We’re smarter together

Oliver WerneyerCustomer Technology Manager

@oliverwerneyer

Rapid prototyping: Evolving a customer

interface with customer feedback

2

I have constraints.Your situation is not unique. Find creative way to solve some of your contraints.

Fail fast, fail often, fail cheap

It should be ok to fail

Failure is a chance to learn

80:20 rule

…. blah blah blah

33

We love those buzzwords

Wireframe Version

4

• Initial ideation and quick drafting of output

• Paper and Balsamiq

• Takes about 2 – 3 weeks with testing

• Qualitative feedback, face to face with customers

Visual Prototype

5

• Adopt initial feedback on wireframe and create clickable journey

• Takes about 3 -4 weeks with testing

• Qualitative and quantitivefeedback

Low-Fidelity

• Adopt feedback on visual prototype and create visual, clickable journey

• Takes about 3 –4 weeks with testing

• Qualitative and quantitivefeedback

Comprehensive benchmarking, tracking

and analysing

6

NPS ScoringUsability Scoring

Journey Mapping

Input Tracking

User Feedback

7

Customer Testing Cycle

1st Launch • Appeared in “Americas News” news letter

• 162 participants

Follow-up

Feedback data

• One week later follow up email

• 240 participants

• One week later extract of all tracking and benchmarking data

• Initial insights shared with stakeholders

… and REPEAT

High Fidelity Version

8

9

Some initial insights

Usage

Usability

Customer Behaviour

• 426 unique users participated

• 41% of participants had a “zero” protection gap

• 56% of participants added kids

• $ 770’000 was the average protection gap

• 78% of users who clicked on a link to the calculator went through to the results page

• 92% of those who accepted the disclaimer went through to results page

• 7 NPS score (105 people giving this rating)

• 77.6 Usability score (versus industry benchmark for consumer software of 69.6)

• Very high NPS scores from many users for slick and short journey

• Extremely high engagement on the results page and playing/updating the extra inputs, spent an average of 6 mins on the calculator

• Very good response to design and journey: from a time and usability perspective andthat it did not feel like a sales journey

• People mistrust a zero gap: Low NPS scores, people think calculation did not work or wethink their life has no value

• Massive drop-off when asking for existing insurance cover too early: When asking forexisting cover before results page we experience massive drop-off of 92%

10

11

Legal notice

12

©2017 Swiss Re. All rights reserved. You are not permitted to create any modifications or derivative works of this presentation or to use it for commercial or other public purposes without the prior written permission of Swiss Re.

The information and opinions contained in the presentation are provided as at the date of the presentation and are subject to change without notice. Although the information used was taken from reliable sources, Swiss Re does not accept any responsibility for the accuracy or comprehensiveness of the details given. All liability for the accuracy and completeness thereof or for any damage or loss resulting from the use of the information contained in this presentation is expressly excluded. Under no circumstances shall Swiss Re or its Group companies be liable for any financial or consequential loss relating to this presentation.