Potentially it’s too early to make such a bold statement, but from what we have seen and the conversation we have had with social landlords, the evidence suggests that the sector is going backwards and reverting back to old habits. This is especially the case for some new digital self-service projects, where functionality has been considered as an afterthought for end-users.

These could be in the form of resident portals and repairs reporting, existing as more of tick box services/projects, contrasting to the high-profile projects that have been actively practised and provided with residents in mind, for the last half a decade. 

What do we mean by ‘Tick Box’?

We are now seeing organisations implement self-service solutions that offer less functionality and flexibility, but coincidentally are the simplest and quickest to implement that don’t require multiple supplier involvement and don’t need to be heavily resourced.

The most common approach that we have seen is some housing providers using portals from incumbent back-office system providers, where the solution is essentially a bolt on and not necessarily the supplier's specialist area.

(Photo: Tick box solutions often provide minimal functionality for end-users)

What these solutions do offer is a ‘plug and play’ solution that supposedly works out of the box, but instead often have minimal functionality, with a very limited development roadmap, alongside inflexible integration into other systems, poor accessibility, and additional expenses for bespoke changes. 

Using such a portal, could lead to further issues down the line in the scenario where the portal needs to be replaced and swapped with another.

So, what's changed?

The re-surfacing of tick box solutions does seem out of the ordinary, especially where people's appetite for digital self-service is at an all-time high, so what has actually changed?

An obvious impact on all social housing projects is the recent events such as Grenfell, Cost of Living and Damp and Mould, which have all required additional attention from organisations, both financially and from a senior management time perspective.

(Photo: Social housing accommodation being deep cleaned to ensure healthy and safe living conditions for residents)

However, the much more likely reason is simply down to the number of ‘failed’ self-service projects the sector has seen over recent years. When we say failed, it is often due to uptake and ROI rather than an all-together failed implementation, which is rare given the experience of self-service suppliers in this sector. 

But what’s causing these failed projects? 

Initial outlay and high licence costs

While we have previously made the claim that organisations don’t invest enough in digital self-service, we have also seen organisations, especially when developing internally or bespoke, spend an insurmountable amount of money (in some case millions), even getting a basic customer portal live. 

Instead, specialist suppliers should and could have been used to stop these solutions from failing. In this scenario the solution could have gone live for a fraction of the cost, leaving more for continual improvement and digitising other services while also allowing more time for important tasks such as customer interaction.

Low usage

We truly believe in the idea, that “If they build it, will they come”.

Most organisations still treat customer self-service solutions like a back-office system implementation with very specific project phases (i.e., mobilisation, BAU, annual upgrade, etc). But this is simply not enough and does not work well for customer-facing solutions.

There needs to be correct resource levels and budgets post-implementation to ensure the solution is continually optimised and marketed to customers.

(Photo: It is important to monitor resource levels and invest during the post-implementation phase)

One thing that we constantly see as a supplier, is that any change to a self-service solution post live (no matter how small), often triggers a massive change control process. 

Consequently, project teams are then put off making any changes, no matter what the data or customer feedback suggests. Not taking immediate action on these important changes will act as a blocker for growth and continuous development, leading to the failure of a solution before it even effectively gets pushed to market.

Poor Integration

Integration is often the most frustrating part of a self-service solution implementation for both suppliers and social landlords. The sector is bloated with legacy back-office systems with minimal (to none) integration methods that too often perform poorly, even more so under intense load.

This can often lead to a poor user experience due to the speed of a solution and minimal functionality. Of course, it isn’t always the back-office systems fault, some solutions are just not built by design for wide-scale use and are very inflexible, even if API’s can be used for third-party integrations.

Lacking the main areas of focus

Solutions are set up to fail when there is a lack of focus on what we call ‘big-ticket items’ – the items which should be the predominant focus of that solution, to help combat the common challenges being faced in the sector such as prolonged first-time fixes, usually impacted by the lack of features for self-appointing repairs reporting.

(Photo: A lack of features can negatively affect self-appointing repairs and maintenance reporting)

Organisations must take a proactive approach to such issues. As it currently stands, the mentality of the sector is to deliver a feature and move on, rather than improving and refining the most frequently utilised and requested services, as customer requirements change, and technology improves.

Our proactive approach has included sharing our focus on self-service big ticket items like the above, during our seminar at last year’s Housing Technology Conference, which helped raise awareness about this widespread issue plaguing the sector.

What needs to change? (in our opinion)

Big ticket projects must resurface again, but maybe not in the same way that we saw in projects 3-5 years ago. There should be more focus on resourcing correctly with a strong focus on post-launch, communicating/marketing the service to residents and making continual improvements. 

Continual improvement should not be all about new and exciting features, but also small refinements to current UX and functionality with a keen eye on those big-ticket items. Organisations must also make better-informed decisions when it comes to choosing suppliers. 

(Photo: Better informed decisions must be made when choosing or replacing a digital self-service portal)

Choose suppliers with proven track records and solutions that will return on investment. If you do want to go bespoke, invest in consultancy from a specialist (individual or supplier) with a proven track record of success implementations. 

Finally, explore all possible options for integration and hold off on using back-office system suppliers which don’t offer full flexibility. A common occurrence is that a social landlord has paid for API or Web services from a back-office system supplier, but they either don’t exist or perform poorly. In this scenario, suppliers must be held accountable but why even put yourself in this position when it can all be easily avoided. 

By sharing this information, we are hoping to see a rise in specialist middleware providers helping the industry, and we believe this is an option which more people should consider if finances are an issue.

If you are looking for an industry-leading digital self-service solution which you and your customers will love, recommend reading into the Active Portal.