Amlak — Experience Intelligence
00 / 12
Amlak International Finance
Experience
Intelligence
Building the Foundation for CX as a Revenue System
A strategic framework connecting customer behaviour, operational friction, and business outcomes — and what we must build to make it real.
01 / 12
The Problem
Leadership can see the symptoms.
It cannot yet see where they originate.
Without a signal layer connecting customer behaviour to business movement, decisions remain reactive and transformation remains unfocused.
✓ What leadership sees
Declining application volumes
Approval delays accumulating
Escalation volume rising
Servicing cost pressure increasing
Operational overload signals
✗ What remains invisible
Where abandonment actually originates in the journey
Which friction points cause approval delays
What drives repeat escalations vs. first-time failures
What customers actually need vs. what they contact for
Which operational dependencies create the overload
02 / 12
What We Found
Three assessments. One conclusion.
The measurement spine does not exist yet. These are not gaps to hide — they are the reason the framework matters.
📐
UX Maturity
Stage 2 of 6 — Limited
Process is reactive, no repeatable design or research cycle
Process is reactive, no repeatable design or research cycle
Business risk: Design effort is not compounding. Every project starts from zero. No measurement, no learning, no acceleration.
📡
Omnichannel Landscape
6 active channels, fragmented ownership, no self-service rail, no published SLA
Business risk: Customer friction is invisible until it becomes an escalation. No channel produces structured intelligence.
📊
Customer Intelligence
No VOC infrastructure. No CRM. No CES. NPS and CSAT exist but are not journey-specific or actioned.
Business risk: Leadership decisions lack a signal layer. Commercial symptoms are visible; their causes are not.
03 / 12
The Framework
CX as a leading indicator system
for commercial performance.
Each layer predicts or confirms the next. Together they connect customer behaviour to business movement and give leadership a decision surface it does not currently have.
Layer 1
Leading Indicators
Predict risk before commercial loss occurs
→
Layer 2
Experience Metrics
Measure customer ability to progress through journeys
→
Layer 3
Operational Metrics
Expose execution friction affecting outcomes
→
Layer 4
Commercial Outcomes
Confirm business impact in financial terms
→
Layer 5
Executive Decision Layer
Translate signals into prioritisation and action
Example flowing through the chain
High document resubmission rate →
High effort score on approval stage →
Repeat contact spike →
Approval conversion drops →
CDO redirects delivery priority
04 / 12
Operating Model
From reactive execution
to governed intelligence.
The current model is request-driven and urgency-led. The model being built is signal-driven, governed, and measurable. The contrast is deliberate — the gap is what Phase 1 closes.
Current State — How Work Runs Today
🔴Work enters ad hoc — stakeholder requests, no intake process
🔴Prioritisation is stakeholder-led, not signal-driven
🔴Execution is reactive — urgency determines what gets done
🔴No journey ownership — no one holds the end-to-end view
🔴Research runs in parallel, not feeding product decisions
🔴No governance cadence — escalations are informal
🔴No measurement — success is undefined and untracked
↓
Building
toward
toward
Future State — How the Function Runs
🟢Structured intake — signals, VOC, and governance feed prioritisation
🟢Prioritisation is data-driven, tied to business outcome impact
🟢Execution is governed — design, research, and delivery in cadence
🟢Journey ownership assigned — metrics and VOC per journey
🟢Research feeds product decisions — not a parallel track
🟢Weekly / monthly / quarterly governance cadence in place
🟢CX metrics connected to business outcomes — visible to leadership
05 / 12
Measurement Framework
What we measure now.
What we build toward.
Version 1.0 is activatable with existing tools. Version 2.0 requires instrumentation, CRM, and cross-functional access. The four phases are what enable the move between them.
