top of page
image.png

Raychem RPG, one of the longest joint ventures in India is between TE connectivity, USA and RPG enterprises, India is involved in engineering solutions and services, pioneering smart products and technologies. It caters to the infra segment of multiple industries, like Energy, Defense & Aerospace, Transporation, and Electric Vehicles.

CURRENT RISK ASSESSMENT APPROACH

Raychem is required to assess potential risks associated with any new or existing client that it gets into business with. 

Given the large scale of operations that it functions on the risk that Raychem is exposed to its imeprative.

Broadly, this process involves a front-end team member initiating a risk passport, and filling a predefined questionnaire determined by respective stakeholder departments like Engineering, Finance, Accounts, etc. This detailed questionnaire is designed to determine risks associated with the client. The front-end team member marks each question as a high, medium or low risk.

​

Risk rating reviewed by the stakeholder department and approved/rejected and a rationale is given explaining in detail their risk classification and is assigned further to the appropriate functional team to provide a risk mitigation plan.

​

Once an agreed mitigation plan is in place, it is in the hands of an execution committee to see the plan in action.

PROBLEM STATEMENT

Management of these various levels of approvals, rejections, plans and execution in manual filing systems is a tedious job and has a lot of operational challenges that perpetuate.

We digitized this manual process of assessing business risk and helped stakeholders plan a robust mitigation plan and execution.

TEAM WORKSHOP

The system at Raychem for this was quite twisted and it was important for all stakeholders to understand this complex process together from one source of truth, I facilitated a workshop with developers, the project manager and testers.

Once we discussed the process, chain of approvals, redirection in case of rejections, etc, we asked each member to draw a flow of actions and we looked at them together and understood how we perceived it.

IMG_5644.jpg

We surfed through all interpretations and came up with a final flow of process by inculcating pieces, common themes from these activity charts.

USER INTERVIEWS

From the current process, we mapped three user groups Front End team members, Functional department stakeholders and the Execution Committee members.

Collaborating with our dev team, we came up with in-depth interview questions for each user group and set up remote interviews with them induvidually first.

Once we had insights from these interviews, we spoke to these user groups in diads & triads and understood how they all fit into the flow, how a risk assessment goes through multiple hands.

DOCUMENT ANALYSIS & CONTEXTUAL INQUIRY

I went through a few Risk assessment forms, and mitigation plans that were approved, some that were rejected.

​

We built a mock business onboarding scenario and ran remote sessions with each user group.

We mapped insightful details about their challenges in real-time, to understand their rationale during drafting the form, and the time taken by each user group. This gave us a peek into task analysis that we further found useful during design iterations.

Story boarding of the mock process

PAINPOINTS FROM USER RESEARCH

Refiling

Loss of information

Misplaced

Difficult collaboration

Security

No analytics for planning

wrong order of pages

Compliance challenges

Tracking & Retrieving

Data inaccuracy

DESIGN PHILOSPHY

Our research encapsulated that the users are accustomed to their paperwork, and due to their long-standing use of this process, the users find relatively lesser difficulty. The greater impact was on the functional, operational and management teams.

We hypothesised that usability could be optimised if we kept the experience as close to their mental models as possible and address the operational challenges by easy access, retrieval, tracking, and analytics.

​

With initial designs, we tested remotely with two sales team members and task completion, and time taken to complete did not look great.

After 3 iterations  I tested with 3 sets of users simultaneously. The approved design stood the test significantly better and received positive feedback.

The design rationale behind the UI was to keep it paper form-like, with distinct sections for various departments that rework the same form, use basic colours, neat, crisp, text format options and visual hierarchy for questions, risk rating, rational, plans and buttons.

NDA

Given the critical nature of this project, it is under NDA and unfortunately, any part of it cannot be publicised, recreated or stored.

But, I can talk about it endlessly! Get in touch and we can discuss how can we do it better.

bottom of page