A written decision instead of a judgement call
A branching decision flow, drawn in Word and shared as a PDF, so first line support reached the same answer on whether a case needed fraud review.
- Context
- Gaming platform, support and fraud operations
- Role
- Product Owner
- Date
- November 2017
The short version
- The problem
- First line support decided case by case what needed fraud review, and the same case could get different answers.
- What I did
- Mapped the decision into a branching decision flow, drawn in Word and shared as a clickable PDF.
- What it was worth
- Processing time, errors and needless escalations down by an estimated 45%, at no build cost.
- The call
- The problem was an unwritten decision, not a missing system. So I wrote the decision down.
What changed
Support decided case by case whether something needed fraud review. The same case could get a different answer depending on who picked it up.
A short decision flow. A few questions, and your answers bring you to a yes or no on escalation. Drawn in Word and shared as a clickable PDF so nobody could edit it by accident. The judgement stayed with support. The inconsistency did not.
Problem
Money came in and money went out, so first line support kept meeting the same question. Does this case go to fraud review? Each agent answered it their own way. The same case could be escalated by one person and closed by the next, which sent noise to the specialists and slowed everything down. Nobody needed a platform project for this. They needed a decision path they could trust on a busy day.
Approach
I mapped the financial and behavioural logic into a repeatable yes or no flow. A few questions about the account, and the answers lead to escalate or do not escalate. I drew it in Word and shared it as a clickable PDF, so agents could follow the checks without changing them by accident.
The judgement stayed with support. What went was the variation between agents. It cost nothing in software or development time.
Outcome
A clickable PDF is not a system, but it became part of the standard first line procedure, which was the point.
Processing time, errors and incorrect second line escalations came down by an estimated 45%, and the handover between support and fraud review got clearer. That figure is my own estimate from being close to the work, not an audited measurement.