All work

Neiman Marcus Group

Streamlining customer contact processes to increase productivity

  • 2023
  • UX/UI Design
  • Enterprise
  • User Testing
  • Internal Tools
Twilio Flex Customization cover image
Role
Co-lead designer
Team
1 designer · customer care leads · engineering
Scope
Discovery · wireframes · A/B user testing · hi-fi prototype
Timeline
2023
Status
Tested & handed off

Problem

Since migrating to Twilio Flex, average call handle time had risen 30–40 seconds. The interface buried actions behind clicks, couldn't be customized, and looked monochromatic, so agents hunted for everything.

Solution

Two rounds of agent testing: first A/B testing two distinct directions, then a hi-fi prototype combining the strongest elements, with success measured in clicks per task.

Result

A visibly faster agent interface that surfaces order and customer information without digging, with a projected cost saving for every second shaved off a call.

$33kSaved per year, per secondFor every second cut from average handle time
30–40sHandle-time regressionThe gap we were closing
2Rounds of agent testingA/B, then task-based hi-fi

Project overview

Twilio serves as a pivotal digital platform for customer care agents across our brands: Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman, and Horchow. As part of an upcoming upgrade in 2024 with a brand new design system, an opportunity arose to enhance the interface and experience for agents. My role was to lead this effort, aiming to decrease call handling time and enhance workflow efficiency.

Snapshot of current state
A snapshot of the current state

My role

In collaboration with a colleague, I took on a multifaceted role encompassing discovery, problem definition, design, and delivery of the solution.

Tools used

Figjam · Figma · Wrike · Jira · Teams

Objectives

Every additional second in customer care communication entails costs. Since migrating to Twilio, average handle time has increased by approximately 30–40 seconds. Our primary goal was to reduce this metric, recognizing that even saving one second per call annually could result in savings of $33,000.

During the initial stages of this redesign, we pinpointed several key strategies to reduce handle time:

  1. Streamline workflows for agents: simplify processes and eliminate unnecessary steps to make agent tasks more efficient
  2. Improve accessibility of tools: ensure necessary tools are easily accessible, reducing time spent searching for resources
  3. Increase resolution speed: equip agents with the tools and information needed to resolve issues promptly
  4. Boost resolutions per agent: enhance agent effectiveness in resolving customer queries
  5. Create a visually calming interface: reduce cognitive load and stress so agents can focus
Communicating the value of UX
Communicating the value of the UX design process, and highlighting the need for change

Research

Our research commenced with observing customer care agents in action across various communication channels. We conducted live observations of calls, texts, emails, and SMS interactions. Additionally, user interviews and an analysis of previous platform data were conducted. We also explored the tool firsthand to grasp its functionality.

Process map and recommendations
Part of our research involved mapping out the existing process, and communicating our key recommendations after observing live agents

The problem

When we spoke to the agents, we uncovered that the current layout and functionality nests actions behind many clicks, thus slowing them down. It is also quite rigid in its layout, meaning agents do not have the luxury of customizing it to meet their needs, and often have to layer multiple applications on top of it or next to it. Further, Twilio fails to differentiate tasks visually, so the dashboard looks very monochromatic, meaning users need to spend longer to locate what they're searching for.

Ideation and conceptualization

After gaining insights into agent usage patterns, we conducted a brainstorming session where we generated low-fidelity wireframes with many different solutions. Our brainstorming sessions led to two distinct design approaches: one refining the existing interface for efficiency and another introducing advanced customization options.

Low-fidelity wireframes

Testing and iterating

We developed user testing scripts and task-based prototypes to assess the feasibility of our designs. Following an A/B testing format, we evaluated both designs with agents, seeking feedback on usability and intuitiveness. The tasks selected for testing were based on the most common activities, such as locating order numbers, accessing prewritten responses, and navigating between multiple chats.

A comprehensive report synthesized findings from user testing sessions, providing stakeholders with actionable insights and emphasizing the value of UX processes.

User testing report
The first user testing report, outlining methodology, key verbatims and next steps
A/B testing key findings
The key findings from A/B testing two different designs

Final deliverables

Using the results from the first round of testing, I iterated on the design preferred by the majority of agents, tweaking things based on their feedback. From here I created one final design that took the top performing elements from both designs, and conducted a second round of user testing. This second round asked agents to complete a series of tasks using the new design, which was a high fidelity fully functioning prototype. Observing agents and their thoughts throughout, we counted the number of clicks required for agents to complete the tasks.

Final design

It was undeniable how much faster actions were to complete in the new design, and beyond the speed, agents showed strong appreciation toward the design surfacing all the necessary information without having to click around and find it.

Results and impact

Given every second costs, we counted the number of clicks required to perform tasks in the current state interface, and compared it to the number of clicks required in the new design. By comparing clicks required in the current interface to those in the new design, we projected significant time savings and potential cost reductions.

Click comparison results

You may be wondering why we didn't time agents to get a better gauge on the time saved. We recognized there is always an adjustment period when moving to a new interface, and timing agents wouldn't be an accurate reflection of the ease of use and reduction in time with the new designs.

Reflections

  • Testing designs is essential for aligning with user needs
  • Designing for diverse user profiles necessitates flexibility
  • Small design adjustments can yield substantial improvements
  • Separate ideation sessions foster innovative solutions
  • Creating a supportive testing environment encourages candid feedback