Version 1.0 — Activate Now
Commercial
Abandonment rate · Application completion rate · Lead-to-approval conversion · Funded loan conversion
Abandonment rate · Application completion rate · Lead-to-approval conversion · Funded loan conversion
Experience
NPS restructured by journey stage · CSAT by touchpoint · App store sentiment score
NPS restructured by journey stage · CSAT by touchpoint · App store sentiment score
Operational
Repeat contact rate · First contact resolution · Channel switching rate (partial)
Repeat contact rate · First contact resolution · Channel switching rate (partial)
Investigative — Predictive
Incomplete onboarding patterns · Contact reason taxonomy · Repeat call drivers · Lead aging · Channel conversion quality
Incomplete onboarding patterns · Contact reason taxonomy · Repeat call drivers · Lead aging · Channel conversion quality
What enables
the move
the move
Phase 1
Stabilise Foundations
↓
Phase 2
Service Blueprinting
↓
Phase 3
Metrics Architecture
↓
Phase 4
Enterprise Alignment
Version 2.0 — Build Toward
Commercial
Cross-sell penetration · Repeat financing rate · Acquisition cost per channel · Advisor productivity
Cross-sell penetration · Repeat financing rate · Acquisition cost per channel · Advisor productivity
Experience
Customer Effort Score (CES) · Customer confidence score · Document friction score
Customer Effort Score (CES) · Customer confidence score · Document friction score
Operational
Orchestration delay index · Dependency bottleneck rate · Rework frequency
Orchestration delay index · Dependency bottleneck rate · Rework frequency
Confirmed Leading Indicators
Defined after Phase 3 investigation. Candidates: document friction · escalation frequency · time-to-confidence · channel switching · hesitation patterns
Defined after Phase 3 investigation. Candidates: document friction · escalation frequency · time-to-confidence · channel switching · hesitation patterns
06 / 12
Master Mapping Table
Every experience signal has
a commercial consequence.
This table makes the connection explicit. Red signals with no current visibility are the immediate priority.
High severity — not visible, no owner
Known — partially visible, no structured response
Visible, owned, being acted on
| Signal | Type | Predicts / Causes | Business Outcome at Risk | Visibility | RAG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Onboarding abandonment | Experience lagging | Lost application pipeline | Applications initiated ↓ | Partial — WebEngage | ● |
| Document confusion | Experience leading | Approval delay + resubmission | Approval conversion ↓ | Not visible | ● |
| Escalation frequency | Operational leading | Servicing cost spike | Operational cost ↑ | Not owned | ● |
| Repeat contact | Operational lagging | Unresolved friction | Servicing efficiency ↓ | Not structured | ● |
| Approval delays | Operational lagging | Conversion loss | Funded loans ↓ | Not connected to CX | ● |
| Channel switching | Behavioral leading | Journey fragmentation | Application completion ↓ | Partial — WebEngage | ● |
| Resolution speed | Experience lagging | Trust erosion | Retention ↓ | Not measured | ● |
| Customer confidence | Behavioral leading | Incomplete submissions | Applications completed ↓ | Not instrumented | ● |
| Lead aging patterns | Investigative leading | Drop-off before conversion | Funded loan conversion ↓ | Not tracked | ● |
| Repeated submissions | Investigative leading | Onboarding confusion | Completion rate ↓ | Not tracked | ● |
07 / 12
CDO Dashboard
Operational bottlenecks. Delivery load.
Prioritisation clarity.
⚙ CDO Operational Intelligence View
Illustrative architecture — Version 1.0 pending instrumentation
Operational friction is accumulating faster than it is being resolved. 34% of customers contact again within 7 days. First contact resolution sits at 51% — below any acceptable threshold. The root cause of neither metric is currently traceable. That is the gap this framework closes.
Repeat Contact Rate
34%
↑ +6pp vs last quarter
So what: 1 in 3 serviced customers returns unresolved. This is operational cost and trust erosion simultaneously — and the reasons are not yet taxonomised.
First Contact Resolution
51%
↓ below 60% threshold
So what: Half of all contacts require a second interaction. Signals both process gaps and agent knowledge gaps — neither is currently being diagnosed.
App Sentiment Gap
−1.0
iOS 4.5 · Android 3.5
So what: The 1-point platform gap is not a design issue — it is an eligibility and onboarding friction issue concentrated in the expat segment. Unaddressed, it is churn.
Channel Switch Rate
28%
↑ trending — journey fragmentation
So what: Customers switching mid-journey is a leading indicator of abandonment. It signals that no single channel completes the job — a servicing architecture failure.
