Reimagining PEXA Exchange

OVERVIEW

PEXA is an e-conveyancing platform that lets you settle property transactions online.

PEXA Exchange was built in 2010 from the ground up as a settlement solution. It has since expanded its service offerings and now provides conveyancing solutions. Over time, as the product evolves and new features are added, we release feature-rich products that are unfortunately delivered as a clunky and cumbersome experience.

It’s 2021, and it’s time for an experience facelift.

Client
PEXA

Role
UX research & designer
‍
Collaboration
Innovations team
Member Experience team

Duration
June - July 2021

Tools
Excel, Figma, Whiteboard, Otter.ai

The process

1. Research

2. Insights

3. Opportunities

4. Design

Research

There’s a general understanding that there are many issues in the platform, and we want to improve the experience for them, but we don’t know where to focus on.

I conducted user research to help identify key problems our users are currently struggling with and why.

1. Collected online feedback from Medallia.

2. Listened to user interview recordings.

3. Analysed findings through affinity mapping and thematic analysis.

4. Defined potential opportunities for improvements.
   
   

Analysing findings

User feedback

Before starting my research, I wanted to find out what existing data is out there. So I reached out to the Member Experience team to ask them about common feedback or trends they receive from our members. They pointed me in the direction of Medallia, which is a customer feedback tool.

After exporting the user feedback from Medallia, I noticed that the comments were categorised by topics: general, digital certificate, practitioner, banks, other, and system errors. I decided to break down the feedback into periods and extract an average - 3 years, 9 months, 3 months to identify any spikes in any categories. If a spike was present, it could indicate that a new feature or change may have caused some additional noise. There were no spikes, and I found that banks still account for most of the feedback regardless of the timeframe.

Based on that, I decided to collect data from the past 3 months and selected the first 20 comments from each category, to get a good spread across different categories. I then used affinity mapping to categorise the feedback into themes. It became apparent that feedback related to delayed settlement caused many members frustration. Although the reason for delayed settlement varied, a pattern stood out that banks are often associated with delayed settlement.

User interviews

To dive a bit deeper, I transcribed 11 recorded customer journey mapping user interviews conducted by a third-party agency, Transpire. The user interviews were roughly split evenly as large firms and small firms.

Using thematic analysis, I coded the transcription and noted the participant's general attitude during the interview. I then consolidated the findings into the affinity diagram and regrouped items.

Again, a similar pattern emerged with the user interviews. It was apparent to me that it is common for banks to delay settlement in PEXA, which caused lots of frustration.

Insights

key findings

After analysing the findings, 3 key sentiments stood out to me:

1. Delayed settlements have increased since going digital
   Banks are not signing off on time, and funds are entered too late in the process.
   
   

2. The lack of consistency & standardisation in the Transfer process amongst different banks causes additional frustration that didn’t exist in the paper world.
   Not all banks are following the transfer processes and guidelines. In some instances, they create their own rule for when they sign off.

   Quote: "It takes longer to get information into PEXA compared to paper settlement". 

3. Members are spending a lot of time chasing banks and monitoring Workspaces because they don’t have the information they need.

   Although you can settle in PEXA without logging in, many members are tied to their desks monitoring the Workspace on settlement day. On average, members spend about 1-2 hours per call chasing banks to complete Workspace tasks.

Root user problem:

PEXA is relying on the honour system to see transactions settle on time.

The research uncovered various reasons why the settlement is delayed more frequently compared to the paper world: people not completing their tasks on time, ignoring invitations sent to them, or ignoring messages altogether.

However, when it comes down to it, the root of the problem lies in PEXA counting on users to follow the guidelines and do the right thing on time, every time.

Other findings

In addition to user problems uncovered, the platform suffers from a few design problems:

• The platform’s visual navigation is unclear. Many people commented that when they used PEXA for the first time, they weren’t aware that the left-side navigation menu is part of a workflow.

• Although there is a status bar to indicate the status of the Workspace, it was unclear to users what was outstanding or what they had to do next.

• The platform lacks standardisation and consistency in both design and code.
  ‍

Opportunities

From the insights, I brainstormed a few "How Might We" questions to guide the direction of the project and then prioritized four "How Might We" and then explored potential ideas for how we could solve these problems:

1. How Might We introduce accountability so individuals are motivated to complete their tasks on time?
2. How Might We help members make efficient use of their time?
3. How Might We create more trust and certainty so members are confident their transaction will settle on time?
4. How Might We assist users in understanding the next steps in the workflow?

Design

Based on the research, there is a combination of user problems and design problems to tackle.

In favour of selling this initiative to stakeholders, my design strategy focused on visual design and product design.

My goal was to visually communicate how a simplified and intuitive UI helps users navigate and complete a settlement more efficiently. Incorporating some of the low hanging fruit features, the redesign emphasises on:

• Improved navigation

• Improved workflow transparency

• Better efficiency

/ Mapping the journey

From a UX heuristic standpoint, the current design fails to meet a lot of the UI standards. The experience is quite convoluted as users need to navigate to different screens to complete related tasks. The left menu navigation is also unclear.

When mapping the journey, I took into account some of the design flaws and user needs that were uncovered during the research:

• Streamline and simplify the process - align the workflow to how a property transaction is processed and logically flows.

• Improve efficiency - prepopulate data and remove redundancy where possible. Automate steps or automatically send notifications at critical milestones (rather than relying on members to do this).

• Improve transparency - keep the workflow process and status visible at all times. Shared documents should be accessible by relevant parties.

/ Information architecture

For the information architecture, I grouped the elements based on how they relate to the conveyancing workflow and process. This led me to remap the architecture into 3 levels of navigation to provide a clear hierarchy distinction on the workflow process:

• Level 1 - Primary navigation, always visible.

• Level 2 - Secondary navigation (contextual and collapsible). Includes status indicators to guide users through the workflow.

• Level 3 - Tertiary navigation - the details & data entry.

I also re-labelled a few headings to standardise terms used by the industry, such as those in the Land Registry or Revenue Office..

/ Mockups

I skipped some of the lo-fi design work that would have been beneficial in getting user feedback and instead created the mockups (guided by the research and IA). These mockups are intended to help sell this initiative to stakeholders on what a reimagined experience could look like.

During the design process, I used styles and components as much as possible to aid with design consistency.

Conclusion

Next steps

If PEXA Exchange reimagined is approved for implementation, I would spend more time user testing the navigation and UI. I’d also implement some metrics to measure user satisfaction and the on-time settlement rate.

What I learned

Sometimes, breaking the rules is necessary

Ideally, to hone in on the right solution, you’d iterate the design collaboratively and involve the user throughout the design process. 

However, in the pursuit of getting stakeholder buy-ins to invest in the initiative first, sometimes putting ‘something out there’ without fully executing the iterative process is necessary. Visuals help convey the vision much more effectively without spending too much time and money in the details.

This project relied on using research insights to guide design decisions. And I took a few shortcuts in the design phase. I was afforded this opportunity because the design was conceptual. If the project is approved for implementation, it will benefit from a holistic and collaborative UX approach with lots of testing. 

Solving user problems are deeper

I could have chosen to revamp the product visually. Inject it with a splash of new colours and icons to give it an instant facelift. However, the underlying problems would still persist. Although I didn’t incorporate many of the user needs into the redesign, I learned that it’s OK to adapt to constraints and defer it to the next phase. I was able to at least discover these problems and place them in a backlog for further assessment. The research also provided other valuable insights that enabled me to solve some of the design problems within the platform.