top of page
1.png

K-EDC

Standardizing multiple variations of a machine used across industries

Problem

Currently, KBank has more than 10 EDC machines manufactured by 5 different suppliers. Each model has a different design, with some models reported as easy-to-use, while others being disliked by users.

Our proposal

KBTG was offered the opportunity to develop the next generation of EDC machines, and we took this opportunity to go talk to users about their journey with current EDC models, in order to create an ideal, standardized version.

2.png

Why is this project important❗️

  • The project truly felt cross-functional. Unlike my other projects, Idea Portal involved close collaboration between product and development teams which led to faster review-and-response cycles since we were constantly talking to each other.

​

  • My first taste of an agile workflow. The cross collaboration also led to more iterative cycles, quicker decision making, and flexibility in making efficient adjustments throughout the product journey.

Research

First, we listed out the different features that are offered by each model.

 

Then, we tried to map out the different industries (department stores, hotels, restaurants, etc.) that use EDCs and which feature is most used by which industry type.

3.png

We conducted research with 11 stores from 5 different industries to understand the many available features and the variety of payment methods currently used. This was done to design a flexible EDC that can accommodate new and emerging payment methods in the future.

4.png

Interaction design

The first thing we tackle was interaction design, as none of the models had the same interaction!

We created two different home screen designs and made prototypes for users to try out. We wanted to see which design allows users to access features easily and also appeals to them the most.

We hypothesized that users might prefer scrolling in Interaction B because all the features are kept on one screen, instead of switching pages.

Results

We were glad to test because users actually found swiping in interaction A much easier! 

Each industry type gave us different reasons, but all in all, everyone preferred swiping:

Department Stores:

"Customers in department stores are often in a hurry and it's more frustrating for us to be scrolling to find what we need. Option A is easier because the pages divide the essential features vs non-essential features.”

Insurance Agents:

"I prefer swiping left-right because it’s familiar like using a smartphone. When I see the three dots (pagination dots), I understand that there are three pages."

Hotels:

"I like switching between pages because it’s less of a clutter than having every feature on one page. I also don't have to scroll too much.”

Grouping vs. Separating

The second thing we wanted to validate was the topic of grouping menu items or separating them.

​

  • Grouping menu can reduce the amount of items = more simple

  • Separating features as shortcuts can help users access those features quicker

Although we were testing option A and B, our deep listening revealed something we didn’t expect at all. We had a user who recommended an alternative solution:

“Communicating with foreign customers is difficult and sometimes I can’t even explain the options. I want the system to recognize automatically when payment is made through a QR code, and to differentiate whether it's WeChat or Alipay."

Instead of grouping or separating, the user wished our tool could do the deciphering instead -- which we thought was an excellent solution!

It was a lesson learned that we can keep discussing option A and option B, but sometimes, user stories can reveal an option C.

Not one size fits all

Although the new design was definitely a success in standardizing EDC design, we received feedback from PTT, a gas station, that their gas station attendants were experiencing issues with our new design.

​

​We were confused what was going on, and so, we requested permission to go on-site to observe how gas station attendants were using EDCs.

Once we went to observe, we finally understood the problem. We realized that each EDC corresponded to a different gas pump! For example, one EDC device will correspond to gas pump #1 and #2, while another EDC will only correspond to gas pump #3 and #4.

Field research really gives us a better understanding how a product is actually used in its environment.

We went back to the drawing board and re-worked the design:

​

  • There are now choices for gas pumps so a single EDC can select which gas pump to correspond to

  • Because gas attendant hands are often oily and greasy, we reduced unnecessary buttons and re-designed buttons on the homepage to be larger so it’s easier to click

bottom of page