Multiline Acquisition Research Lead
With USAA I split my time between design and research fairly evenly. This encompassed designing user flows for various environments, following design systems, managing team relationships, and creating developer deliverables. My time with research was filled with leading team research efforts, educating other teams and designers on doing research as well as presenting results and recommendations to product managers and all manner of stakeholders on products.
The Multiline(ML) acquisition project was the introduction of a brand new user experience. The idea was to give users a way to quote few or many products based on their needs in a new hub and spoke model. However, no research had existed for this within USAA in the past and I was tasked with leading the research effort for this new idea!
Role
UX Designer and Researcher
Contribution
Design
Research
Prototypes
Design Systems
Accessibility
The Problem
The introduction of a multiline acquisition flow was met with many questions about user perceptions and the best format for the user flow. There were two ways the flow could move:
A new hub and spoke model where users quote various insurance products from one screen and branch out from that main landing page.
Users work through an initial product flow and then approach other products in more of a traditional “add-on” type of flow.
Hub and spoke “choose-your-own-adventure” insurance quote model
Initial product quote, then hub and spoke from quote page
Research Objectives
Test the full end-to-end flow of multi-line(ML) quoting. This included an updated hub and spoke model of quote results using multiple product types.
Identify points of friction within the flow
Identify areas of the flow that may need more testing / iteration
Determing if the hub and spoke model is intuitive for users
Gather user sentiments about the end-to-end experience for ML
Gather insights on auto and P3 (secondary type) insurance flows and cognition within one large acquisition interaction
Research Planning
With a holistic approach to research, a multi-dimensional plan of research was implemented to include not just an end-to-end flow but the following:
Supplemental end-to-end tests
Microtransaction tests
User comprehension testing
A snippet of the research timelines and planning board within Mural
User Tests and Participation
Three tests were run to gauge user experience and comprehension of a full multiline acquisition flow. Interactive prototypes were built in Figma and users were recorded during their interactions. Surveys were given to 100 users, providing in-depth insights into expectations while quoting insurance products. All tests were built and administered with UserZoom.
Test A : Hub and spoke initiated at the beginning of the flow
Test B : Initial product quote with hub initiated after
Quoting Order expectations and preferences
130 Total users
29 recorded sessions
1 data-driven experience
Initial experience screen that kicked user off into the test flows
A/B Test Flows
Test Flow A
Test Flow B
Interesting Findings
Users had an easier time interacting with a hub and spoke model where they began a quote and were able to “choose their own adventure.”
It was a smoother and clearer experience for users to go product-by-product rather than filing out an initial quote and then revising it with more “add-on” type interactions.
Below are some key data points and recommendations to stakeholder based on design and research findings.
In both interaction tests participants experienced similar friction around the initial hub view. Some users were not immediately aware of what to do or how data was applied.
Both flows saw similar confusion and success rates. Pairing this testing with the Quoting Order testing survey results showed that an initial hub view (not quote first) would yield the greatest result for users.
Adding products, in this case P3, gave users no issues on the intent screen, nor within the full flow when they reached that area. It was unclear to users when P3 would surface.
28% of users were confused by “quote first” flow
“I wouldn’t expect to see this page until I am fully done building my auto and personal property quote.”
28% confused by a “cart” view before finishing quote
“Interesting that the discounts came before the personal property and I wonder what the reason is behind that.”
93% of users will start with the first product on the hub
“I like that I am able to make quick selections and its pulled most of this information for me”
Outcomes and Decisions
Based on all of the testing and survey feedback, users showed that both Test A and B flows were similar. Users shared similar confusion and friction with the flows around expectations. They also shared similar sentiments after the test around eas of use and the interfaces being user-friendly.
That data was then combined with the Quoting Order testing pointed to allowing users a more “choose-your-own-adventure” experience. This survey test allowed users to identify their expectations around insurance quotes and complete rating activities to inform USAA decisions around hub and spoke quoting.
Main changes centered around the hub screen itself and reducing confusion and friction for users.
Content on the “cart” gives users better direction
Remove empty price amounts to reduce user confusion
Simplify the data view to reduce cognitive load for user
Original hub screen
Updated interface based on user interactions
Putting Work to More Use
This was only one research effort that I led, but it utilized a refined process that helped my team deliver efficient, clear, and quantified results. This approach and process helped do two things beyond just design results.
Solid Stakeholder Messaging
Our refined research process and large in-depth repository of research aided me in speaking at a the USAA Modcast (podcast) to stakeholders. I spoke about how design research can drive conversion and create better products for our members. They learned about available resources and that they do have the time and funding for design research!
Various presentation assets geared towards stakeholders
Designer Guide to Research
Our team dynamic and processes also gave me a way to help other designers in my organization perform cyclical, effective research. I was able to help with more research resources as well as give designers talking points for working with stakeholders. This helped to drive organizational support in research and make deeper design decisions.
Various presentation assets geared towards designers