Operational Priority Matrix — Where to Act
🔴 Act Now — Existing Tools
Repeat contact taxonomy
Document friction mapping
Escalation root cause analysis
Document friction mapping
Escalation root cause analysis
🟡 Plan — 60 Days
Channel conversion quality
Lead aging analysis
Rework frequency tracking
Lead aging analysis
Rework frequency tracking
🟢 Version 2.0
Orchestration delay index
Dependency bottleneck rate
Document friction score
Dependency bottleneck rate
Document friction score
📋 In-Flight
Onboarding transformation
VOC infrastructure build
Service blueprint program
VOC infrastructure build
Service blueprint program
CDO Metric Readiness
Repeat contact rate1.0
First contact resolution1.0
App sentiment score1.0
Channel switching rate1.0
Document friction score2.0
Orchestration delay2.0
Rework frequency2.0
Bar width = data readiness today. Most CDO metrics require instrumentation before they can be monitored.
| Metric | Type | Source | Version | Readiness |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repeat contact rate | Operational lagging | Call centre | 1.0 | ● Exists — needs structuring + taxonomy |
| First contact resolution | Operational lagging | Call centre | 1.0 | ● Exists — not currently tracked systematically |
| App store sentiment | Experience lagging | iOS / Android | 1.0 | ● Available — unowned, not actioned |
| Channel switching rate | Behavioral leading | WebEngage | 1.0 | ● Partial — marketing-owned tool |
| Document friction score | Behavioral leading | Instrumented journeys | 2.0 | ● Requires journey instrumentation |
| Orchestration delay index | Operational leading | Process instrumentation | 2.0 | ● Requires process instrumentation |
| Rework frequency | Operational lagging | Jira | 2.0 | ● Partial — needs taxonomy and ownership |
08 / 12
CEO Dashboard
Business movement. Conversion impact.
Trust risk. Growth opportunity.
📈 CEO Commercial Intelligence View
Illustrative architecture — Version 1.0 pending instrumentation
69% of initiated applications do not result in funded financing. The leakage is measurable in outline. The causes — friction, confusion, eligibility gaps, channel failure — are not yet connected to the commercial numbers. This framework builds that connection.
Application Completion Rate
62%
↓ 8pp below target
So what: 38% of started applications never complete. This is the largest single commercial leak in the funnel — and its causes are not yet traced to specific friction points.
Lead-to-Approval Conversion
41%
↓ 12pp below peer benchmark
So what: Majority of leads do not convert. Document friction and eligibility confusion are suspected primary drivers — but not yet confirmed through data.
NPS — Journey Stage
+23
Onboarding stage weakest
So what: Currently not journey-specific. The overall score masks stage-level failures. Restructuring to journey-specific NPS is a Phase 1 action.
Abandonment Rate
38%
↑ trending — root cause unknown
So what: Rising abandonment without root-cause visibility is a strategic risk. The investigation model in Slide 09 addresses this directly.
Financing Conversion Funnel — Illustrative
69% of initiated applications do not result in funded financing. Experience friction drives this leakage — but the connection is not yet instrumented.
CEO Metric Readiness
Applications initiated1.0
Completion rate1.0
Lead-to-approval conversion1.0
NPS by journey stage1.0
Escalation trends1.0
Repeat financing rate2.0
Cross-sell penetration2.0
Critical CEO metrics require structuring and cross-functional data access before they can be reported reliably.
09 / 12
Early Warning Investigations
Predicting commercial loss
before it appears in the numbers.
These are not metrics yet. They are structured investigation areas — the work that identifies which signals reliably predict commercial impact before it reaches financial reporting. This is the most sophisticated and most urgent layer of the framework.
Investigate now — existing tools available
Plan within 60 days — needs partial instrumentation
| Investigation Area | What We Are Looking For | Predicted Business Risk | Data Access | Priority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Incomplete onboarding | Where and why customers stop in the application flow | Application completion ↓ | Now — WebEngage | ● Immediate |
| Contact reason taxonomy | What customers call about most — pattern and volume | Self-service opportunity + servicing cost | Now — manually | ● Immediate |
| Repeat call drivers | What goes unresolved on first contact and why | Servicing cost ↑ + trust erosion | Now — manually | ● Immediate |
| Channel conversion quality | Which channels produce applications that complete vs. abandon | Acquisition spend efficiency ↓ | Partial — WebEngage | ● 60 days |
| Lead aging patterns | Time between initiation and drop-off by channel | Funded loan conversion ↓ | Partial — ops data | ● 60 days |
| Repeated submissions | What triggers customers to resubmit documents | Approval delay + frustration | Needs instrumentation | ● 60 days |
| Complaint cost drivers | Which complaint types consume most operational resource | Operational burden + regulatory risk | Needs taxonomy first | ● 60 days |
10 / 12
What We Are Building
Four phases. Each produces what
the next one depends on.
