The Total Economic Impact™ Of TruValidate Inbound Authentication
Cost Savings And Business Benefits Enabled By TruValidate Inbound Authentication
A Forrester Total Economic Impact™ Study Commissioned By TransUnion, December 2024
In today’s rapidly evolving digital landscape, organizations face increasing challenges to ensure secure and efficient customer interactions. TruValidate Inbound Authentication addresses these challenges by providing a solution that enhances operational efficiency, reduces risk, and supports organizational growth. This study highlights the financial and operational benefits that organizations can achieve by implementing Inbound Authentication, making it a valuable consideration for organizations looking to optimize their authentication processes and reduce call center fraud.
TruValidate Inbound Authentication streamlines the authentication process for inbound calls, reducing the need for knowledge-based authentication (KBA) questions and enabling faster, more secure customer interactions. By leveraging real-time data on call authenticity, the solution helps organizations prevent fraud and improve customer satisfaction. The system’s scalability and reliability ensure that it can support growing call volumes and evolving security requirements.
TransUnion commissioned Forrester Consulting to conduct a Total Economic Impact™ (TEI) study and examine the potential return on investment (ROI) enterprises may realize by deploying TruValidate Inbound Authentication.1 The purpose of this study is to provide readers with a framework to evaluate the potential financial impact of TruValidate Inbound Authentication on their organizations.
Return on investment (ROI)
181%
Net present value (NPV)
$2.57M
To better understand the benefits, costs, and risks associated with this investment, Forrester interviewed five decision-makers with experience using Inbound Authentication. For the purposes of this study, Forrester aggregated the interviewees’ experiences and combined the results into a single composite organization that is a financial services organization with annual revenue of $3 billion and annual inbound call volume of 12 million.
Interviewees said that prior to using Inbound Authentication, their organization struggled with inefficient authentication processes, high operational costs, and increased fraud risks. These limitations led to longer call handling times, higher customer dissatisfaction, and higher fraud-related costs.
After the investment in Inbound Authentication, the interviewees reported significant improvements in operational efficiency, fraud prevention, and customer satisfaction. Key results from the investment included a reduction in average call handling time, an increase in interactive voice response (IVR) containment rates, and a decrease in fraud operations and detection costs. Respondents noted that these benefits collectively contributed to a more secure, efficient, and customer-friendly authentication process.
Key Findings
Quantified benefits. Three-year, risk-adjusted present value (PV) quantified benefits for the composite organization include:
- Reduced the average call handling time by 15%, leading to improved operational costs. TruValidate Inbound Authentication enhances the composite organization’s operational efficiency by reducing average call handling time. It authenticates callers before they connect with agents, cutting down on lengthy verification processes. By eliminating the need for KBA questions and other verification methods, call center agents can handle more calls, reducing overall operational costs and improving customer satisfaction. These efficiencies save the composite $3.1 million in operational costs.
- Increased IVR containment rate of 1.1%. Inbound Authentication enhances IVR containment for the composite organization by allowing callers to resolve their issues without speaking with live agents. IVR reduces the number of calls that agents need to handle, thereby lowering operational costs and improving call center efficiency. IVR containment also leads to faster resolutions and improves customer satisfaction. The composite saves $577,000 by increasing its IVR containment rates with Inbound Authentication.
- Deflected 30% of serious fraud attempts, reducing overall fraud. Inbound Authentication helps the composite organization reduce fraud operations and detection costs by deflecting calls with fraudulent intent. This proactive approach prevents a percentage of fraud cases, thereby reducing the average loss per fraud and the workload of fraud detection teams. Moreover, Inbound Authentication lowers false positive rates by providing more accurate and reliable trust scores for incoming calls. For the composite organization, this reduction in false positives means fewer legitimate customers are incorrectly flagged as suspicious, leading to smoother customer interactions and higher satisfaction. Additionally, it reduces the operational burden on fraud teams, allowing them to focus on genuine threats rather than investigating false alarms. This improvement enhances overall efficiency and security, contributes to more positive customer experiences, and streamlines operations. The composite realizes savings of $322,000 due to lowered fraud.
