Members expect efficiency and ease. Your staff expects efficiency and ease. So how do you decide which to focus on?

Let me give you an example from the CUSO I work at. We have online banking loan applications for our credit unions to turn on so borrowers can apply for a loan without having to come in person to a branch or call via phone to do it. These exist everywhere, right?

We started receiving some feedback that our clients wanted the applications to be more robust and collect more information from the borrower on the frontend, thus saving their staff members some time on the backend. We did as requested, while keeping in mind that not every credit union may value the same pieces of information equally. To that end, we made it semi-customizable.

These applications were deployed and received strong praise from some of our credit unions. Others, however, decided that the amount of information being requested from the borrower was too much and slowed down the application process on the frontend. To correct that, they used customization options and lessened the amount of information that needed to be filled out in the application, to save their borrowers’ time.

I always find the difference in opinions interesting, and this leaves me wondering: which is most important? Saving the staff members’ time, or saving the borrower time?

Pros and cons: saving your staff time

Far and beyond, the biggest benefit to asking for more information on the frontend is making the workload of your staff much more manageable by ensuring they need to ask for less information on the backend. This also means staff will be able to review the application in its entirety and potentially reach a decision sooner without needing to reach out to the borrower and wait for that communication.

On the other hand, by requiring applicants to provide more information on the frontend, not only are you potentially inconveniencing the borrower, but also potentially slowing down or delaying the entire process. Additionally, it might make the application process feel more complicated and burdensome. By requiring all these details up front, you run the risk that every time a member walks away from the application to find the information they need or pauses to move onto a different task, they may not come back.

Pros and cons: saving the borrower time

Some may argue that saving the borrower time is the most important piece of all. So let your staff do some extra work on the backend, while giving your borrower less to fill out and provide during initial submission. This would make the member experience smoother and more seamless, which could save them from feeling like applying for a loan with your credit union is taxing or that you’re “asking for the blood of their first-born child,” as they say. And just maybe the perception that the technology your credit union provides is “easy” to work with might turn into positive word of mouth in the community! Isn’t ease for the consumer key in today’s world?

Then we deal with the flip side of that coin—your staff feeling like they’re not getting enough information on the frontend to make the decision. So then comes the need for your staff to do more follow-up on the backend, making them feel like they have more work per application. In addition, having to go back and ask for more information could potentially lengthen the process for coming to a decision—which could also inconvenience the borrower or, in extreme cases, make you lose the deal.

So what’s most important? Decisions, decisions!

How to know the right solution for your credit union

Does it really all just come down to knowing your membership base? If you know that your membership is primarily made up of a demographic of individuals who are not super tech-savvy, maybe a shorter app on the frontend is the way to go.

Maybe your membership base prefers the personal human connection, so they don’t mind the follow-up call from your loan staff (in fact, they might prefer it). But maybe your membership base is tech-savvy and prefers less follow-up on the backend and a quicker decision process—the more self-service type of approach may not be as daunting for this crowd.

Maybe it’s just knowing your staff? Some institutions may have staff that really don’t mind having those follow-up conversations with the borrower. They may even view it as a way to build a relationship with the applicant. Or maybe your institution has a higher loan volume, and your need for less follow-up on the backend is key for workflow ease.

Whatever the case may be, understanding where the biggest impact will be on both your membership and staff alike is key!