This document discusses redesigning KLM's website to make it easier for customers to find the most suitable flights. It describes conducting user research through interviews and prototypes to understand customers' needs. Two interface concepts were tested, and one was found to be more successful based on subjective measures of confidence, satisfaction, and purchase intention. The redesign involved a multi-year process of concept development, design, testing, and transition to a new platform. The result was a website that better supported customers in selecting flights.

1. Redesigning KLM.com
Getting users
on board

3. http://www.klm.com

6. 76 countries
608 destinations
20 languages
57 airlines
15 back end systems
7 third parties

7. Online sales
Last year : € XXX million
21× as big as in 2002

8. Continuous growth
So, why change?

9. Back to 2006
9

10. KLM:
“We want it
to do more”

12. Customers:
“It’s hard to find the
most suitable flight”

13. Schedule
(most suitable flight?)
Price

14. Schedule?
(most suitable flight?)
“Flexibility”
Higher Price

15. Example:
Amsterdam –
Copenhagen
Depart 9th september
Return 18th september

16. 9th september:
8 flights to Copenhagen

17. 16th september:
6 flights back to Amsterdam

18. 48
flight combinations
(travel plans)

19. 10
“flexibilities”
(price classes)

20. 480
combinations of schedules
and flexibilities (tickets)
Just for Amsterdam to Copenhagen
On these particular dates

21. 4.000
for some destinations.

22. Travel plan
(most suited flight?)
Budget

24. “Yellow?
I don’t know,
maybe easter?”

27. Customers:
“It’s hard to find the
most suited flight”

28. KLM:
Want it to
do more
Customer:
Quite complex
already

29. KLM:
Want it to
do more
User
Centered
Design
Customer:
Quite complex
already

30. User centered design
Observe, sketch and test

31. The plan

32. Concept Development
& design

33. Who is the user?
What’s his travel
behaviour?

34. Desk research
+
24 Interviews at
Schiphol airport

35. Meet
Dave & Robert

36. Schedule and flexibility

37. Price (and schedule)

38. What tools do Dave
and Robert need to
find flights?

39. Ideas
+
12 × Dave and
Robert

41. “What should
this do?”

42. Not really
needed.
Enough info
to compare

43. Is this the right
direction?

44. First sketches
+
28 × Dave and
Robert

46. “How would you
use this?”

48. “Yellow?
The cheapest
flights!”

49. Two interface variants
Which is best?
(and how to improve)

50. Candidate A Candidate B
“separated” “paired”

51. Two ‘working’
prototypes
+
300 × Dave and Robert

52. “Find a suitable
flight”
+ Satisfaction
+ Actual behaviour:
- Time, clicks, selected flights

53. Candidate A Candidate B
“separated” “paired”
Objective measures:
Non conclusive!
- Same amount of time
and clicks needed.
- Equally successful in
finding best flights

54. Candidate A Candidate B
“separated” “paired”
Subjectives measures:
We have a winner!
- More confident
- More satisfied with
chosen flight
- Bigger intention to
book

56. 450.000 lines of code
New server park
New call center
Transition to new
ticketing platform

59. The devil
is in the details

60. The real thing
+
5.000 × users online
18 × eye tracking in lab

63. Concept Development
& design

64. Ready for take off

65. Result?

68. Old New

69. Change
Small steps

70. Not only
the website

71. Organisation.
Process and persona’s
adopted for new e-services.

72. Redesigning KLM.com
Getting users
on board