Unquantified benefits. Benefits that provide value for the composite organization but are not quantified for this study include:
- Proactive fraud prevention beyond inbound call attempts. Not all serious fraud attempts are carried out through inbound phone calls; however, many fraudsters use phone interactions to research IVR systems and agent questions — information that enables them to commit future fraud. By preventing these individuals from reaching agents or penetrating the IVR, the composite organization reduces the risk of fraud. This proactive approach helps deter fraudsters from gathering information to exploit vulnerabilities, thereby enhancing overall security. While it is difficult to quantify the exact impact, this preventive measure plays a crucial role in reducing fraud-related costs and protecting customer data.
- Enhanced customer experience, customer satisfaction score (CSAT), and Net Promoter Score℠ (NPS). The composite organization finds that Inbound Authentication’s authentication process improves the overall customer experience during calls. The platform’s streamlined authentication process reduces friction, making the client call experience smoother and more efficient. This improvement inherently leads to better customer experience, as evidenced by higher customer satisfaction scores and NPS.
- Increased trust and reliability. The composite organization values the reliability and trustworthiness of Inbound Authentication. The product works consistently without significant issues, building employee trust and ensuring smooth operations. The consistent performance of Inbound Authentication’s tools has been crucial in maintaining the composite organization’s operational efficiency and customer trust, reinforcing the reliability of its authentication processes.
Costs. Three-year, risk-adjusted PV costs for the composite organization include:
- Inbound Authentication fees of $1.1M. The annual licensing costs for Inbound Authentication follow a price-per-call model, and the total annual licensing cost can vary depending on the composite’s call volume. Since call volumes fluctuate throughout the year, this model allows businesses to align their expenses with operational needs.
- Implementation, training, and ongoing maintenance costs of $323,000. Implementing Inbound Authentication involves several stages, including planning, technical integration, and testing. The implementation phase typically includes costs for labor, professional services, and necessary hardware or software. Additionally, ongoing costs include minimal internal labor for governance and support.
The representative interviews and financial analysis found that a composite organization experiences benefits of $3.99M over three years versus costs of $1.42M, adding up to a net present value (NPV) of $2.57M and an ROI of 181%.
Key Statistics
-
Return on investment (ROI)
181%
-
Benefits PV
$3.99M
-
Net present value (NPV)
$2.57M
-
Payback
<6 months
Benefits (Three-Year)
Operational cost savings Increased IVR containment Reduced fraudTEI Framework And Methodology
From the information provided in the interviews, Forrester constructed a Total Economic Impact™ framework for those organizations considering an investment in TruValidate Inbound Authentication.
The objective of the framework is to identify the cost, benefit, flexibility, and risk factors that affect the investment decision. Forrester took a multistep approach to evaluate the impact that Inbound Authentication can have on an organization.
-
Due Diligence
Interviewed TransUnion stakeholders and Forrester analysts to gather data relative to Inbound Authentication.
-
Interviews
Interviewed five people at organizations using Inbound Authentication to obtain data about costs, benefits, and risks.
-
Composite Organization
Designed a composite organization based on characteristics of the interviewees’ organizations.
-
Financial Model Framework
Constructed a financial model representative of the interviews using the TEI methodology and risk-adjusted the financial model based on issues and concerns of the interviewees.
-
Case Study
Employed four fundamental elements of TEI in modeling the investment impact: benefits, costs, flexibility, and risks. Given the increasing sophistication of ROI analyses related to IT investments, Forrester’s TEI methodology provides a complete picture of the total economic impact of purchase decisions. Please see Appendix A for additional information on the TEI methodology.
Disclosures
Readers should be aware of the following:
This study is commissioned by TransUnion and delivered by Forrester Consulting. It is not meant to be used as a competitive analysis.
Forrester makes no assumptions as to the potential ROI that other organizations will receive. Forrester strongly advises that readers use their own estimates within the framework provided in the study to determine the appropriateness of an investment in Inbound Authentication.
TransUnion reviewed and provided feedback to Forrester, but Forrester maintains editorial control over the study and its findings and does not accept changes to the study that contradict Forrester’s findings or obscure the meaning of the study.
TransUnion provided the customer names for the interviews but did not participate in the interviews.
