA timeline
KEY
Accessibility
Other
Lab research
Online research
Partners collaboration - co-design
-
Dasboard Research
Phase
Beta
Audience
- 5 internal with A11LY requirements
We were focusing on:
Primary questions
- Does the dashboard have any major issues?
- Is it what customers are expecting to see?
Secondary Research Questions
- Active funds and services – do they notice that action is required?
- Is it clear that action is needed for the contact offer?
- Layout
- Is it clear whats expected?
- Can people accept or reject offer?
- Congratulations screen – can they go back to the dashboard from here?
What we discovered
Does the dashboard have any major issues?
- It was clear where action was needed
- Want clear alerts
- Were able to complete the contract offer
- Text too fine some participants had to highlight it blue to be able to read it due to contrast issues
- Language too informal for confirmation screens, the use of the word congratulations wasn’t felt to be appropriate
Is it what customers expect to see? Expected to see company name not SE name Allow applicants to print off the contract offer and a summary of the application for their records 🎧 Some quotes
“This looks straightforward” “I would like to see the account info like my company name, my name and other bits” “Just under the “your account” would be nice to have the company name” “Your {fund name} offer: Looks like you have won a competition” “Tone of voice should we be little bit more formal” “Download option for the contract for filing and audit purposes” “Contract offer - I have to highlight this so that I can read and the blue on top of white looks so much better, make it more accessible” “Select all should select all basically” “Congratulations screen - make it more formal looks like spam .. looks like a cashback email” “Status makes sense and pretty straightforward” “Very nice and clear for me” Claims
Primary Research question
- Is it obvious what action is needed to complete a claim?
Secondary Research questions
- Can appropriate cost types be selected?
- Do customers want to see all the cost types or just the ones relevant?
- Layout
- Is it clear what’s expected?
What we discovered
Is it obvious what action is needed to complete a claim?
- All participants completed the task
- Some participants wanted to be able to download a copy of their input
- It was easy to upload documents
- Only show relevant costs
- If more than one cost selected have a clearer way to display the costs
- Intervention rate text needs an explanation
- The green box on the confirmation screen looks like spam email
- Additional evidence section confused a desire was expressed for examples and explanation
Quotes
“Phone number could be clickable” “Intervention rate - can’t understand maybe accountant would understand it I cannot” “For me all electronic docs is fine and as long as I get an email with confirmation and ref no I am happy” “Just show me the costs which are applicable to me don’t show all” “This looks excellent” “Moving towards electronic is a good thing” “It’s really good to see this hopefully this will work for my clients” “It’s important that I am in my record so show my company name / individual name on the screen or maybe my company logo etc” “What do you mean by cost - is it invoice total cost or 50% cost of the total?” “Explain what additional evidence means, give examples” “Is there a CO2 calculator / spreadsheet?” “All pretty straightforward” -
Green Jobs - Lab Research
Phase
Beta
Audience
- 5 internal with A11LY requirements
We were focusing on
Primary questions
- Does the Application Journey have any major issues?
- How long will it take users?
-
Secondary Questions
- How do people think they can gather the evidence?
- Is it something that they have available?
- Would they know where to go and source the information?
- How long would it take people to gather the information together?
What we discovered
The application journey has no major issues
- It’s not obvious that its saving as it goes
- It’s great that there is a list of documents required but have an option to download this to a pdf and people like to check off that they have everything
- Bullet points are easy put info in bullet points
- Don’t use too big paragraphs
- Well laid out and easy to read
- Tone of language a bit casual for a government website
- Participants expected to just go onto the next section not to go back to the index
How long will it take users? It takes too long causing frustration Participants with accessibility needs required considerably more time to complete the task 🎧 Some quotes
“I can’t be bothered filling this form, I know I have a good project but can’t be bothered … “
“Is my business eligible should be first up .. why waste my time”
“Can I print a pdf of this page? Reading on screen for me is difficult”
“Templates are always good and we get all good info from customers”
-
Green Jobs - Lab Research
Phase
Beta
Audience
- 5 potential cutomers
We were focusing on
Primary questions
- Does the Application Journey have any major issues?
- How long will it take users?
- How hard will they find it (Evidence etc.…)
-
Secondary Questions
- How do people think they can gather the evidence?
- is it something that they have available?
- would they know where to go and source the information?
- how long would it take people to gather the information together?
- Does the new language on the “project plan” make sense to people?
