Summary
We conducted a usability test to evaluate the ease of use and clarity of several key touch points within the application. The areas tested were:
Loan Request (Option 2 and 3) Questions
Renewals
Methodology
The test sessions were carried out with participants using the prototypes. Tasks were designed to simulate real-world scenarios that a BRM using the Loan request module and renewal flow of our dashboard. User feedback and observations were captured through questions asked after or during the tasks.
Personas
The participants for this test were 11 MoniePoint Business Relationship Managers (BRM)
Tasks and Questions
Find links to prototypes below
Find a link to the questions below
Loan Request (Option 2 and 3) Questions
Question 1: What do you understand by Self-initiated?
Objective: The aim is to test their understanding of the title/headings.
Participants:
Total participants: 11
Result
Satisfied with the content:7
Not satisfied with the content: 4
Comment(s): The user interprets “self-initiated” as an individual developing or creating something independently.
Question 2: Please tell me the difference between DI and BRM requests.
Objective: The aim is to test their understanding of the title/headings.
Participants:
Total participants: 11
Result
Satisfied with the content:6
Not satisfied with the content: 5
Comment(s): The user initially struggles with DI but later defines it as a request from the business owner, while BRM is understood as a Business Relationship Manager requesting a partner.
Question 3: Is there additional information you want to see on the DI, BRM and Self-initiated?
Objective: To validate that the clusters created cover all the request categories.
Participants:
Total participants: 8
Result
Satisfied with the content: 5
Not satisfied with the content: 3
Comment(s): The user would like to see more details, such as the reasons why a loan was rejected or more information about pending requests (Not about the clusters/heading). They also mentioned wanting to know why different requests (like from the same person) had varying statuses (approved, pending, or rejected).
Question 4: Please did you notice any differences between the first flow and the second flow?
Objective: To identify if users noticed the difference and similarity between the two options provided.
Participants:
Total participants: 10
Result
Noticed the difference:6
Did not notice any difference: 4
Comment(s):
Question 5: Based on these two flows, which do you prefer and why?
Objective: To gauge and understand users' preferences.
Participants:
Total participants: 10
Result
Option 1/3: 5
Option 2: 3
Both Options: 2
Comment(s): The user found the first/third option more favourable, mentioning that it was easier to navigate
Question 6: Did you notice the “Initiate Loan Request” button?
Objective: To validate the effectiveness of the button placement.
Participants:
Total participants: 10
Result
Satisfied with the content: 8
Not satisfied with the content: 2
Comment(s): The participant noticed the Initiate Loan Request" button in the first/ third flow but not in the second.
Renewals
Question 1: Imagine you want to find a customer, how would you go about it?
Objective: To validate that users would comprehend the use of the filter button
Participants:
Total participants: 10
Result
Understood the use of filter: 8
Didn’t understand the use of filter: 2
Comment(s):
Question 2: Imagine you want to generate the repayment schedule and send it to your customer, how would you go about it?
Objective: To notice the ease of use and any usability issues.
Participants:
Total participants: 13
Result
Understood the process: 5
Didn’t understand the process: 5
Comment(s):
Question 3: Is important information missing from this repayment schedule?
Objective: To validate that the newly designed repayment schedule is understandable and holds important information for the users.
Participants:
Total participants: 10
Result
Satisfied with the content: 5
Not satisfied with the content: 5
Comment(s): The user indicated they would like to see the next payment amount and the remaining balance for the loan.
Question 4: Was there any confusion or difficulty in the process?
Objective: To gauge the usability of the entire renewal process
Participants:
Total participants: 10
Result
Difficulty with the process: 8
No Difficulty with the process: 2
Comment(s):
Question 5: Is there anything you would add or move from this flow
Objective: To validate that important information or data are not missing from the Renewal process.
Participants:
Total participants: 10
Result
Satisfied with the content:7
Not satisfied with the content: 3
Comment(s): I would suggest making the text larger for better readability and possibly adding a summary section at the top.
Question 7: Please rate your satisfaction on a scale of 1-5, where 1 is very dissatisfied and 5 is very satisfied.