Consulting Team:
Luca Son
Marianne Friis
Drivers leading to the Inbound Authentication investment
Interviews
| Role | Industry | Region | Annual revenue |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fraud policy strategist | Financial services | US headquarters, global reach | $150B+ |
| IVR product owner | Financial services | North America | $5B |
|
Director of call center operations Call center manager |
Financial services | North America | $2B+ |
| Senior manager of global IT communications | Financial services | North America | $1B+ |
Key Challenges
Before implementing TruValidate Inbound Authentication, interviewees’ organizations typically relied on traditional KBA, voice biometrics, and other manual processes to verify caller identities. These methods often involved asking customers a series of security questions, such as their date of birth, Social Security number, or address. While these processes aimed to ensure caller authentication, they were time consuming and prone to errors, leading to longer call handling times and customer frustration.
Additionally, interviewees’ organizations faced challenges with fragmented systems and inconsistent authentication measures, which made it difficult to effectively prevent fraud. The reliance on manual intervention for fraud detection and response further increased operational costs and left organizations vulnerable to sophisticated fraud attempts. These limitations highlighted the need for a more efficient, accurate, and scalable authentication solution.
The interviewees noted their organization’s struggles with common challenges, including:
- High operational costs. Manual fraud detection and authentication processes increased operational costs among contact center and fraud teams due to additional staff and training resource needs. This inefficiency led to higher operational costs as more staff were needed to handle the workload, and errors or oversights could also further escalate costs. The IVR product owner at a financial services organization said: “Any time that you have a manual process, there’s always room for errors. Not only was it time consuming to have all these calls go out to a call center representative for a second-level authentication, but it also increased wait times in the call centers and on the phone for the person calling.”
- Ineffective operations scaling. As organizations grew, scaling operations to handle the increasing call volumes and expanding customer base became a significant challenge. The previous authentication systems were unable to efficiently manage the surge in call volumes, leading to bottlenecks and delays. For instance, the director of call center operations at a financial services organization reported exponential membership growth, from around 80,000 to over 115,000 members. This growth strained the organization’s authentication processes, which were initially unequipped to handle such a large call volume. The manual processes in place were not scalable, resulting in longer waiting times and increased operational costs. The need to authenticate a growing number of calls without compromising security or customer experience highlighted the limitations of its existing systems. This challenge underscored the necessity for a more robust and scalable authentication solution.
- Customer frustration and poor experiences. Interviewees reported that lengthy and cumbersome authentication processes, like KBA, led to high call volumes, long holding times, and poor experiences. These processes frustrated customers and led to lower CSAT and NPS. Customers often had to go through multiple steps to verify their identity, which was inconvenient and time consuming. The director of call center operations at a financial services organization noted that asking customers out-of-pocket questions or for preset passwords was outdated and resulted in negative experiences. This frustration increased abandonment rates and lowered customer satisfaction, as customers were dissatisfied with the effort required to complete transactions.
- Inefficient fraud detection. Before implementing Inbound Authentication, interviewees’ organizations struggled with fraud detection due to a reliance on time-consuming and error-prone manual processes that led to numerous false positives. Organizations struggled to detect and prevent sophisticated fraud attempts, such as call spoofing. The fraud policy strategist at a financial services organization experienced issues with perpetrators spoofing calls to appear legitimate, highlighting their need for a tool that could accurately identify tampered or spoofed calls. Inconsistent security measures left respondents’ organizations vulnerable to fraud, potential financial losses, and reputational damage.
Why TruValidate Inbound Authentication
- Gain operational efficiency. Interviewees’ organizations that invested in Inbound Authentication were able to reduce operational costs by minimizing the time and resources spent on manual fraud detection and authentication.
- Improve fraud detection and reduce false positives. The accuracy of Inbound Authentication’s authentication reduced the number of false positives for interviewees’ organizations, ensuring a seamless experience for legitimate customers. The senior manager of global IT communications at a financial services organization said, “[Inbound Authentication] really helped weed out a lot of the false positives.”
- Enhance customer experience. By streamlining the authentication process, interviewees aimed to improve the overall customer experience, reducing frustration and increasing satisfaction.
- Achieve scalability and growth. Interviewees noted that Inbound Authentication supported the scalability of their organization’s operations and allowed them to handle increased call volumes without compromising security or efficiency.
- Meet regulatory compliance. Investing in Inbound Authentication helped interviewees’ organizations meet regulatory requirements for authentication and fraud prevention.
