Proposal Parameters
Brought transparency and clarity to brokers and clients, with a high average satisfaction rating (4.7/5.0).
Client
MRV & Co
Role
Lead Product Designer
Product Stage:
Growth
Year
2024
01
Problem
Brokers had difficulty understanding the parameters that define the approval of the proposal. The lack of transparency, excessive information, and low comparability reduced autonomy in negotiation and conversion into sales.
02
Solution
Based on the results of the immersion, I prioritized addressing the lack of clarity in the parameters. I restructured the flow within the existing modal, focusing on transparency, fast reading, and usability, validating hypotheses with prototypes, A/B tests, and moderated sessions.
03
Results
The solution increased the safety of brokers, reduced rework, and brought high satisfaction (4.7/5). In addition to improving the experience, it opened up strategic space for future developments, including the use of AI for negotiation support.
Trade-offs
As I could not rebuild the experience from scratch due to the deadline, I had to intervene surgically, even with space and usability limitations. I prioritized clarity and autonomy for the broker, seeking to at least validate formats with stakeholders before development to reduce risk.
Overview
We conducted a discovery phase with immersion, interviews, surveys, and conversion analyses. The objective was to understand how brokers, managers, and executives used the proposal and what the main pain points were in the negotiation stage.
The survey revealed problems mainly in the Proposal Parameters, which are rules defined by the business that specify and limit the broker's ability to adjust and negotiate. Among the main findings, we can highlight:
High Complexity
19% of brokers found it difficult or very difficult to understand.
Lack of transparency in adjustments
Brokers did not clearly understand why a proposal was rejected or how to adjust it to meet the desired conditions.Unclear parameters
Difficulty in locating rules, excessive information on the “approved credit” screen, and difficulty in comparing conditions side by side.
“Brokers did not have clarity on the parameters that determine whether the proposal is approved or rejected.”
Strategy and Execution
During the ideation phase, several hypotheses emerged, ranging from more advanced automations (such as support bots and suggestions via AI) to flow improvements related to commissions.
To maintain focus and ensure quick deliveries, it was necessary to prioritize. The criterion used was to directly address the most critical points identified in the survey: lack of clarity in parameters, low autonomy of the broker, and difficulty in comparing proposals.
Decisions and trade-offs:
🔀 Utilize the existing modal instead of creating a new specific solution, due to time and development cost.
🔀 Since the modal would be the only option, we paid attention to usability on mobile, especially testing reading in table vs list.
Validation
To validate the solution before development, I built navigable prototypes for mobile and desktop and conducted sessions with 5 participants, including managers, executives, and brokers. The goal was to evaluate everything from understanding the problem to practical experience with the new parameters.
The meetings were held remotely, via Teams, using Useberry to record navigation, clicks, heat maps, execution time, and completion rate.
The test was planned to meet different objectives: map the users' context in relation to the hypothesis problem, evaluate the effectiveness of two concepts through an A/B test on mobile (table × list), identify usability points in the journey, explore behavioral changes after using the feature, and finally, capture new pain points and opportunities beyond the initial scope.
During the sessions, participants received specific tasks while I observed their interactions and perceptions. At the end of each concept, I asked targeted questions and, in the desktop version, also investigated the device preference for the negotiation moment.
What we confirmed / learned:
📊 A/B Test (mobile)
- Concept A (Table) achieved 60% and Concept B (List) 40%. Both were well-received, with no significant differences.
✅ 100% completion
- All users were able to change proposal limits and display all parameters without difficulties.
💡 Value perception
- The reaction was extremely positive. Participants showed satisfaction and even delight when using the feature, expressing excitement in adopting it in their daily routines.
📱 Usage context
- 100% confirmed that desktop is the main device, while mobile serves as a consulting support during the negotiation phase.
Adjustments before launch:
⚠️ We refined microcopy and contextual help with labels, tooltips, and subtitles according to the broker's language.
⚠️ We identified the need to reinforce training and evolve the solution to support less experienced brokers.
Results
📈 High satisfaction: 4.7/5 (Jun/24) and 4.6/5 (Oct/24), with around 80% giving the highest rating
📈 35% of brokers effectively tested the parameters
Additionally, an impact on the business and experience was observed:
✅ Reduction of rework and errors, as brokers started to negotiate based on clear parameters, without depending on credit to validate each attempt
✅ Greater autonomy and efficiency of experienced brokers, who reported more confidence in negotiations
✅ Strategic potential for evolution, allowing for the application of technologies like AI to enhance value in the future
Learnings
Despite the significant results, it was possible to notice some evolutions or adjustments:
📌Partial adoption: a good portion of brokers still does not access the resource, it is necessary to investigate barriers
📌Validated perception of value: among those who use it, satisfaction is high, confirming the correctness of the solution
📌Novice brokers face challenges with business rules, requiring reinforcement in training and support