Objective:
Participants:
Total participants: 7
Results:
1 - Very Dissatisfied: 0
2 - Dissatisfied: 0
3 - Neutral: 1
4 - Satisfied: 3
5 - Very Satisfied: 6
Comment(s):
Key Findings
1. Understanding and Clarity of Loan Request Options (Self-Initiated, DI, BRM Requests)
Clarity on Terminology:
"Self-initiated" Understanding: Mixed responses indicate a partial understanding, as 7 participants interpreted it correctly but 4 did not. “Self-initiated” needs clearer definitions or supporting information to avoid user misinterpretations.
DI vs. BRM Requests: Users struggled with the difference between "DI" and "BRM" requests, with 5 of 11 finding it confusing. However, after spelling out “DI” as “Deal Initiator”, most could distinguish. Improved terminology or descriptive text could enhance user comprehension.
Additional Information Requests:
Users desired extra details about loan statuses, reasons for approval or rejection, and consistency in handling multiple requests. This suggests a need for enhanced transparency, particularly for tracking loan processing and reasons for decision variations, which would support better user confidence and understanding.
2. Preference for Loan Request Flow Options
Navigation Preference: A clear majority (6 out of 11) preferred the first/third loan request flow for its ease of navigation, and 2 found both options equally effective. This preference suggests that the first/third option offers a more intuitive layout or fewer steps, aligning better with BRM workflows.
Visibility of Key Buttons: The “Initiate Loan Request” button was more noticeable in the first flow, as 8 out of 10 participants observed it in that context, highlighting the effectiveness of button placement and visibility.
3. Effectiveness of the Renewal Flow
Ease of Finding Customers:
Most participants (8 of 10) were able to locate customers in the renewal flow, indicating that the filter process was generally effective. This could be a strong area of the renewal interface that doesn’t require major adjustments.
Repayment Schedule Generation Challenges:
Half of the participants (5 of 10) struggled with the process of generating and sending a repayment schedule. This reflects a usability gap, suggesting the need for clearer steps or prompts to make this function smoother for BRMs.
Additional Information in Repayment Schedules:
Half of the users wanted to see key financial details like the next payment amount and total remaining balance, showing that enhancing the repayment schedule’s detail level would support better customer communication and clarity.
4. Points of Confusion and Suggested Improvements
User Difficulty and Flow Adjustments:
High Difficulty in Renewal Process: 8 of 10 participants reported confusion or difficulty within the renewal flow. This points to potential pain points which can be managed through training and explainer videos for the process.
Readability and Information Hierarchy: Suggestions for larger text size and a summary section at the top indicate a need for clearer readability and content organization. Adding a summary could help users access critical information upfront, reducing cognitive load and improving efficiency.
5. Overall User Satisfaction Ratings
Positive Ratings: The satisfaction ratings leaned toward the higher end, with most users (6 out of 7) rating the system as “easy” or “very easy” (4 or 5 out of 5). This implies a generally positive reception for the system's usability but highlights areas for incremental improvements, particularly in terminology clarification and visual hierarchy.
Feedback, Observations & Suggestions from Test Participants
The user indicated they would like to see the next payment amount and the remaining balance for the loan.
A user requested additional details including loan tenor, amount requested, status, and initiator details on the Self-initiated, DI and BRM pages on the details pages.
The participant suggested adding a feature to monitor the status of loans from initiation to disbursement.
They suggested adding the loan facilitator's name to track which BRM is attached to the customer's account.
The participant suggested that varying payment amounts should be incorporated and recommended including details on interest rates.
One of the interviews has an issue with the checkbox bit on the warning modal before the “Generate Eligible Amount”
Also, the button on that modal previously designed was not visible so it was also causing problems during the tests.
Recommendation
Simplify the copy/content
Train and create a user guide on how the functionalities work.
We noticed that Option 3 made it easier for the interviewers to understand the naming of the rest of the headers (Self-initiated & BRM Initiated). We would suggest adding a tooltip or help feature that guides how to enter figures for generating eligibility.
We would recommend adding a section for viewing previous loan amounts to provide more context for the customer’s borrowing history.
Increase the copy fonts.
Add Comment