Composite Organization
Based on the interviews, Forrester constructed a TEI framework, a composite company, and an ROI analysis that illustrates the areas financially affected. The composite organization is representative of the four interviewees, and it is used to present the aggregate financial analysis in the next section. The composite organization has the following characteristics:
Description of composite. The composite organization is a global financial services company headquartered in the United States with annual revenue of $3 billion. It handles 12 million inbound calls annually, which primarily consist of customer service inquiries. These inquiries include account status checks, fraud challenges, and online banking and self-service support. Additionally, the organization manages calls related to card fraud, payment and transfer processing, and various account-related issues. The average cost per minute for handling these calls is $1, and the average handle time is 5 minutes. Before implementing TruValidate Inbound Authentication, the organization relied on knowledge-based questions and other legacy authentication methods to verify inbound call volumes, which were time consuming and often led to customer frustration.
Deployment characteristics. The composite organization uses Inbound Authentication to streamline its call authentication processes. The solution deployment has automated fraud detection and authentication processes, reducing the composite’s reliance on manual interventions. Inbound Authentication also enables the organization to scale its operations effectively, handling growing call volumes without compromising security or service quality. This deployment has positioned the composite organization to improve resource management, reduce fraud-related losses, and maintain high customer service standards.
Quantified benefit data as applied to the composite
Total Benefits
| Ref. | Benefit | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Total | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atr | Operational cost savings | $1,243,125 | $1,243,125 | $1,243,125 | $3,729,375 | $3,091,468 |
| Btr | Increased IVR containment | $232,050 | $232,050 | $232,050 | $696,150 | $577,074 |
| Ctr | Reduced fraud | $129,600 | $129,600 | $129,600 | $388,800 | $322,296 |
| Total benefits (risk-adjusted) | $1,604,775 | $1,604,775 | $1,604,775 | $4,814,325 | $3,990,838 | |
Operational Cost Savings
Evidence and data. TruValidate Inbound Authentication significantly enhanced the interviewees’ organization’s operational efficiency by reducing the average call handling time. It authenticates callers before they connect with agents, shortening lengthy verification processes. By eliminating the need for KBA questions and other verification methods, call center agents saved valuable time on each call. This streamlined process allowed agents to handle more calls, reducing overall operational costs and improving customer satisfaction. Interviewees provided the following evidence:
- The IVR product owner at a financial services organization reported that eliminating manual second-level authentication saved 60 seconds per call, equating to $1.8 million in annual savings.
- The fraud policy strategist at a financial services organization noted that before using Inbound Authentication, agents spent 30 to 45 seconds per call on KBA questions. With Inbound Authentication, this time was reduced to almost zero, significantly improving efficiency. The fraud policy strategist said: “We used to ask many KBA questions, like date of birth, Social Security number, and address. Over time, this information became less useful. The seamless authentication provided by [Inbound Authentication] has allowed us to eliminate these questions when authenticating a client who is calling us.”
Modeling and assumptions. Based on the interviews, Forrester assumes the following about the composite organization:
- Agents handle 25% of the annual inbound call volume of 12 million calls.
- Inbound Authentication authenticates 65%, or 1,950,000, of these calls.
- The composite organization saves 45 seconds per call with Inbound Authentication, reducing average handle time by 15%.
Risks. Forrester recognizes that these results may not be representative of all experiences. The impact of this benefit will vary depending on:
- Organizational maturity.
- Technical complexity or issues during implementation or operation.
- Training gaps.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this benefit downward by 15%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $3.1 million.