What we discovered
Does the Application Journey have any major issues 💡It is not obvious that it is SAVING as you go. (Do you have to submit each section or does it save each field) Fair Work is not well understood by customers. - It feels like an absolute barrier to some - It is not understood WHY we are asking for it Put all the things that would disqualify a user Up Front (Or make it feel that way) RETAIL on the banned list is too ambiguous. Green Jobs is not just about Jobs (a bit…) How long will it take users? A bit too long. It started to wear down people about mid way. Fair Work was the breaking point for some How hard will they find it (Evidence etc…) It is quite straight forward but they might flag a bit toward the middle A bit repetitive None of it seems unnecessary BUT there is a lot of it. Smaller companies would be put off. Larger companies probably get it. 🎧 Quotes
Quote “It isn’t very well explained (Service Description) “I could read this page and easily apply this” (Service Description) “I would have been off making a cup of tea by now” (About your project) “None of it seems unnecessary - there’s just a lot of it” “I would be starting to zone out and think nah, this isn’t for me” (Fair Work section) “This is getting a bit like a riddle” (Impact of funding section) “That wall of words is off-putting. I’d prefer to see it broken down a wee bit” (dyslexic) “Overall that’s quite a straightforward application” “It feels like there is a massive gap there” (Eligibility Response) “I would leave the website at this point, and go make a plan based on this page” and then come back with my Word Doc (About your Project) “I have completed my Eligibility and I have no idea if I am eligible?” -
Eligibility Messaging Research
Phase
BetaAudience
- 9 potential customers
We were focusing on
- Eligibility messages
What we discovered
- Bold, Clear and Obvious, win the day.
- Positive language also tested well
Learning Go with V4. These interstitial pages put users at ease. This was the first or second choice of all participants Simplicity is good -
BOB Testing (SE Business Toolkit Site) - March 24th & 25th
Phase
BetaAudience
- 6 potential customers
Focus
- General usability of the Site and Tool
Learning The site is nice and clear but the initial toolkit view is a little bit vague The questionnaire is good, but some questions could have the option text tweaked The initial views of the Action plan was too vague for users and did not lead them deeper into the detail Once people clicked through to detailed content, (after being prompted), they appreciated the level of detail. -
Appraisal Testing - March 17th & 18th
Phase
BetaAudience
- 6 potential customers
Focus
- Do labels (Attention Needed etc…) show enough detail
- Display or hide sections
- If NOTHING NEEDS ATTENTION…..SHOULD WE JUST HIDE IT
- Is Text Pattern clear enough (Appraisal comments etc…)
- Application Evidence (Upload new file as an update post appraisal comments)
- Version control Docs
- Confusing or Helpful to the user
- Additional Information (Only shows if you are asking for Additional Info)
- Hoover up NEW INFORMATION THAT WAS NOT ACTUALLY A PART OF THE ORIGINAL QUESTION SET
- SUBMIT
- Application Overview or Just go to Thankyou page
Notifications B Section » Sign_In Generic
https://4jd442.axshare.com/#id=pdee0y&p=notifications-b__sign_in&g=1Learning People don’t read stuff they think is already completed Pages are short and sweet :-) The design system is now producing well functioning pages Appraiser comments are noticed, but viewed as quite impersonal. Customers asked for a Name against Appraiser comments Upload Evidence link was missed (Tertiary Link at bottom of page) The reference Number raised confidence levels The phone number raised confidence levels SLA’s were expected, but missing -
Appraisal Task List
Phase
DiscoveryAudience
- 4 Potential Customers (Zoom)
- 10 Online unmoderated
We were focusing on
- Validating the Hub & Spoke Task Lists for Appraisals
Focus
- Do labels (Attention Needed etc…) show enough detail
- Display or hide sections
- Should we hide sections that don’t need attention
- Is Text Pattern clear enough (Appraisal comments etc…)
- Application Evidence (Upload new file as an update post appraisal comments)
- Thoughts on Additional Information section
- What people expect to see when they SUBMIT
What we discovered
Learning The labels worked well BUT On “Identity verification details” the In Progress Label was ambiguous. Customers did not know if it was In progress with us or should they still be doing something It is an even split between wanting inactive sections hidden vs Showing them to show what has been completed Application Evidence: Appraiser Comments could be more obvious that they are from a person. The Appraiser comments could reference the page better. This would include being more specific about uploading files etc… The Text Pattern on Additional Info page works quite well BUT The Upload additional evidence was missed often. The Additional Info section was most welcome When customers SUBMIT it is an even split between showing a summary first or going straight to a thankyou page 🧰 ## Recomendations
Change Change the IDV In Progress label language Make Appraiser Comments more explicit (Quotes pattern etc…) Make the “Upload Additional Evidence” link more prominent on the “Additional Info” page A/B test: Hiding completed sections The SUBMIT action -
FUND Application wireframe (green jobs) March
Phase
- Alpha
Audience
- Potential Customers
- 6 Recruited for F2F Video Calls
Focus
Research Questions Do users understand what the different types of evidence are and what they would provide? Is it clear who’s eligible for the call? Is it clear what kind of projects the call could support? Is the claims content useful and would users want to know more before applying? Did users find it useful to know what factors we’ll consider when reviewing applications? Is there anything that’s unclear or missing? Anything users would have liked to know more about? Is the language clear/do we use any unfamiliar terms? Did you notice the postcode checker? If so, was it clear why this was provided? What we discovered
