A written decision instead of a judgement call
A lightweight decision-support tool that helped first-line support decide which cases needed fraud review.
- Context
- Gaming platform / support and fraud operations
- Role
- Product Owner
- Date
- November 2017
The short version
- The problem
- First line support decided case by case what needed fraud review, and the same case could get different answers.
- What I did
- Mapped the decision into a branching decision flow, drawn in Word and shared as a clickable PDF.
- What it was worth
- Processing time, errors and needless escalations down by an estimated 45%, at no build cost.
- The call
- The problem was an unwritten decision, not a missing system. So I wrote the decision down.
What changed
Support decided case by case whether something needed fraud review. The same case could get a different answer depending on who picked it up.
A short decision flow. A few questions, and your answers bring you to a yes or no on escalation. Drawn in Word and shared as a clickable PDF so nobody could edit it by accident. The judgement stayed with support. The inconsistency did not.
Problem
In a "money in, money out" environment, first-line support often had to make a difficult judgement call. Should this case go to fraud review? Inconsistent decisions sent too much noise to specialists and slowed down resolutions. The team did not need a large platform project. They needed a clearer decision path they could trust in daily work.
Approach
I mapped the financial and behavioural logic into a repeatable yes-or-no flow. I drew it in Microsoft Word and distributed it as a clickable PDF, so agents could follow the account checks and escalation paths without accidentally changing them.
It turned scattered judgement calls into a sequence first-line support could follow, while still leaving room to escalate the cases that needed specialist review. It cost nothing in software or development time.
Outcome
It was only a clickable PDF, not a system, but it became part of the standard first-line procedure, which was the point.
Processing time, errors and incorrect second-line escalations came down by an estimated 45%, and the handover between first-line support and fraud review got clearer. That figure is an informed estimate rather than an audited measurement.