Operational Cost Savings
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | Annual inbound call volume | Composite | 12,000,000 | 12,000,000 | 12,000,000 |
| A2 | Call volume handled by agents | Composite | 25% | 25% | 25% |
| A3 | Total calls handled by agents | A1*A2 | 3,000,000 | 3,000,000 | 3,000,000 |
| A4 | Percentage of calls authenticated by Inbound Authentication | Interviews | 65% | 65% | 65% |
| A5 | Total calls authenticated by Inbound Authentication | A3*A4 | 1,950,000 | 1,950,000 | 1,950,000 |
| A6 | Average handle time (minutes) | Composite | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| A7 | Reduction in Average handle time with Inbound Authentication | Interviews | 15% | 15% | 15% |
| A8 | Time saved per call authenticated with Inbound Authentication (seconds) | A6*A7*60 seconds | 45 | 45 | 45 |
| A9 | Total call minutes saved with Inbound Authentication | A5*(A8/60 seconds) | 1,462,500 | 1,462,500 | 1,462,500 |
| A10 | Cost per minute | Composite | $1.00 | $1.00 | $1.00 |
| At | Operational cost savings | A9*A10 | $1,462,500 | $1,462,500 | $1,462,500 |
| Risk adjustment | ↓15% | ||||
| Atr | Operational cost savings (risk-adjusted) | $1,243,125 | $1,243,125 | $1,243,125 | |
| Three-year total: $3,729,375 | Three-year present value: $3,091,468 | ||||
Increased IVR Containment
Evidence and data. Interviewees reported that TruValidate Inbound Authentication enhanced IVR containment for their organization and allowed callers to resolve their issues without needing to speak to live agents. This enhancement reduced the number of calls that agents needed to handle, thereby lowering operational costs and improving call center efficiency. It also led to faster resolutions and improved customer satisfaction.
-
The IVR product owner at a financial services organization reported improvements in IVR containment rates from 15% to 30% for newly enrolled voice biometric calls due to Inbound Authentication’s pre-ring check, a preliminary risk assessment and verification process that occurs while the phone rings. They said: “We can keep [the authentication process] within the IVR because of [Inbound Authentication]. It is attached to our security suite standard, so it provides a trust indicator, and we compare that with other factors within our system. It does our fraud checks and basically provides a score saying, ‘Yes. We will allow these scores into our environment. These callers can self-service.’”
The IVR product owner continued: “If callers couldn’t self-service, we would need about 100 FTEs of additional support. By using the authenticator for a pre-ring check, we could unlock newly enrolled voice biometrics without needing agents for second-level authentication. Previously, callers had to go through the contact center for every call. Implementing this authenticator for pre-ring checks has been hugely beneficial as our second factor of authentication.” - Another interviewee at a financial services organization noted that they experienced a 0.5% increase in IVR containment due to Inbound Authentication, resulting in fewer calls transferred to agents and more cost savings.
- The director of call center operations at a financial services organization said: “Automating the initial process and guiding members through their touchpoint responses has efficiently directed them to the right departments and resources. This has reduced time for members and staff, shortened calls and wait times, and improved overall operations, even for non-call center departments.”
Modeling and assumptions. Based on the interviews, Forrester assumes the following about the composite organization:
- The composite has a mature IVR program with a 65% containment rate before implementing Inbound Authentication.
- With Inbound Authentication, the IVR improves the IVR containment rate by 1.1%, to 65.7%.
- The composite’s call center agents spend an average of 5 minutes handling each call.
- The estimated handling cost is $1 per minute.
Risks. Forrester recognizes that these results may not be representative of all experiences. The impact of this benefit will vary depending on:
- Evolving authentication requirements and updates to IVR systems.
- Customer adoption to adapt to IVR.
- System downtime.
- Complex call types.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this benefit downward by 15%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $577,000.
Increased IVR Containment
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B1 | Annual inbound call volume | Composite | 12,000,000 | 12,000,000 | 12,000,000 |
| B2 | Percentage of calls authenticated by Inbound Authentication | A4 | 65% | 65% | 65% |
| B3 | IVR containment rate before Inbound Authentication | 100%-A2-10% call drop offs | 65% | 65% | 65% |
| B4 | IVR containment rate for calls authenticated by Inbound Authentication | Interviews | 1.1% | 1.1% | 1.1% |
| B5 | IVR containment rate with call authenticated by Inbound Authentication | B3*(1+B4) | 65.7% | 65.7% | 65.7% |
| B6 | Total additional annual calls contained with Inbound Authentication | B1*B2*(B5-B3) | 54,600 | 54,600 | 54,600 |
| B7 | Average handling time in minutes | Composite | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| B8 | Cost per minute | A10 | $1.00 | $1.00 | $1.00 |
| Bt | Increased IVR containment | B6*B7*B8 | $273,000 | $273,000 | $273,000 |
| Risk adjustment | ↓15% | ||||
| Btr | Increased IVR containment (risk-adjusted) | $232,050 | $232,050 | $232,050 | |
| Three-year total: $696,150 | Three-year present value: $577,074 | ||||
Reduced Fraud
Evidence and data. TruValidate Inbound Authentication helped interviewees’ organizations reduce fraud operations and detection costs by deflecting calls with fraudulent intent. This proactive approach prevented a percentage of fraud cases, thereby avoiding the average loss per fraud incident and reducing the workload on fraud detection teams. Moreover, Inbound Authentication lowered false positive rates by providing more accurate and reliable trust scores for incoming calls. Inbound Authentication helped interviewees’ organizations distinguish between legitimate callers and potential fraudsters more effectively than traditional methods. For the interviewees, this reduction in false positives meant fewer legitimate customers were incorrectly flagged as suspicious, leading to smoother customer interactions and higher satisfaction. Additionally, it reduced the operational burden on fraud teams and allowed them to focus on genuine threats rather than investigating false alarms. This improvement enhanced overall efficiency and security, contributing to a more positive customer experience and streamlined operations.
