It doesn’t matter if you’ve applied for a job, a loan, or a visa – we all have a war-story about a terrible application experience. From black-box applications where the next steps are a mystery to microscopic mobile forms with hidden “submit” buttons, it’s infuriating.
The result? Well, for applicants it turns them off and provokes bad-mouthing of brands. In highly competitive domains like financial products and seasonal employment, applicants will simply go elsewhere.
But a bad application experience doesn’t just impact applicants – organisations pay the price too. Signs your AX isn’t sharp enough include:
Heavy investment in customer service to support applicants through the process
Excessive administrative effort due to poor quality or incomplete applications
Potential breaches of SLAs or customer service standards
Investing in comms & marketing to address the damage of a poor applicant experience.
AX covers any interaction where a user or organisation applies for something, and they are evaluated and processed at the other end. Unlike a booking, applications require critical thought from the supplier. And that’s where it gets very interesting.
The current economic climate is driving a concerted effort to reduce running costs and inefficiencies. 38% of Australian business leaders cited cost control as a top priority in 2024. The costs can be significant: answering status inquiries, following up applicants for incomplete details, or simply processing applications in an inefficient way - these are all opportunities to cut costs through smarter design.
We have had the opportunity to redesign all kinds of applicant experiences.
From our extensive work with applicants, support staff and stakeholders, we have identified a set of questions that help improve applicant experience for all user groups.
It’s seductive to get swept up in refining processes and streamlining experiences, but unless you are crystal clear on the reason the application exists, these efforts are moot. Is it about the precision of decisions? Is it about suitability or simply pass/fail? And what about the strategic goals that the application aligns with?
Take a grant application for public funding. For the organisation the goal is simple: direct resources to projects that best hit social or economic targets. That means gathering rich data on impact, feasibility, and alignment with the program’s priorities. For applicants, grant applications are about transparency—they need to see how decisions are made and trust that it’s based on merit (especially given recent rumblings). For the organisation, precise decision-making ensures funds are used properly, supporting the right initiatives and building trust.
By getting clear on the objective of the application – whether it’s precision, suitability, or something else – you can align the entire process to meet those goals (and set your team some very pointed success metrics).
Applications, and the out-of-the-box software solutions that have flooded the market, tend to follow some fairly standard patterns. And because we’re all so familiar with them, it all seems, well, kind of right. Same goes for those who appraise applications - often the process is the process. But a vigilant pair of eyes can spot obsolete questions and low value steps in the process that can weigh the whole thing down.
Look at home loan applications - traditionally highly complex and tedious processes are being transformed. Most providers have introduced Optical Character Recognition (OCR) so that applicants can stop the manual entry of details and focus on higher value parts of applications. Meanwhile Commbank’s Unloan is doing away with the faff altogether, leveraging tech and IP to offer a 10 minute loan refinancing application. Both are responses to the question: what matters?
When we know what the high-value aspects of the applicant experience are, we can quickly trim the fat (and expenditure) and focus on meaningful improvements.
The future is shiny, but sometimes the real gems are in the here and now. When we look at a product, process or service delivered by an organisation, it tells us how things really work around here. Application experiences (and the back-end processing) will point us to challenges a new solution is likely to face.
For example, a health service application we came across recently asked highly personal questions without any reference to privacy or security. This could suggest that the organisation has health practitioners on the front line rather than customer service specialists (which can be expensive). Or maybe data governance was not prioritised by the organisation. Getting to the bottom of these can help design an AX that will float, not sink, when it goes live.
Forewarned is forearmed, and a key to building robust applicant experiences is making sure they will weather the elements. The process of redesigning an AX is, itself, an opportunity to iron out challenges in governance and ownership so that the output represents a better organisation as well as a better application experience.
Not every experience needs to be seamless or frictionless (or whatever smooth word rolls out of Y Combinator next). Some applications have a huge upside for applicants if they get it right. Understanding what people are there to get can help you balance what you ask of them along the way.
Think about visa applications (the domain of one of our clients). As a recent project progressed, words like “frictionless” soon gave way to earnest discussions about getting accurate, quality applications, which had been a major drag on resources. Knowing applicants were highly motivated meant we could guide them to gather accurate and specific information, leaving the team (and the tech) to focus efforts on validation and appraisal.
When you know what’s in it for users, you can find a reasonable balance that respects their time, but also maximises the quality of outcomes (and the efficiencies of processing applications).
An inclusive application experience is more than a social good – it’s a strategic advantage. Ensuring your process accommodates a diverse range of applicants and needs increases the breadth of talent available and supports progress on DEI targets. As one of the world’s most culturally and linguistically diverse countries, creating an inclusive process in Australia is critical. Barriers like overly complex language, culturally specific requirements, or inaccessible platforms can deter qualified applicants.
For example, many organisations unintentionally exclude diverse candidates by using overly complex job descriptions or application forms. A process that relies heavily on complex English without offering translations or support can deter highly qualified candidates from ESL backgrounds from even applying. When talented individuals are excluded, organisations miss out on the unique perspectives and insights that can drive impact and commercial success.
By asking the simple question of “Who’s being left out?” - the unseen becomes seen, and the path to a more equitable and impactful applicant experience becomes clear.
Great design starts with asking great questions. If you’re looking at sharpening up your costs or simply lifting your brand experience, start here. These questions open eyes and conversations to the improvements that could be made, and you don’t even need experts (like us) to get started.
Got questions of your own about your applicant experience? Get in touch.