The framework requires a foundation. These phases build it in sequence — from stabilising the function to embedding CX into organisational decisions.
01
Stabilise Foundations
Team structure, process governance, capability alignment, maturity baseline.
Scope: team capability · UX/CX maturity · omnichannel · customer intelligence · operational · technology · employee experience · competitive landscapes
Internal — team and CDO alignment
Enables 1.0
02
Service Blueprinting
Journey maps, dependency maps, ownership clarity, operational visibility across the financing ecosystem.
Cross-functional — Product, Ops, Digital, Risk
Enables 1.0
03
Metrics Architecture
Measurement logic confirmed, data availability mapped, instrumentation gaps identified, business outcome mapping agreed.
Data team + Development alignment
Enables 2.0
04
Enterprise Alignment
Shared language, cross-functional ownership, CX embedded in organisational decisions and governance.
Executive sponsorship required
Enables 2.0
Governance Structure
Weekly
Operational CX Review
Blockers and escalations
Complaints and delivery issues
Urgent decisions
CX · Digital · Product · Operations · Support
Starts: Phase 1
Monthly
Journey Governance Review
Journey health and VOC trends
Metrics and priorities
Roadmap alignment
CX · Product · Ops · Digital · Risk
Starts: Phase 2
Quarterly
Strategic Transformation Review
Strategic initiative progress
Executive visibility + business movement
Investment priorities
CX · CDO · CEO · Strategy
Starts: Phase 3
11 / 12
The Team
Same team, broader mandate,
structured development path.
Current capability is concentrated in UI execution. Expansion is capability-led — building toward the profile the framework requires. Resource and budget evaluation in progress.
D
Doaa
Market Research
Expanding into
Journey mapping · Service blueprints · VOC design · NPS/CSAT structuring
W
Waqas
UI/UX
Expanding into
Co-creation facilitation · Light UX research · AI-assisted design · Design system ownership
Y
Yara
UI/UX
Expanding into
Co-creation facilitation · Light UX research · AI-assisted design capabilities
A
Afrah
Research Support
Scope under evaluation
Supporting VOC operations and research delivery alongside Doaa
Đ
Đuro Kojić
CX Analytics Lead — Remote · Ongoing
Analytics & Delivery
Primary contribution
Funnel diagnostics · Delivery governance · Investigation model execution · A/B testing · Cohort analysis · Agile delivery structure
Capability Gap — Team vs. Business Need
Current capability
Business need
Capability Status
UI ExecutionExists
Interaction Design & Design SystemPartial
Qualitative Research & Usability TestingPartial
Quantitative Research & Funnel AnalysisPartial — Đuro
VOC & Survey Design (NPS, CSAT, CES)Gap
Service Design & BlueprintingPartial — Areej
Co-creation FacilitationPartial — Areej
Measurement, KPIs & ReportingGap
AI-Assisted Design & ResearchIn development
12 / 12
The Ask
Two versions. One commitment.
The framework is real. The evidence supports it. What follows is what it requires — and what I am committing to in return.
Version 1.0 — Buildable Now
Existing tools — WebEngage, Jira, call centre data, app store
NPS and CSAT restructured to be journey-specific
Investigation model activated on incomplete onboarding, contact taxonomy, repeat call drivers
CDO and CEO dashboard architecture established
Governance cadence launched — weekly, monthly, quarterly
Team expansion path initiated
Version 2.0 — Requires Investment
CRM — without it, retention, cross-sell and repeat financing are unmeasurable
Journey instrumentation — document friction, confidence, hesitation signals
Cross-functional access — confirmed sponsorship for blueprinting and alignment workshops
Data team alignment — joint session to confirm measurement architecture and gaps
Capability investment — VOC, service design, and measurement skills on the team
The Commitment
Version 1.0 is buildable now, with what we have.
Version 2.0 requires investment and cross-functional access.
I am asking for both.
In return, I will make the institution operationally intelligible to itself.
Version 2.0 requires investment and cross-functional access.
I am asking for both.
In return, I will make the institution operationally intelligible to itself.