- The director of call center operations at a financial services organization reported deflecting three to five serious fraud attempts daily with Inbound Authentication, preventing potential losses ranging from thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
- The senior manager of global IT communications at a financial services organization noted a 2.6% call deflection rate — the percentage of customer inquiries successfully redirected from traditional voice calls — with Inbound Authentication, significantly reducing the number of fraudulent calls and associated disputes.
Modeling and assumptions. Based on the interviews, Forrester assumes the following about the composite organization:
- While the composite organization experiences multiple fraud attempts across different channels, it receives 360 serious third-party inbound phone fraud attempts per year.
- The composite deflects 30% of the fraudulent calls, which is directly attributable to Inbound Authentication.
- The avoided fraud attempts save the composite organization $1,500 per incident with a total annual cost of $162,000.
Risks. Forrester recognizes that these results may not be representative of all experiences. The impact of this benefit will vary depending on:
- An increase in fraud and attack sophistication.
- False positives.
- Integration challenges.
- Regulatory changes.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this benefit downward by 20%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $322,000.
Reduced Fraud
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | Third-party inbound phone fraud attempts per year | Composite | 360 | 360 | 360 |
| C2 | Percentage of fraudulent intent calls deflected directly attributable to Inbound Authentication | Interviews | 30% | 30% | 30% |
| C3 | Avoided fraud cases | C1*C2 | 108 | 108 | 108 |
| C4 | Average loss per fraud instance | Composite | $1,500 | $1,500 | $1,500 |
| Ct | Reduced fraud | C3*C4 | $162,000 | $162,000 | $162,000 |
| Risk adjustment | ↓20% | ||||
| Ctr | Reduced fraud (risk-adjusted) | $129,600 | $129,600 | $129,600 | |
| Three-year total: $388,800 | Three-year present value: $322,296 | ||||
Unquantified Benefits
Interviewees mentioned the following additional benefits that their organization experienced but were not able to quantify:
-
Proactive fraud prevention beyond inbound call attempts. Interviewees noted that although not all serious fraud attempts occurred through inbound phone calls, many fraudsters used these interactions to research the IVR system and agent questions to commit future fraud. By preventing these individuals from reaching agents or penetrating the IVR, organizations could reduce fraud risk. This proactive approach helped deter fraudsters from gathering information to exploit vulnerabilities, thereby enhancing overall security. While it is difficult to quantify the exact impact, this preventive measure plays a crucial role in reducing fraud-related costs and protecting customer data.
The senior manager of global IT communications estimated that six of their organization’s fraud agent FTEs could each save 5% of their time. They said: “On the fraud side, you’re reducing the number of disputes filed and overall fraud. This, in turn, reduces the effort needed to fight fraud organization wide.”
-
Enhanced customer experience, CSAT, and NPS. Inbound Authentication’s authentication process significantly improved the overall client experience during calls. For instance, the fraud policy strategist at a financial services organization highlighted that the streamlined authentication provided by Inbound Authentication reduced friction, made the call experience smoother and more efficient for their clients and ultimately led to a more positive customer experience.