💡 Learning Language is clear The page is too content-heavy – users struggle to take in all of the information The information about claims needs to be higher up on the page Users need more clarity about what a green job is – some examples would be helpful The postcode checker is clear, but we need to ensure it’s clear what to do if you aren’t in the Scottish Enterprise area Recomendations
Recomendations Investigate using accordions to make the content on the page easier to digest Move the claims section higher up the page Add some examples of what a green job is Link off to similar services in the HIE/SoSE areas so businesses in those areas don’t hit a dead end Files
-
SIB & PERF SENSE MAKING
Phase
DiscoveryAudience
- DDIT Staff and Stakeholders
We were focusing on
- Lessons learned from Previous rounds of Funding Delivery that will help with current Appraisal work
Learning - The Design System is now quite stable and is producing page layouts without any innate usability problems - File upload preferences were referenced as this will feed into current Appraisal work being done - Having Files uploads in Context of the descriptive text was critical. eg. Have them at point of need and not afterwards. 🎧 Quotes
Quote - “On ‘browse files’: “It’s clear and is a good way of prompting me to make sure that all required evidence is contained in the various documents I upload.” - “Clear concise with the best drag & drop box size and lay out”.” -
FUND Application wireframe prototype testing Feb 2021
Phase
- Alpha
Audience
- Potential Customers
- 6 Recruited for F2F Video Calls
Focus
- To test the Funding Application wireframe prototype
- To establish
- If using a Scanned cpy of Passport or Driving License would be acceptable to customers
- General usability of the wireframe
What we discovered
Learning 💡De Minimis still sucks as a Phrase/Term De Minimis is not mentioned in the eligibility section, even though it is an “absolute requirement” Customers needs to be told in advance, what information documents & evidence will be “needed to successfully complete the application”, to avoid unpleasant surprises Private documents make people nervous about security and liability Business Plan’s are referenced confusingly (Repeatedly and with/without a template) 🎧 Quotes
Quote “I already uploaded a Business Plan and NOW you are giving me a template?” “What if I want Email AND Phone”” “Project Cost is too vague” “It would have been handy to know I needed that before we started” 🧰 We Changed
Change 💡De Minimis descriptive text Evidence Requirements made more explicit up-front Files
-
Fund Application Testing
Phase
- Alpha
Audience
- Potential Customers
- 20 Online Unmoderated Recruited from UserZoom panel
Focus
- To test the Funding Application wireframe prototype
- To establish
- If using a Scanned cpy of Passport or Driving License would be acceptable to customers
- General usability of the wireframe
What we discovered
Learning 💡De-Minimis is still an obscure term to most Driving License and Passport were accepted as Personal Photo ID BUT there were concerns around data security and also implied personal liability Evidence Requirements could still be clearer Files
-
Learning from PERF and SIB about the CRM interface
Phase
- Alpha
Audience
- 5 internal staff
Focus
- What were your experiences using the CRM interface for these grants?
- What worked well?
- What didn’t work well?
- Was anything was missing?
- What would you need changed?
What we discovered
- Differences in how staff enter records impacts what screens they see
- Not all users follow the same process to get to the same place
- Not all users have the same Views of the same screen/queue
- Need the ability to dump all the form information (fields) as a Doc/PDF to send for approval
- Staff had to cut and paste information into Word documents to send for approval
- They also want the ability to be able to view the email trail, application form and supporting documents in one place
- They want to pause SLA when customer is non-responsive (resubmitting info etc..)
- Staff want to pause the SLA when they are waiting for extra information feel that being held to an SLA for circumstances outside their control
- Text editor has gone from their screens, so they can’t format notes
- There was no warning for this and this made pulling all the data into a formatted Word document via cut and paste difficult
- Supporting docs seems to have vanished
- Staff now cannot review the entire evidence prior to submitting an application for approval or in the event of a query
- EU language needs to be reviewed (De Minimis etc..)
- Staff felt this was no longer relevant
Recomendations
- Ensure all staff use CRM in the same way to ensure consistency
- Restore text editor
- Allow staff to download all fields into one document
-
SIB Aug 5th 2020 Alpha/Beta Research
Phase: Alpha/Beta
Audience
- Funding Project Team, Stakeholders, Product Owner & Customers
Focus
- To test multi file upload design for users to add evidence to their online application form.
- To establish whether users can upload files and understand the link between evidence and file uploaded.
- To ensure users found the process:
- Intuitive
- Easy to understand
- Clear
What we discovered
Learning 💡multi file upload design Users were very clear how to upload documents to this page The file upload process was easy, user friendly and intuitive for users Majority of users found linking the file uploaded to the evidence required easy Text attached to the evidence options would have made it clearer for users who were confused 70% of users could easily remove evidence when it had been uploaded, 30% could not or were unclear whether they had done it or not 🧰 We Changed
Change Change the options from number to text, corresponding to the evidence detailed above, or number the text options. This will make the link between document and corresponding evidence clearer to users. Consider user suggestions to include information on file types and sizes accepted and a confirmation pop up to confirm file removal, ex. “are you sure you want to remove this file?” -
SIB July 10th 2020 Alpha/Beta Research
Phase: Alpha/Beta
Audience
- Funding Project Team, Stakeholders, Product Owner & Customers
Focus
- To test 4 versions of the file upload page, for users to add evidence in support of their application to the Early Stage Growth Challenge Fund.
