RCA Quiz Case: The CSAT Score (Customer satisfaction score) for Facebook Fundraisers has taken a plunge. Interviewer: "Can you determine the root cause?" Are you ready to start the quiz? —Please choose an option—I have read the guide to solve the RCA, I'll start.No, let me go back and checkout the RCA guide. Candidate:" Okay. I would like to know ..."(choose an option) —Please choose an option—A – know since when the problem was observedB - Is it observed across all geographies or any specific geography?C - Any assumptions to be made in terms of other classifications? (ex: User’s Device types)D – All the above three insights Please go through the RCA guide and reload this page. Interviewer: " It was identified around a month ago.. Interviewer: " It is observed across all the geographies where this product is available " Interviewer: " mobiles, Tabs, and laptops..no differentiation in drop based device types Interviewer: "That's a good start. Yeah,it was identified a month ago, observed across all available geographies, & all device types Candidate:"Got it. In that case let us begin with..."(choose an option) —Please choose an option—A – broader perspective: External causes that could influence the CSATB – The Internal causes that could influence the CSAT Interviewer: "Alright. Go ahead with the external causes." Candidate:"For starters, I want to understand if there are any.."(choose an option) —Please choose an option—A – Constraints across various geographies to setup fundraising events?B – Are there any recent events that increased the traffic flow to FB fundraisers?C – Has any unprecedented external issue caused the fundraisers application to be down for some time?D – Are there any competitors who are offering better value proposition? Interviewer: "The CSAT is considered from those select geographies where there is an option to start an event. No constraints were noted in these areas. " Interviewer: "Good question. Yes some natural calamities and geopolitical tensions. But no impact caused as the inflow was well accommodated. You can proceed to internal causes now." Interviewer: "This is an internal root cause. Anyways, nothing as such happened" Interviewer: "There are few local players but on a small scale with less traffic" Interviewer: "Alright. Go ahead with the Internal causes." Candidate:"Okay. On a quick note, were there are any... "(choose an option) —Please choose an option—A - Any Changes in the User journey for both Event creator & Donor?B – complaints on low marketing or visibility campaigns due to which the possible donors are not aware of the fundraising event?C – Negative feedback/comments on the fundraisers application seen recently?D – Technical Issues with our payment partners or gateways that caused Users to leave the applicationE – Monetization attempts done (by adding paywalls or charging) to create an event or donate for the same? Interviewer: "Well, not really. as we haven’t changed anything that impacts the user journey and all steps in the user flow remained the same " Interviewer: "The acquisition stage in the funnel is the same as the algorithm did include fundraiser posts into the relevant user's feed & hence, no drop in visibility was observed" Interviewer: "Great question. Yes, there were quite a few comments on user's being ambiguous to donate due to spurious fundraising events." Interviewer: "No currently we are in a tie-up with PayPal and no issues were observed from them." Interviewer: "Very nicely thought, but we plan to keep it un-monetized" Candidate:"In that case I’ll proceed to the internal causes. On a quick note, were there are any... "(choose an option) —Please choose an option—A - Any Changes in the User journey for both Event creator & Donor?B – complaints on low marketing or visibility campaigns due to which the possible donors are not aware of the fundraising event?C – Negative feedback/comments on the fundraisers application seen recently?D – Technical Issues with our payment partners or gateways that caused Users to leave the applicationE – Monetization attempts done (by adding paywalls or charging) to create an event or donate for the same? Interviewer: "Well, not really. as we haven’t changed anything that impacts the user journey and all steps in the user flow remained the same " Interviewer: "The acquisition stage in the funnel is the same as the algorithm did include fundraiser posts into the relevant user's feed & hence, no drop in visibility was observed" Interviewer: "Great question. Yes, there were quite a few comments on user's being ambiguous to donate due to spurious fundraising events." Interviewer: "No currently we are in a tie-up with PayPal and no issues were observed from them." Interviewer: "Very nicely thought, but we plan to keep it un-monetized" Candidate:"Okay. I get it. Based on the user comments, I would like to know more about these fake/spurious events. Can you tell me... "(choose an option) —Please choose an option—A – Since when has the spurious event creation started and how sooner or later were they identified by the product team?B – What were the action steps or risk mitigation strategies employed to curb these events?C – Both A & BD – If any legal disputes arised due to these spurious fundraising events? Interviewer: "identified a month ago, these events were scrutinized and were found to be created a month before the product team identified them" Interviewer: "Yes, we did a survey with our users to assess the impact and the team is working on the solution currently" Interviewer: "Perfect!! Both of them are important aspects to this issue. Our team came across this issue a month later. Based on this we decided to assess the magnitude of this issue by conducting an user survey " Interviewer: "No. That’s a sure possibility but luckily nothing happened as such" Candidate:"Okay. I get it. Based on the user comments, I would like to know more about these fake/spurious events. Can you tell me... "(choose an option) —Please choose an option—A – Since when has the spurious event creation started and how sooner or later were they identified by the product team?B – What were the action steps or risk mitigation strategies employed to curb these events?C – Both A & BD – If any legal disputes arised due to these spurious fundraising events? Interviewer: "identified a month ago, these events were scrutinized and were found to be created a month before the product team identified them" Interviewer: "Yes, we did a survey with our users to assess the impact and the team is working on the solution currently" Interviewer: "Perfect!! Both of them are important aspects to this issue. Our team came across this issue a month later. Based on this we decided to assess the magnitude of this issue by conducting an user survey " Interviewer: "No. That’s a sure possibility but luckily nothing happened as such" Candidate:"Okay. Now I understand the issue. Based on the information we can conclude that... "(choose an option) —Please choose an option—A - The spurious events were the primary reason for the drop in CSATB – The spurious events may have caused a significant damage to the user’s perception that made them more wary about their donation to a credible source.C – After reviewing the other factors that are involved in the CSAT calculation, we can deduce a list of factors (including the Spurious events factor) that may have accounted for the drop in CSAT scoreD – No solid proof is observed to account anything for the drop based on the data stated Interviewer: "Ah.. you missed something, try again" Interviewer: "That’s true, but try thinking from an overall perspective as well" Interviewer: "That was the answer I was looking for!! Good job." Interviewer: "Not really, we can definitely infer something from this issue, Try again" Candidate:"Okay. Now I understand the issue. Based on the information we can conclude that... "(choose an option) —Please choose an option—A - The spurious events were the primary reason for the drop in CSATB – The spurious events may have caused a significant damage to the user’s perception that made them more wary about their donation to a credible source.C – After reviewing the other factors that are involved in the CSAT calculation, we can deduce a list of factors (including the Spurious events factor) that may have accounted for the drop in CSAT scoreD – No solid proof is observed to account anything for the drop based on the data stated Interviewer: "Ah.. you missed something, try again" Interviewer: "That’s true, but try thinking from an overall perspective as well" Interviewer: "That was the answer I was looking for!! Good job." Interviewer: "Not really, we can definitely infer something from this issue, Try again"