Similarly, the IVR product owner at a financial services organization reported improvements in their CSAT and NPS after implementing Inbound Authentication. They attributed an NPS improvement of 2 percentage points to the solution’s reduced wait times and smoother authentication process, which made customer interactions more pleasant. - Increased trust and reliability. The director of call center operations and the senior manager of global IT communications highlighted that the product consistently worked without significant issues, which built trust and ensured smooth operations. The director of call center operations mentioned that the consistent performance of Inbound Authentication’s tools had been crucial in maintaining their operational efficiency and customer trust.
Flexibility
The value of flexibility is unique to each customer. There are multiple scenarios in which a customer might implement TruValidate Inbound Authentication and later realize additional uses and business opportunities, including:
- Scalability and growth support. Inbound Authentication’s tools support organizational scalability and growth by efficiently enabling agents to handle increased call volumes. The director of call center operations at a financial services organization mentioned that this support was crucial in maintaining high service quality as their organization expanded from 80,000 to 115,000 members. This scalability ensures that organizations can continue to provide high-quality service as they grow without being overwhelmed by increased demand.
Flexibility would also be quantified when evaluated as part of a specific project (described in more detail in Appendix A).
Quantified cost data as applied to the composite
Total Costs
| Ref. | Cost | Initial | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Total | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dtr | Inbound Authentication fees | $0 | $441,000 | $441,000 | $441,000 | $1,323,000 | $1,096,702 |
| Etr | Implementation, training, and ongoing management | $258,588 | $25,960 | $25,960 | $25,960 | $336,468 | $323,147 |
| Total costs (risk-adjusted) | $258,588 | $466,960 | $466,960 | $466,960 | $1,659,468 | $1,419,849 | |
Inbound Authentication Fees
Evidence and data. The annual licensing costs for TruValidate Inbound Authentication follow a price-per-call model. The total annual licensing cost can vary depending on the volume of calls handled by an organization. This model allows businesses to align expenses and operational needs, ensuring cost-effectiveness as call volumes fluctuate throughout the year.
Modeling and assumptions. Based on the interviews, Forrester assumes the following about the composite organization:
- The composite organization pays $420,000 for Inbound Authentication and remains steady for the first three years. The price is based on the cost-per-call structure.
- Pricing may vary. Contact TransUnion for additional details.
Risks. Forrester recognizes that these results may not be representative of all experiences. The impact of this cost will vary depending on:
- Fluctuating call volumes.
- Vendor price increases.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this cost upward by 5%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $1.1 million.
Inbound Authentication Fees
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Initial | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1 | Inbound Authentication fees | Composite | $420,000 | $420,000 | $420,000 | ||
| Dt | Inbound Authentication fees | D1 | $0 | $420,000 | $420,000 | $420,000 | |
| Risk adjustment | ↑5% | ||||||
| Dtr | Inbound Authentication fees (risk-adjusted) | $0 | $441,000 | $441,000 | $441,000 | ||
| Three-year total: $1,323,000 | Three-year present value: $1,096,702 | ||||||
Implementation, Training, And Ongoing Management
Evidence and data. Implementing TruValidate Inbound Authentication involves several stages, including planning, technical integration, and testing. The implementation phase typically includes costs for labor, professional services, and necessary hardware or software. Additionally, ongoing costs include minimal internal labor for governance and support. Training costs are relatively low, as the system is designed to be user-friendly and integrates seamlessly into existing workflows. Overall, these costs ensure that the system remains up-to-date and continues to deliver value through efficient and secure authentication processes. Effort and costs vary depending on each organization’s requirements and characteristics.
Modeling and assumptions. Based on the interviews, Forrester assumes the following about the composite organization:
- Internal migration takes the composite organization 24 weeks, with four FTEs spending 960 hours total supporting change management and technical implementation.
- Contact center agents each spend one hour in Inbound Authentication training. There are 600 FTEs in the contact center.
- There is an average of 0.2 developer FTEs and business analysts dedicated to ongoing support.
Risks. Forrester recognizes that these results may not be representative of all experiences. The impact of this cost will vary depending on:
- Implementation delays.
- Training effectiveness.
- Ongoing maintenance.
- Technological changes.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this cost upward by 10%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $323,000.
