Work / Corvus / 'A refocused dashboard'
In this case study, I reflect on a project that addressed a fundamental shift in our understanding of user needs.
The redesign of the Policyholder Dashboard at Corvus solved the glaring problem of a lack of direction and philosophy in the value it aimed to provide. Rigorous user research combined with usability and comprehension testing allowed us to release a version that added meaningful value for policyholders and improved monthly active usage rates by over 40%.
Problem: the existing dashboard lacked vision
Prior to my time at Corvus in 2021, the policyholder experience was built in the likeness of an IT security dashboard, along with some policy information that could be accessed. It was a collection of disparate features that had no cohesive vision tying it together.
Version 1.5 of the policyholder dashboard. It displayed a collection of unrelated information with little context - most importantly, it did not provide any reason for a policyholder to return and engage with the application.
What was the value being imparted to policyholders with this dashboard?
This module provided a Corvus Score, with no other context other than what what 'percentile' the user's score fell into.
Most users could deduce that green + and a high score is a good thing, but what does it mean for them exactly?
This module asks the user to complete an assessment with the proposition of improving their security posture, but doesn't give them a reason to do so.
This module informs the user about pending security recommendations. Again, it asks the user to fix their security posture without giving them a reason why.
This module provides a collection of general cybersecurity news. To be blunt, it feels very much like a throwaway or "filler" feature. It is highly unlikely that a user would come back to this dashboard to look at cybersecurity news and it was generally not updated.
Altogether, dashboard v1.5 was not a convincing experience and did not provide the value that would get policyholders to become returning users.
So we talked to a lot of policyholders
Our research question started simply:
"What matters to you most when it comes to cyber insurance?"
Many interviews later, these were the insights that we uncovered.
"Just tell me exactly what to do so I can get renewed next year."
Renewal security
"I want to know if I'm in a good place for renewal next year."
Renewal security
"I need way more time and heads up for some of the bigger fixes."
Renewal security
"Only tell me what I need to know. If I get an email everyday, I'll ignore all of it."
Communication relevancy
"I'm always having to answer the same questions over and over again. It would be nice if you could save my answers from the previous application."
Renewal efficiency
These insights were gathered from 30+ interviews over the course of 5 weeks. Research synthesis tactics employed: affinity mapping/thematic analysis, insights tagging, personal development
It became pretty clear that policyholders cared about one primary thing: their ability to renew.
That meant our way forward was to redesign the dashboard to be renewal-centric.
Design iterations
The new dashboard went through several iterations before we had a shippable design candidate.
Draft 1 - an early exploration focused on patterns around task progress and completion
Draft 2 - another version focused on displaying score change over time
Draft 3 - another exploration of the draft focused on task progress and completion
User feedback and testing
Over the final 2-week stretch of the project cycle, I was able to get designs in front of 13 policyholders for some rigorous feedback sessions and .
In addition, I also conducted tests using maze.co for usability, feature validation, and copy clarity.
Final design
After gathering feedback from users and internal stakeholders, we launched version 2.0 of the Policyholder Dashboard.
Every bit of information on the new dashboard now explained its purpose to the user in the context of renewal - indicating to the user how they were being evaluated for renewal, as well as progress or status that gave them an understanding of their current standing for the next renewal term.
Hand-off and specs
The hand-off and spec work that was being done at Corvus prior to my joining was lacking prescription - too much of it was left to interpretation, and often the hand-off simply left it up to developers to implement however they saw fit. What that meant was design implementation across the application was very inconsistent.
I endeavored to start solving this wide-spread issue during this particular project, by having the engineering team rally around CSS flexbox, in an effort to slowly change the legacy application to be more responsive and consistent.
For an in-depth look at how the dashboard page was spec'd, see the link below.
Results
74% increase in MAU (monthly active users) over the first 6 months after launch
49% increase in returning users first 6 months after launch (vs previous-year benchmark)
148% increase in time-spent on dashboard page
112% increase in 'actions completed' metric (vs previous-year benchmark)
policyholder engagement (actions completed etc.)