Improving Multibox Furniture Service Experiences

Solving problems across multiple customer and agent tools used to request help for products that ship in multiple boxes.

Lead Product Designer | 6 months
PROBLEM

Customers cannot use self-service tools to seek help for products that ship in multiple boxes because the user interfaces don’t support these products.

The customers reach out for help, but Wayfair customer service agents experience the same issues on internal tools.

GOAL

Redesign customer and agent tools to account for multibox products by introducing product hierarchy, improving product relationships, and modifying flows to support these products.

TEAM

  • 1 Lead Product Designer

  • 1 Product Manager

  • 10+ Engineers

  • 10+ Product Stakeholders

OVERVIEW

Multibox refers to products that are split into different shipments and arrive at the customer’s door at different times.

For products like furniture sets and large items, Wayfair will split pieces into multiple boxes to save time and money.

EASE OF DELIVERY

Large items can be delivered without the need to schedule at-home delivery. The customer doesn’t need to be home to receive their couch.

MAXIMIZE PROFIT

Items can be sold in sets and as separate items elsewhere on the website. They can also be returned separately without requiring return of the entire set.

Bedroom Set Example

What you buy on Wayfair.com
Products included
How it ships
PERFORMANCE ISSUES

The tools that agents and customers use to interact with multibox products do not perform well.

The UI struggles to handle the complex structure of these products.
Users are unable to see the information required, making it difficult for users to seek services like returns or refunds for damaged items.

INCREASED CONTACTS

Wayfair receives a larger number of contacts for multibox items compared to single-box items.

INCREASED TIME

A key metric, Average Handle Time (AHT), is used to measure how long agents spend helping customers. Multibox issues increase AHT.

LOW SATISFACTION

Customer satisfaction rates for contacts about multibox items are 11% lower than contacts for single-box items.

In 2023, it was projected that these issues would cost the company $4.6 million dollars.

IDENTIFYING PAIN POINTS

Based on research conducted by product partners, it was clear we needed to fix usability issues in terms of UI, process, and content.

The main source of pain points stemmed from the lack of hierarchy on product selection steps.

Customer

My Orders lists products individually, causing confusion about which products belong to a set and making it impossible to use self-service tools to report problems or start a return.

Agent

Lack of hierarchy requires agents to select each item individually and make sure they’ve selected all of the items correctly. This increases the amount of time and focus required to process the request.

PLAN & APPROACH

I needed to establish new design patterns that work with multibox items.

STEP 1: DEFINE PATTERNS

First, I needed to define new patterns using the smaller agent tools.

Starting here would allow engineers to make updates that have an immediate impact on metrics and agent satisfaction.

STEP 2: APPLY TO CUSTOMER USES

Second, the new patterns could be applied to customer-facing self-service tools.

Customers usually need less information than agents, therefore the design pattern could be simplified for this user group.

STEP 3: BROADEN TO LARGER SYSTEM

Last, I needed to address ServiceHub - a complex tool that is used to communicate with customers, view order information, and process service requests.

01. DEFINING PATTERNS
ADDRESSING ISSUES WITH AGENT TOOLS

How might we make product relationships clear in the service tools?

😣

With a lack of product relationships, agents must rely on item names and conversations with the customer to ensure they select all of the pieces of the item.

The first step of the agent tools is an item selection step. Some workflows allow for single selection and others allow multi-selection.

For example, if a customer calls to return a bedroom set that has been broken down on to six separate shipments, the agent must select every item individually. If they fail, the customer won’t receive the right number of shipping labels. The agent must re-run the tool, increasing the handle time of the call.

Before

Items of the bedroom set are shown as independent items with no reference to the original set the customer ordered.

After

A hierarchy of products now exists, showing the set, the items in the set, and any components that make up each item.

Now, the agent can select all items at once or select just a single item to return.

01. DEFINING PATTERNS
USER VALIDATION: FOCUS GROUPS WITH AGENTS

I presented the redesigned item selection to groups of customer service agents.

Agent reactions were overwhelmingly positive towards the changes.

TAKEAWAYS

Agents noted that descriptive item names would make the tools even more helpful.

This feedback was sent to product partners working with suppliers to ensure that updating component names was made a priority in their separate efforts.

02. APPLY TO CUSTOMER USES
ADDRESSING ISSUES WITH CUSTOMER TOOLS

How might we reduce complexity in My Orders and match the mental model customers have of the item they purchased?

😣

After placing a single item in their cart, the customer sees multiple items in My Orders with no relationship to one another.

Before

In the My Orders, customers are presented with a broken view of the item they ordered. The bedroom set they placed in their cart now appears as multiple separate items that don't show a clear relationship to one another.