Implementation, Training, And Ongoing Management
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Initial | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E1 | Total FTEs supporting change management and technical implementation | Composite | 4 | ||||
| E2 | Total hours spent on implementation per FTE | 24 weeks * 5 days * 8 hours | 960 | ||||
| E3 | Fully burdened hourly rate for developers and business analysts | Composite | $57 | ||||
| E4 | Subtotal: Internal migration costs | E1*E2*E3 | $218,880 | ||||
| E5 | Contact center FTEs to train | Composite | 600 | ||||
| E6 | Hours of training | Interviews | 1 | ||||
| E7 | Fully burdened hourly rate for a contact center employee | Composite | $27 | ||||
| E8 | Subtotal: Training costs | E5*E6*E7 | $16,200 | ||||
| E9 | Developer and business analyst FTEs dedicated to ongoing support | Interviews | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | ||
| E10 | Fully burdened annual salary for developers and business analysts | Composite | $118,000 | $118,000 | $118,000 | ||
| E11 | Subtotal: Ongoing support costs | E9*E10 | $23,600 | $23,600 | $23,600 | ||
| Et | Implementation, training, and ongoing management | E4+E8+E11 | $235,080 | $23,600 | $23,600 | $23,600 | |
| Risk adjustment | ↑10% | ||||||
| Etr | Implementation, training, and ongoing management (risk-adjusted) | $258,588 | $25,960 | $25,960 | $25,960 | ||
| Three-year total: $336,468 | Three-year present value: $323,147 | ||||||
Consolidated Three-Year, Risk-Adjusted Metrics
Cash Flow Chart (Risk-Adjusted)
Total costs Total benefits Cumulative net benefits Initial Year 1 Year 2 Year 3-
The financial results calculated in the Benefits and Costs sections can be used to determine the ROI, NPV, and payback period for the composite organization’s investment. Forrester assumes a yearly discount rate of 10% for this analysis.
These risk-adjusted ROI, NPV, and payback period values are determined by applying risk-adjustment factors to the unadjusted results in each Benefit and Cost section.
Cash Flow Analysis (Risk-Adjusted Estimates)
| Initial | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Total | Present Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total costs | ($258,588) | ($466,960) | ($466,960) | ($466,960) | ($1,659,468) | ($1,419,849) |
| Total benefits | $0 | $1,604,775 | $1,604,775 | $1,604,775 | $4,814,325 | $3,990,838 |
| Net benefits | ($258,588) | $1,137,815 | $1,137,815 | $1,137,815 | $3,154,857 | $2,570,989 |
| ROI | 181% | |||||
| Payback | <6 months | |||||
Appendix A: Total Economic Impact
Total Economic Impact is a methodology developed by Forrester Research that enhances a company’s technology decision-making processes and assists solution providers in communicating their value proposition to clients. The TEI methodology helps companies demonstrate, justify, and realize the tangible value of business and technology initiatives to both senior management and other key stakeholders.
Total Economic Impact Approach
-
Benefits represent the value the solution delivers to the business. The TEI methodology places equal weight on the measure of benefits and the measure of costs, allowing for a full examination of the effect of the technology on the entire organization.
-
Costs comprise all expenses necessary to deliver the proposed value, or benefits, of the product. The methodology captures implementation and ongoing costs associated with the solution.
-
Flexibility represents the strategic value that can be obtained for some future additional investment building on top of the initial investment already made. The ability to capture that benefit has a PV that can be estimated.
-
Risks measure the uncertainty of benefit and cost estimates given: 1) the likelihood that estimates will meet original projections and 2) the likelihood that estimates will be tracked over time. TEI risk factors are based on “triangular distribution.”
The initial investment column contains costs incurred at “time 0” or at the beginning of Year 1 that are not discounted. All other cash flows are discounted using the discount rate at the end of the year. PV calculations are calculated for each total cost and benefit estimate. NPV calculations in the summary tables are the sum of the initial investment and the discounted cash flows in each year. Sums and present value calculations of the Total Benefits, Total Costs, and Cash Flow tables may not exactly add up, as some rounding may occur.
Appendix B: Endnotes
1 Total Economic Impact is a methodology developed by Forrester Research that enhances a company’s technology decision-making processes and assists vendors in communicating the value proposition of their products and services to clients. The TEI methodology helps companies demonstrate, justify, and realize the tangible value of IT initiatives to both senior management and other key business stakeholders.
PDF 