- To determine whether users:
- Understand where and how to upload files
- Prefer version A, B, C or D
- To get users thoughts on:
- Layout and feel of the page
- ‘Browse files’ dropdown menu
What we discovered
Learning 💡 Early Stage Growth Challenge Fund: file upload page Majority of users were clear on how to upload documents to each version of the page. Preference was to upload documents under each category. 60% of users preferred version D. It was found to be easier to track and match documents to each section as opposed to uploading all at once. Version D layout was also preferred due to the 3 clear sections and smaller drag and drop box under each. Users found ‘Browse Files’ section logical and straightforward. Preference was for file ‘options’ to be numbered and match evidence description, to help match documents quickly and easily. 🎧 Quotes
Quote On Version D: “The text sizes were perfect and the upload window was displayed very well under the respected sections.” On Version D: “Best version so far, clear concise with the best drag & drop box size and lay out”. On ‘browse files’: “Excellent, this is how older professionals like myself remember the user interface of pages. Normally, you see buttons everywhere which can be rather confusing.” On ‘browse files’: “It’s clear and is a good way of prompting me to make sure that all required evidence is contained in the various documents I upload.” On Version C: “The layout is compacted and the browse files section interferes with the description of each section, which is not good for user readability.” 🧰 We Changed
Change Develop file upload section based on Version D design. Add descriptions to the evidence options in the dropdown’s to reflect the names of each piece of evidence and number each option to make it easier and faster to match documents to the evidence. -
SIB June 26th 2020 Alpha/Beta Research
Phase: Alpha/Beta
Audience
- Funding Project Team, Stakeholders, Product Owner & Customers
Focus
- To test the contents page & guidance notes which precede the Early Stage Growth Challenge Fund application.
- To determine whether content is:
- Clear
- Easy to understand
- To establish whether users:
- Understand what the fund is for
- Understand who the fund is for
What we discovered
Learning 💡 Early Stage Growth Challenge Fund application Users found the information on these pages clear and easy to understand. Users were able to give a good account of who the funding is for and what the funding should be used for after reading these pages. Understanding and clarity increased further after reading the guidance notes. Some users expressed a preference for a larger font with more tables/bullet points to make the volume of information easier to digest. 🎧 Quotes
Quote “I find that the language is the real strength on this page and due to the writing style the explanation can be easily understood” “The volume and the technical nature of some of it makes it slightly difficult. But there is also more detail needed which may be required for certain businesses” “There is necessarily a lot to digest and I would need to re-read several times if I thought my business might be eligible” “A very thorough explanation of all that it entails and requires” “The information was pretty easy to understand and directed towards the intended audience. It was transparent and also in plain and simple terminologies” -
SIB June 15th 2020 Alpha/Beta Research
Phase: Alpha/Beta
Audience
- Funding Project Team, Stakeholders, Product Owner & Customers
Focus
- To test the final eligibility question set used in the SIB Frontier Fund online application.
- To establish whether the questions asked are:
- Clear
- Easily understood
- Expected
What we discovered
Learning 💡 *SIB Frontier Fund online application The eligibility questions are the type of questions users expect from a funding application. They are very clear and easy to understand. Users would be able to answer every question except one person who was unsure what PERF was. The majority of users would find this form easy to fill in if they were applying on behalf of their company. 🎧 Quotes
Quote “Very clear questions, simple response formats. Succinct definitions about terms (e.g. micro business etc.).” “Simple questions. Clear spacing. Concepts explained. all easy!” “The questions have a very good explanation for each term and are written in language that’s easy to understand.” “I would be able to answer most questions on my own or seek the help of my company accountant in order to complete anything I didn’t understand.” -
SIB June 8th 2020 Alpha/Beta Research
Phase: Alpha/Beta
Audience
- Funding Project Team, Stakeholders, Product Owner & Customers
Focus
- To further test the wireframes for the new SIB product online application form.
- To establish whether customers can:
- Easily navigate and complete the form, create an account, submit and review, sign in and sign out
- To gain insight on:
- Clarity and understanding of content
- How this process compares to previous experiences of funding applications
- How customers expect to access help during the process
What we discovered
Learning 💡 Wireframes for the new SIB product online application form This process compares very positively to users experiences of other funding applications All users could easily navigate & complete the form, submit, review and sign in Creating an account was an issue Evidence section needs to more explicitly state that as long as all of the information is included, it doesn’t need to be in individual documents Users want to see a full list of documents needed in before you apply, especially ones that need filled in, such as economic impact/business plan Some issues of clarity remain where users ideally want more definition/ examples 🧰 We Changed
Change Evidence - emphasise if info is uploaded in another document you don’t need to duplicate it. Add to the backlog to explore alternative patterns, including possible single upload option alongside list of requirements. Tell the user up front what documents are needed. Company director - move question from declarations to eligibility. Add text to question in Contact Details stating they must be a director as registered on Companies House. HMRC question – explain outstanding payments don’t include any COVID-19 related payment break agreed with HMRC. Account sign-up process – add to the backlog for changes, explore alternative patterns for example reveal the password fields after the verification code is complete. Add definition of ‘sanctions restricted person’. Consider adding examples of capital expenditure and working capital. Set expectations at review page, what is the next stage and how long will it take. -
SIB June 5th 2020 Alpha/Beta Research
Phase: Alpha/Beta
Audience
- Funding Project Team, Stakeholders, Product Owner & Customers
Focus
- To test the wireframes for the new SIB product online application form.