Clicking in to each separate item allows a customer to request service only for that part. If a customer would like to return every item in the set, they must make the request on each and every item.

After

The items are consolidated in to one product card to show the bedroom set, exactly the way the customer viewed the item when they placed it in their cart.

Now there is a single entry point for requesting service.

How might we enable customers to access service tools for multibox items?

This required the addition of a new item select step when customers request services for an individual item of a set. This item selection could be either single-select or multi-select depending on the issue the customer reports on the first step.

Single Select vs. Multi-Select Flows

New item selection steps

Customers enter the tool from the parent product. Then, once they identify the type of issue they have, an item selection screen appears.

Multi-selection for returning items.

Single-selection for reporting item issues.

02. APPLY TO CUSTOMER USES
USER VALIDATION: UNMODERATED USER TESTS

To test the new product list and item selection step, I conducted unmoderated user tests via UserTesting.com.

FORMAT

  • 8 unmoderated user tests with users aged 18-65 located in North America

  • Two tasks per test - initiate a return and report a problem with an item

TEST GOALS

  • Uncover customer’s mental process while navigating the flow

  • Ensure users can complete the task with little to no friction

  • Identify points of frustration in the flow

TAKEAWAYS

Users easily understood the assignments and completed the tasks with no friction. The design patterns were working.

03. BROADEN TO LARGER SYSTEM
SERVICEHUB  DASHBOARD

How might we make product relationships clear in ServiceHub and eliminate the need for agents to use multiple browser windows?

💡

ServiceHub is a new tool that allows agents to communicate with customers, view order details, and process service requests - all within the same window.

When it was first introduced, ServiceHub was meant to streamline agent work and act as a one-stop-shop for 90% of the tools necessary to work on issues.

However, agents were continuing to use legacy tools because they offered better product relationships and more data at first glance.

ServiceHub showing a list of products in an order. Items show no relationship to one another despite all being a part of the same product.
03. BROADEN TO LARGER SYSTEM
COMPARING DESIGN SOLUTIONS

Two approaches emerged to solve the issue.

VERSION 1
Follow existing design structure in ServiceHub

This approach would be the easiest and fastest for engineers to implement, however the tool would lose some functionality. Also, it wouldn't address agents turning to legacy tools.

VERSION 2
Create new structure based on legacy tools

We needed agents to stop using legacy tools so they could be fully deprecated. Scrapping the existing design structure and introducing a new one would allow me to address these issues. However, engineers would need much more time to explore the new structure and reimplement a large and critical part of the tool. This could take months.

Version 1

Following design structure already in place. Multibox products are consolidated in to one card with a badge - similar to the approach taken to solve customer issues on My Orders.
Selecting a multibox item opens a drawer reveals the items in the set.

Version 2

This version expands the amount of information available at first glance while also putting in place a hierarchy of products. There is more on the screen but requires fewer clicks from the agent.
03. BROADEN TO LARGER SYSTEM
USER VALIDATION: AGENT FOCUS GROUPS

I conducted very small focus groups to test agent satisfaction with each version.

FORMAT

  • 12 focus groups, each consisting of 2 customer service agents

  • Guided discussion comparing both versions of the design

TEST GOALS

  • Validate product relationship improvements

  • Identify insufficient data

  • Identify points of frustration in the interface

Participants discussed the values of each version, with Version 2 proving to be the most useful and impactful to agents time and focus.

TAKEAWAYS

Agents preferred an entirely new product relationship structure over sticking with the old structure.

While Version 2 would cost more time and effort from engineers, it would ultimately solve not just problems with multibox products, but with other parent/child relationships in the system. It would also eliminate much of the use of legacy tools.

PROJECT TAKEAWAYS

Overall, the design updates addressed many of the concerns for both user groups, but there was still more to do.

While the team was thrilled at the positive reception from both agents and customers during user testing and focus groups, three important issues were uncovered that could not be solved through design alone.
The user research conducted during this time provided a stronger case to product and engineering partners to investigate and find solutions to other process-related issues.
IMPROVE NAMING CONVENTIONS

Agents expressed the need to have descriptive item names - an update that requires close partnership with Wayfair’s suppliers.

DATA LOAD TIMES

Agents desired more data in ServiceHub with fewer clicks, but engineers face a challenge with load times when pulling data.

MULTI-SELECTION FOR ALL FLOWS

Multi-item selection is only possible for some flows. It would be a time-saving feature for complex multibox issues in more tools, but engineers face a challenge accommodating such an update.

NEXT STEPS

While my time with the project ended, engineers were hard at work implementing agent tool updates and investigating the feasibility of the ServiceHub updates.

Copyright © 2024 Rachel Poturich