A simplified loan offer experience
2023 // Rocket Companies
Test Conducted: August 2023
Team:
Design:
Myself (Staff UX), Jenna McGill (UX Content Writer), Cecilia Ignacio (UX Content Intern), Craig Zdanowicz (Director of UX, Rocket Mortgage)
Research:
Juliana Castro-Osorio, Myself
Product/Business:
Jeff Stoller (Director of Product, Rocket Mortgage), Derek Debiak (PM)
Tech Rep:
Talia Conigliaro
The Problem
The current Payments experience in the Rocket Mortgage Servicing (RMS) space offers a confusing flow and process to Rocket clients.
Clients have expressed confusion in the experience, from confusing layouts, payment type descriptions and intentions, and clients making an accidental double-payment due to unclear status.
The Risks
Reduces client confidence and security in the platform, leading to lower retention
Clients do not have the flexibility they expect in the digital experience, leading to higher call volumes.
Clients are not warned of potential late fees and other consequences, increasing the risk of defaulting clients.
✅ Aim to improve brand and security in the experience for clients, by ensuring our new experience is clear and transparent in the flow.
✅ An improved and concise experience should reduce payment related calls by 25%, saving the client time and confusion, and ultimately saving the company money.
✅ Increase the NPS (Net Promoter Score) by 1%
☑️ Number of visits to Payment Center to Call Center.
☑️ XP (Experience) / NPS Scores.
☑️ Number of Autopay enrollments.
| Client Calls | Metrics | Assumptions |
|---|---|---|
| Years 1-3 | ||
| Number of calls eliminated | Eliminate 25% of call volume | 215,300 |
| Minutes saved per call | Minutes considered withint the 8 business hours per day | 5.0 |
| Total Minutes Saved: | 1,076,499 | |
| Target Savings | 25% reduction in payment call tags. | Approx. $538,250 in savings (at 50¢ per minute). |
The Process
Discovery
Current Experience Analysis
As one of the most important experiences within the RMS space, and the current-day experience offers a somewhat confusing flow and process.
- Multi-Column layout makes navigation confusing and overwhelming.
- Difficult to locate and understand payment status.
- Confusion around biweekly payments.
- Confusion around payment type descriptions.
- Confusion around fees and what they include.
Usability and Comparison Testing
We had two potential tests we wanted to conduct, usability and a comparison test.
Test our revamped Payments flow and test it to understand any behaviors or expectations when making a payment on a mortgage.
Compare layouts to learn how clients may expect to view the hierarchy on a payment page, including a payment breakdown or summary.
Note: Due to time constraints, our researcher, Juliana, suggested we combine the usability and hierarchy comparison (removing the card sorting), in order to get quick and valuable results, while ensuring we avoid any test fatigue.
Design Updates
- Flow usability
- Actions and language used throughout
- Hierarchy within the make a payment screen
Test Results
Total participants: 8
Age Range: 21–65+
Region: United States
Salary Ranges: $20K–$150K+
Behaviors: Home owners making mortgage payments
Tool: UserTesting.com
Usability Results
| Topic | Count | Comment | Opportunity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Usability | 100% | Felt the flow was easy-to-use and streamlined, | |
| Payment Method Options | 62.5% | Understood the different methods of payments to choose from (amount due, other amount, fees only) | |
| Language | 100% | Felt the labeling of the payment types was clear and concise. | |
| Payment Center | 37.5% | Paused on the initial Payment Center page, reading scheduled payments and recent transactions tables. | Consider adding more sense of separation. |
| Escrow Only | 37.5% | Confusion about the escrow only payment option. | Though the overall labeling is considered clear for the payment options, consider adding clarity for the Escrow Only. |
| FAQ | 12.5% | Comment that the FAQ appears way too frequent across experience. “It shows up so frequently it makes me believe there’s something wrong in the experience.” |
Remove from deeper pages of the experience to reduce noise. |
Comparison Results
| Prototype | Description | Votes |
|---|---|---|
| A | Amount due | Fees checklist | Select account | 4/8 (50%) |
| B | Amount due | Payment Breakdown month + fees hidden | Fees checklist | 1/8 (12.5%) |
| C | Amount due | Payment Breakdown month + fees shown | Fees checklist Sticky bottom action: Schedule Payment |
3/8 (37.5%) |
| D | Amount due | Fees checklist | Select account Sticky bottom action: Payment breakdown (month + fees hidden) |
1/8 (12.5%) |
A Votes: 25% called out the hierarchy making more sense as you read it in A.
C Votes: A few voted for C, but one in particular specified “they prefer the layout of A, but with the sticky button.”
D Votes: Even with B results, however, 90% did NOT like prototype D.
UX Recommendations
Hierarchy and Actions
Combination of A and C: The highly rated hierarchy from A with the quick actionable Schedule Payment from C
Payment Center
Add separation to the scheduled payments and recent transactions tables on the Payment Center page.
Escrow Only Clarity
Adjust or add clarity to the content for Escrow Only payment option to avoid confusion.
FAQ Frequency
Remove the FAQ from deeper pages in the experience to reduce noise.
Subtle Reminder
A subtle placeholder line of the due date in an input as a reminder to the client of the due date.
Final Thoughts
At the end of testing, I was preparing to leave the company due to a reduction in head count, so I wrapped up my recommendations for the team to pick up later at Rocket.
The payments experience in the Servicing space has been considered a priority item to be improved, so though I’ve left Rocket, I hope my findings are proved useful for the team members who pick it up!
Thank You!
©2023 COPYRIGHT ROCKET COMPANIES ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. DO NOT COPY OR DUPLICATE