- To establish whether customers can:
- Easily navigate and complete the form
- Complete eligibility criteria
- Create an account
- Fill in each section of the application
- Submit and review the application
- Sign in and sign out
What we discovered
Learning 💡 Wireframes for the new SIB product online application form Users reacted very positively and moved intuitively through the application form The form was easy to understand, clear and straightforward All users were able to create an account easily The display of progress as you move through each section and the option to edit before submission were very well received 🧰 We Changed
Change Creating an account - consider hiding the password boxes until verification code has been entered 👂Quotes
Quote “EASY” “You can see it’s completed, this is very good” “Seeing that confirmation, that’s brilliant” “Self- explanatory” “Nice and simple” “Really easy to understand, exactly what I expected, the explanations are really good” “Straightforward” “really nice option to edit, makes it so much quicker” -
SIB June 4th 2020 Alpha/Beta Research
Phase: Alpha/Beta
Audience
- Funding Project Team, Stakeholders, Product Owner & Customers
Focus
- To test the final updated question set used in the new SIB product online application form. To establish whether the questions asked are:
- Clear
- Easily understood
- Expected
What we discovered
Learning Area 💡 SIB product online application form Overall the questions are clear, straightforward and easy to understand language Overall the questions are what is expected from a funding application expectations As with previous round of testing users find sectors list needs an ‘other’ option as the list is not exhaustive Continued confusion over meaning of ‘sanction restricted person’ language Explanation sought over what is meant by a ‘high growth’ and ‘innovative’ company language 🧰 We Changed
Change Considering: adding ‘other’ option to sectors question 🗣 Quotes
Quote “It was pretty clear and all broken down to help me understand what was required.” “Clearly laid out and easy to understand. The questions gave all definitions where needed and I was able to follow and mentally answer each one.” “I would need to understand some of the criteria a little more in order to be able to answer yes or no - for example the questions about high growth and innovation”. “The questions were clear, but would need some research on my part”. “I don’t know what a “sanctions restricted person” is”. “Business sectors offered do not include all activities, including those of my company”. “I’ve never filled out a funding application form like this before, but it did all make sense at least!” -
SIB June 1st 2020 Alpha/Beta Research
Phase: Alpha/Beta
Audience
- Funding Project Team, Stakeholders, Product Owner & Customers
Focus
- To test the question set used in the new SIB grant online application form. To establish whether the questions asked are:
- Clear
- Easily understood
- Expected
What we discovered
Learning Area 💡 SIB Grant Question Set Overall the questions are clear, straightforward and easy to understand language Overall the questions are what is expected from a funding application expectations Users who have experience applying to SE for grants may expect more text boxes to give details of why funding is required expectations Some questions require further information/explanation ex. Sectors needs an ‘other’ option as users feel the list is not exhaustive 🧰 We Changed
Change Area Modify questions where possible following feedback content Add explanation where users have flagged clarity is needed content -
AdvantageLab Research
Phase: Discovery/Alpha/Beta
Audience
- Funding Project Team, Stakeholders, Product Owner & Customers
Focus
- Summarising all available research to develop Customer Charter
- Quantify pain points, to be able to accurately measure the impact of our future interventions
What we discovered
Learning 💡 Pain Points The issues below hold back our customers from having the customer experience we want to provide. Complexity gets in the way We burden business with cost and risk Location, relationship and size matter Companies fall through the cracks The expertise lottery Disproportionate, inconsistent and complex processes 🎧 Quotes
Pain Point Quote Complexity gets in the way THERE ARE TOO MANY PRODUCTS AVAILABLE ‘The landscape is somewhat cluttered with SE promoting eight large grant programmes and there is varying levels of understanding amongst partners and intermediaries (and even within SE) as to the type of projects and activity the grants can support. ’ THERE ARE TOO MANY PRODUCTS TO ADVISE ON ‘Impossible to understand what the grant can be used for.’ THERE ARE TOO MANY FORMS ‘Form-filling for grant funding is too complex.’ We burden business with cost and risk IT TAKES US TOO LONG TO MAKE A DECISION ‘Application process is slow, complicated and created added pressure on us. Not being able to start the project before the application has been approved.’ WE PUT ALL THE RISK ON CUSTOMERS ‘It is hugely financially debilitating when you have to wait until you have spent the amount in cash of the fund borrowed before you can get it back.’ WE ASK FOR THE SAME INFORMATION AGAIN AND AGAIN ‘You keep asking me for the same data. It is annoying and also erodes my trust in you.’ Location, relationship and size matter LOCATION MATTERS WHEN GETTING FUNDING ‘[There is an] inconsistent offer of support across different geographies of Scotland.’ SIZE MATTERS WHEN GETTING FUNDING ‘SE is only interested in big companies.’ RELATIONSHIPS MATTER WHEN GETTING FUNDING ‘It’s jobs for the boys.’ Companies fall through the cracks WE DON’T SPEAK TO OUR POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS ‘I’m so wrapped up in working that I don’t know where to go for advice.’ WE STOP TALKING TO YOU YOU WHEN YOU LEAVE US ‘Businesses don’t stop needing help.’ WE NEVER ASK YOU IF WE’RE HELPING ‘The approach and processes don’t always align with a fast-moving business.’ The expertise lottery EXPERTISE IS SPREAD TOO THIN ‘What we value … is that human aspect, the interaction… you get the most out of a meeting … rather than emails and form filling’ EXPERTISE IS TOO INCONSISTENT ‘I need to know that [I’m dealing with] someone who really understands the business and works in our best interests.’ EXPERTISE IS TOO BEHIND THE CURVE ‘Advisers need to be at the cutting edge – offering high quality output.’ Disproportionate, inconsistent and complex processes LACK OF FLEXIBILITY ON WHAT CAN BE CLAIMED The flexibility of the process to deal with “variance”, for example, one case study had challenges with drawing down funding as the make/model of the capital equipment they purchased had changed from the initial application. DISPROPORTIONATE EVIDENCE BURDEN ‘I have to scan payslips, save names and PDF numbers - for each person, invoices and bank statements.’ IT TAKES TOO LONG TO MAKE A PAYMENT ‘The payment process is unreliable, slow and tedious, where you are treated like a criminal rather than a valued partner.’ -
January 2019 Discovery Research
Phase: Discovery
Audience
- Funding Project Team, Stakeholders, Product Owner & Customers
What we discovered
Learning Area 💡 Wireframe for grant eligibility Internationalisation is not understood Language Confusion about internationalisation and validate your opportunities Language We Learnt: Too much internal language used Language V7 was the most popular version, users liked the table of costs Language We Learnt: Speak to specialist option appreciated Help users confused about eligibility Language 🧰 We Changed The business intent statements. We have reduced the number of these and will be working with a technical copy writer in April. https://43te0v.axshare.com/#c=2 -
December 2018 Discovery Research
Phase: Discovery
Audience
- Funding Project Team, Stakeholders, Product Owner & Customers
What we discovered
Learning Area 💡 The prototype of online application process. To inform the next iteration of the process Users happy with the content and process Sentiment the role of Amaqus needs to be explained General ? Directors not always involved directly with projects. Once someone is verified, they would like to be able to invite others to contribute Account/ Login Save and come back option is crucial Navigation Some users are not confident about using their phone and are are concerned that there is a security risk in this process Sentiment Some users have concerns about having appropriate ID’s Account/ Login 🧰 We Changed explained the role of amiqus at different stages of the journey. -
November 2018 Discovery Research
Phase: Discovery
Audience
- Funding Project Team, Stakeholders, Product Owner & Customers
What we discovered
Learning Area 💡 The prototype of online application process. To inform the next iteration of the process clarity of language welcomed Language some calls to action missed as they were below the fold Layout/ Design users would like a clear timeline for the process Timescales Customers thought they were on the application journey whilst on the evaluation stage Complexity Concept of registering to apply was readily accepted Account/ Login Playing back of already submitted information was received well Layout/ Design 🧰 We Changed Updated position of the call us CTA to be more prominent. Made the eligibility and application stage clearer by giving the sections headings. -
August - September Discovery Research
Phase: Discovery
Audience
- Funding Project Team, Stakeholders, Product Owner & Customers
What we discovered
Learning Area 💡 Single approval paper draft and due diligence model (internal staff testing) All users happy with content (approval paper) Sentiment Users would prefer content to be re ordered Layout/ Design Layout of summary table confusing (approval paper) Layout/ Design Users were concerned how flexibile the due dilligence process was Sentiment Users wanted sample completed papers to use as exemplars 🧰 We Changed Content re ordered Clarification provided to users on due dilligence model comprehensive guidance and exemplar papers created for staff use -
June Discovery Research
Phase: Discovery
Audience
- Funding Project Team, Stakeholders, Product Owner & Customers
What we discovered
Learning Area 💡 User authentication preferences and wireframes HMRC frustrates people Sentiment Current systems are poor at accommodating more than one user per company Complexity Sole traders had little use for it Sentiment Larger companies liked it Sentiment Many questions are not relevant to companies and should only be shown when needed ‘ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT EVERYONE’ Sentiment Many people welcome online chat but only if it is online chat. Help users just want sent to the correct place. They do not really care who does it. Sentiment https://zdlg1q.axshare.com/#g=1&p=user_administration -
May Discovery Research
Phase: Discovery
Audience
- Funding Project Team, Stakeholders, Product Owner & Customers
What we discovered
