[HOLD for payment 2024-11-13] [HOLD for payment 2024-10-22] [$250] Ask our admin leads qualifying questions in Stage 1 and trigger "set up accounting integration" task

[anmurali]

P/S in slack here

Proposal: Ask top down leads relevant qualifying questions so we can customize their onboarding tasks accordingly
Problem: Expensify caters to companies of all sizes, starting from sole props all the way to companies with 1000s of employees and several entities. Further the optimal setup of a workspace varies based on other conditions such as whether the company has an accounting integration or not. The way our current onboarding is designed, it assumes the same tasks, in the same order are important to all of them. This might not be a home run with every lead and might lead to a higher abandonment rate
Hypothesis: If we ask the lead a few simple qualifying questions and use those to show them tasks that we know other leads with similar answers prioritized before adding a card on file, then we have a higher chance of converting them to paid. So, if the same or more admins finish Stage 1 and give us this info, then having this info is more valuable than their company name and first/ last name
Solution:

1. In Stage 1 onboarding, for users that select Manage my team’s expenses, drop asking for Company name and User name. Instead ask for the number of employees they want to onboard and if they have an accounting package. [External]
   

2. Customize the stage 2 onboarding tasks to include accounting integration if one is selected [Internal]

3. Show the accounting feature as enabled in workspace settings LHN if an accounting integration is selected [External]

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021833948133359014485
• Upwork Job ID: 1833948133359014485
• Last Price Increase: 2024-09-11
• Automatic offers:
• nkdengineer | Contributor | 103936426

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @anmurali

[dubielzyk-expensify]

Why are we dropping name on this one? Do we not still think that's useful?

Mock without name selection:

cc @Expensify/design for visibility

[trjExpensify]

• Don't worry you can change this later.

On this copy, can you actually change it later? If so, where?

• Expensify caters to companies of all sizes, starting from sole props all the way to companies with 1000s of employees and several entities.

I kinda' worry that our top end option being 50+ employees makes us seem like we're not a fit for even MM leads, let alone ENT leads that come looking, so I wonder if we tweak these a bit to include some larger company size ranges? I.e

• 1-10
• 11-50
• 51-100
• 101-1000
• 1001+

Sidebar: given the qualifiers on the home page for 1-9 or 10+. Will we only show this screen to ask the question again if they've selected 10+ on the sign-up page? Seems a bit repetitive to ask it again for someone who has already told us they're a VSB with an employee count of 1-9.

• Do you use any accounting software?

Instead of "None" on the accounting solution list, should we change that to "None of the above" or something? For example, if I use Microsoft Dynamics, SAP, Oracle, Sage 50 etc as my accounting solution, "None" isn't an accurate choice for me to select to answer this question. I do use an accounting solution, just not one that has an out-of-the-box connection with Expensify.

[anmurali]

I think the intention behind saying "Don't worry you can change this later" was to convey the fact that this doesn't mean you can't add more employees. Maybe we can reword that to convey the point, which is - give us your best guess, you're not locked down to this range per se. cc @jamesdeanexpensify

[anmurali]

I kinda' worry that our top end option being 50+ employees makes us seem like we're not a fit for even MM leads, let alone ENT leads that come looking, so I wonder if we tweak these a bit to include some larger company size ranges? I.e

I agree, let's use what @trjExpensify recommended for the ranges.

Instead of "None" on the accounting solution list, should we change that to "None of the above" or something?

Also agreed, let's update that

@dubielzyk-expensify can you update the Figma but maybe let's wait for James to give us alternate copy for the size range sub text and we can update in one go?

[jamesdeanexpensify]

It feels like we don't even need to add that subtext at all - the question seems straightforward enough - "How many employees do you have?"

[marcaaron]

Customize the stage 2 onboarding tasks to include accounting integration if one is selected

I think we need some copy for this. A title and description.

[jamesdeanexpensify]

Oh sorry, I was responding to my tag here. Maybe @anmurali or @trjExpensify could confirm what's needed?

[marcaaron]

No worries, @jamesdeanexpensify! I was just generally noting that it was needed, but if you can help would be amazing 🙇

[dubielzyk-expensify]

Changed it to "More than 1000 employees" instead of "1001+ employees". Think it reads a bit better, but happy to change it.

Everything else is changed

[trjExpensify]

Changed it to "More than 1000 employees" instead of "1001+ employees". Think it reads a bit better, but happy to change it.

Sounds good!

Oh sorry, I was responding to my tag #48745 (comment). Maybe @anmurali or @trjExpensify could confirm what's needed?

I don't think anything is needed per se, I'd also be down for starting with no sub-titles.

[jamesdeanexpensify]

@dubielzyk-expensify could you add a comma to "1000" so it's "1,000"? Thank you! I couldn't find the figma file.

Am I needed for anything else in this issue? I'm happy to help, but I want to make sure what (if anything) remains!

[dubielzyk-expensify]

Done

[marcaaron]

Customize the stage 2 onboarding tasks to include accounting integration if one is selected

Still need copy for this.

[anmurali]

I am waiting for Zach and Doza to come back from Netsuite conference to write this copy. But we're not blocked on building this alternate flow . Let's make that an External? @marcaaron

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021833948133359014485

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @s77rt (External)

[dubielzyk-expensify]

Here's the mocks with More Fetures toggled on:

[shawnborton]

Minor nitpicks but for the final screen there, does the intro text stay fixed and not scroll with the page? I would expect it to scroll with the page I think. Also, looks like we need to back the card padding down to 20px there too. Otherwise looking great!

[dubielzyk-expensify]

Minor nitpicks but for the final screen there, does the intro text stay fixed and not scroll with the page? I would expect it to scroll with the page I think.

Agree that I also would expect this, but that's not happening in prod today. Let me file a bug. Screenshot of product:

Fixed padding (and the intro text which I'll fix in a bug):

[nkdengineer]

@s77rt The second PR is here.

Did we also do this?

@anmurali I did this and it works well now

[marcaaron]

Second PR is wrapped here and just waiting for that to go to prod.

And we are tracking the most recent change related to this feature here.

[melvin-bot]

Reviewing label has been removed, please complete the "BugZero Checklist".

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 9.0.57-10 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Add policyID param to CompleteOnboarding API #51070

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-11-13. 🎊

For reference, here are some details about the assignees on this issue:

• @s77rt requires payment through NewDot Manual Requests
• @nkdengineer requires payment automatic offer (Contributor)

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @trjExpensify (Bug), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418 for more details. Please add this bug to a GH project, as outlined in the SO.

[anmurali]

Got @trjExpensify assigned in case we need to process payments while I am OOO

[trjExpensify]

Confirming it's just a pay out for the one PR here? #48745 (comment)

[s77rt]

It's two PRs but one payment since the work was split #49161 and #51070

[melvin-bot]

@anmurali, @trjExpensify, @s77rt, @marcaaron, @nkdengineer Uh oh! This issue is overdue by 2 days. Don't forget to update your issues!

[trjExpensify]

It's two PRs but one payment since the work was split #49161 and #51070

Gotcha, so by "one payment" you mean it's $250 total still?

[s77rt]

Yes but since there was a regression #50637 it's $125 now

[trjExpensify]

Okay, perfect. Thanks for confirming!

Payment summary as follows:

• $125 to @s77rt for the C+ review (go ahead and request!)
• $125 to @nkdengineer for the fix (paid!)

I checked this regression test for the manageMyTeam flow, and it reflects employees and accounting. So I don't think we need an edit there.

All settled up, closing!

[JmillsExpensify]

$125 approved for @s77rt