Learning Area 💡 End to End wireframes Users want the website to do the calculations (totals etc…) Layout/ Design Users assumed that they would be sent reminders such as sms or email Notifications/ Alerts Language is a problem as users get confused Language Dates can be especially confusing to users Layout/ Design Pages with no obvious ‘value to them’, annoy users Sentiment Formatting is important, especially around costs and dates. Layout/ Design It is still the wrong way around. ‘Evidence and then reconciliation’ instead of “Expenses and then proof’ Layout/ Design users do not appreciate systems with no threshold for error. Mistakes should be easy to fix. Complexity Users still want to fall back on a real person when things go badly wrong. Help -
March Discovery Research
Phase: Discovery
Audience
- Funding Project Team, Stakeholders, Product Owner & Customers
What we discovered
Learning Area 💡 Claims reconciliation. Desktop and mobile version wireframes Complicated pages take time to learn Complexity Hyperlinks should look like hyperlinks. Nothing else should look like a hyperlink Layout / Design Visual groupings are needed to help users make sense Layout/ Design Extra, progress steps, navigation menu, breadcrumbs are not always helpful. Only have them if they serve a ‘Customer Need’ and not just a purpose Layout / Design -
February Discovery Research
Phase: Discovery
Audience
- Funding Project Team, Stakeholders, Product Owner & Customers
What we discovered
Learning Area 💡 Claims & Permissions wireframes • We Learnt: small companies have staff that cover many roles General • We Learnt: Companies thought the roles and permissions model made sense. The language might need to be altered. Language • We Learnt: Companies often have their entire financial information in a package such as SAGE Accounts. They will dump it down to a spreadsheet when necessary. General 💡 My Account & Claims wireframes • We Learnt: Make CALL TO ACTION more obvious. Layout/ Design • We Learnt: One main call to action is all that is needed Layout/ Design • We Learnt: Confirmation dialogues need to be way more obvious Notifications/ Alerts • We Learnt: Users do not like negative language such as ‘REJECT’. It is a bit scary clicking a button with that on it. Language 💡 Multi User journey wireframes • We Learnt: users thought our process made sense Sentiment 💡 My Action Plan wireframes • We Learnt: It is still too much about SE and not enough about me Sentiment • We Learnt: users were confused about this being for a single project action plan or for their entire business. Sentiment/ Complexity • We Learnt: Users did not welcome anything that did not add value or save them time Sentiment • We Learnt: users were unsure what the plan would do for them Sentiment 💡 Claims sketched wireframes • We Learnt: the whole process is back to front Layout/ Design • We Learnt: RECONCILIATION is something that we need. Users want to claim against an expense and then PROVE it if needed. General -
January Discovery Research
Phase: Discovery
Audience
- Funding Project Team, Stakeholders, Product Owner & Customers
What we discovered
Learning Area 💡 My Claims and Permissions wireframes language is still confusing users Language Help is used in multiple and confusing ways Help The prototype does not follow users mental model Layout/ Design Help needs to be more contextual Help Claims should be in a more logical order or at least let users re-order it Layout/ Design Headings are important to get correct Language Error messages need to be clearer Notifications/ Alerts Multiple call’s to action are confusing Layout/ Design -
December Discovery Research
Phase: Discovery
Audience
- Funding Project Team, Stakeholders, Product Owner & Customers
What we discovered
Learning Area 💡My Account wireframes Language is still an issue Language pages need to have a clearer purpose. ‘What do you actually want me to do’ User Sentiment users want to know what happens next Timescales/Next Steps users found too many options on each page. Keep it simple. Layout people expect website to do the calculations Complexity Breaking web conventions made pages less usable by users Layout Action plan was an example of just too many things for a user to take in at once Content the action plan came across as being about SE and not the user User Sentimnet -
October Discovery Research
Phase: Discovery
Audience
- Funding Project Team, Stakeholders, Product Owner & Customers
What we discovered
Learning Area 💡Card Sorting My Account actions There were two main groups Navigation Finding (insights, contacts, networking) Navigation Doing (projects, finance/Funding, my account, company info) Navigatiom 💡My Account prototypes the simplest page was preferred Layout users liked colour to help distinguish sections Layout/ Design Top level menu’s are not needed when they just replicate the cards on a page Layout users just wanted the card layout to be colour coded Layout many users expect text alerts Notifications/Alerts people expect preference based notifications Notifications/ALerts there needs to be a reason for everything General Funding is not really a thing. It is just a part of Projects General users would only come to the site when needed User Sentiment users do not want too many options at a time Layout/Navigation -
September Discovery Research
Phase: Discovery
Audience
- Funding Project Team, Stakeholders, Product Owner & Customers
What we discovered
Learning Area 💡My Account wireframes round 2 Users loved the clearer page layouts Layout Privacy policies still scare or bore people User Sentiment Descriptive text needs to be visually grouped with the thing it relates to (Help text obviously connected with a form field etc…) Layout call to action text on buttons is critical to get right. It must be tested. Layout/Navigation Primary and Secondary call to action’s need to be made more obviously hierarchical Navigation When things go wrong, we have to be much more obvious about pointing it out. Alerts/Notifications 💡My Account homepage prototypes the simplest page was preferred Layout users liked colour to help distinguish sections Layout/Navigation -
August Discovery Research
Phase: Discovery
Audience
- Funding Project Team, Stakeholders, Product Owner & Customers
What we discovered
Learning Area 💡 My Account wireframes SE language confuses people Language our websites often call the same thing by multiple names Language Actions, Services, Products are all confusing and overlapping terms Language Acronyms are bad Language Scent trails are problems. Links go to screens that have totally unrelated headings Layout/Navigation our systems do not match users mental models User Sentiment The pages are getting cleaner and easier to use Complexity users feel that context is often lost, leaving them confused. There are too many things to remember. Complexity user found it annoying when asked to set preferences when there were only a few choices anyway. Layout/ Design Inappropriate language can unintentionally upset users (‘My NAME is not a preference’) Language users got annoyed by us asking for info repeatedly or that we already knew. User Sentiment The clearer the pages, the more users liked them. Layout/Navigation it was too much about SE and not enough about the user User sentiment The fancy stuff is great but users would prefer us to get the basics right, first User sentiment user expect UK address formats Layout ‘EVENTS’ is a term that has many meanings Language 🧰 We changed Layout simplified and make clearer Language simplified -
April Discovery Research
Phase: Discovery
Audience
- Funding Project Team, Stakeholders, Product Owner & Customers
What we discovered
Learning Area 💡 Grants MVS (Application & Claims) ‘De Minimus’ is totally unknown to many users Language users wanted to know what was expected from them ‘up front’ User Sentiment users were not sure ‘what to write’ User Sentiment users found the MVP did not handle the varied formats that they entered numbers, dates, costs etc… Layout/ Design SE language was an issue Language SE error messages were not always helpful Notifications/Alerts ‘Benefits to your business’ confused many Language Small check box’s were a problem for some users Layout (note this was a user with sight issues) ‘helpful information’ was often too subtle and should have been made a prominent part of the process Layout ‘Examples’ should be more relevant current section (and only that section) General confirmations and warnings were too subtle Language/Layout SE language caused issues Language Users try to upload multiple documents at once Upload Failure (upload, scan etc…) was not flagged obviously enough. Notifications/Alerts Users were excited about the improved timescales that we mentioned User Sentiment -
February Discovery Research
Phase: Discovery
Audience
- Funding Project Team, Stakeholders, Product Owner & Customers
What we discovered
Learning Area 💡 Claims evidence customer accounts are nothing new. people understand them but do expect there to be a reason and benefit for/from them Account/Login smaller companies happily share their login details around colleagues. Account/Login companies would share bank details but were a bit more reticent around sharing staff salaries (especially by email) Account/Login users expect that SE will protect their data appropriately User sentiment users could complete the task BUT it did not fit their mental models of how these things are organised. Layout SE language was an issue Language Being too informal actually dissuaded some people as they viewed financial transactions as being a very serious affair. User Sentiment -
January Discovery Research
Phase: Discovery
Audience
- Funding Project Team, Stakeholders, Product Owner & Customers
What we discovered
Learning Area 💡 Basic application form people were confused about where to go next Navigation that our dropdown taxonomy’s confused people and they would just guess at an answer if forced to do so Language users expected a bit more info, such as timescales and what would be involved, before applying Timescales users call things different names than we do Language users expect Help when things get complicated Help Mixing Search & Filter never ends well Navigation acronyms confuse users Language 💡 Basic Account Space Search is always a tricky issue Navigation dropdown options are problematic Navigation our language is an issue Language buttons and call to action’s need to be clearer and more obvious Layout/Design we ask people about our systems and not ‘about what they are actually trying to do’ User sentiment 💡 Submit Application users are used to doing online applications and have done several for other reasons Account/ Login users want to know quickly if there are issues Notifications/Alerts SE needs to be clearer about what we are asking for. Language Help needs to be there when needed Help some users are still nervous about not having an advisor look at this stuff first User Sentiment users are happy to upload documents. They do need to know what formats, size limits etc.. are needed up front Upload Users often want to upload all their documents at one time. Upload They expect to be uploading them for a reason Upload -
Design Sprint
Phase
- Discovery
Audience
- Funding Project Team, Stakeholders, Product Owner & Customer Sample
We were focusing on
- Initial Design Sprint to jump start ideation and MVP target
What we discovered
- Developed customer journey and MVP for Funding.
- Produced Ribbon Journey for Grants (Exhibit A)