Transformed ACKO's roadside assistance from a call centre into a product-led service

ACKO already had roadside assistance. Almost nobody knew it existed. I had to fix that, and rebuild how the whole service worked, from the first tap to the moment help actually arrived.

ACKO roadside assistance
Summary

I led the design of ACKO's first digital roadside assistance product, built from scratch. Before this, the entire service ran through phone calls. At launch, the new product handled 2,188 cases without a single phone call and cut resolution time in half.

This meant working across three connected systems at once. I designed the customer app from scratch. I extended the crew's existing Service OS with new scenarios built for this project. And I worked within the existing agent portal to understand and shape how a request gets assigned and handed off, since the experience is only as strong as its weakest part.

Why ACKO needed this

Roadside assistance (RSA) was already live, but barely. Customers called a number, waited on hold, repeated their story to three different agents, and still had no idea when help was coming. Expensive, slow, and invisible to the customers who needed it most.

Get off the phones
Every RSA request touched 2 to 3 agents across two teams. Allocation happened on a spreadsheet. A digital-first flow was the only path to a sustainable operation.
Sell RSA to people without ACKO insurance
Phase 3 would offer RSA as a standalone paid service to anyone in the top 8 cities. The experience had to earn trust from scratch, with no existing relationship to borrow from.
Turn a stressful moment into a reason to stay
A customer who uses RSA and has a good experience renews their policy. RSA was one of the highest-stakes touchpoints in the product. We were failing it.
14.1%
of customers faced a roadside emergency
~1%
actually used ACKO roadside assistance

Survey of ~500 policyholders + 6,604 call records · Jan to May 2025

What the data showed us

Less than 1% of customers were using a service that 14.1% of them needed. That gap had nothing to do with the app. People didn't know roadside assistance existed, and the ones who did didn't trust it would work.

WHAT THE BRIEF ASSUMED
The app experience is bad. Make it better and people will use it.
WHAT THE DATA SHOWED
Users weren't avoiding the app because it was hard. They weren't opening it at all. The problem was awareness and trust.
THE REAL DESIGN CHALLENGE
Don't replace the phone call. Replace the feeling of not knowing whether anyone is coming.
THE QUESTION WE DESIGNED AROUND
"How might we make someone stranded on a road feel certain that help is coming, before they've even finished asking for it?"
How I approached the problem

Roadside assistance wasn't just an app problem. It was a service design problem, with broken operations, multiple stakeholders, and users in genuine distress. The process reflected that reality.

Design philosophy, the lens behind every decision
Reduce anxiety
Confirming help is on the way had to be instant. Any delay here isn't bad design, it's a broken promise.
Build certainty
Live tracking, real time updates, and technician details, so the user always knows what's happening, not just that something is.
Remove decisions
A stranded person can't evaluate tow truck types. We made those calls for them and only asked what we truly needed to.
Process, what actually happened (not a retrofitted framework)
MAP
Analysed 6,604 call records and mapped the full service, every touchpoint, handoff, and failure point, before touching a screen
REFRAME
14.1% faced emergencies. Less than 1% used ACKO roadside assistance. The problem wasn't the app, it was trust.
ALIGN
Built service flows, not wireframes, as the first stakeholder artefact. Logic before UI.
ITERATE
Multiple rounds across all three connected systems, user flows, wireframes, then high fidelity rounds with distinct feedback each time.
Where I pushed back

Every decision came down to the same tension: what operations needed to run efficiently versus what a stressed user could actually do in the moment.

01
Cut the intake questions from 14 to 6
The call. Operations wanted fourteen questions for accurate dispatch. I found which ones actually changed the outcome and cut the rest. Someone stranded at night isn't answering fourteen questions.
The outcome. Shipped with 6 questions instead of 14. Operations still got what they needed to dispatch correctly.
→ 6 questions
02
Pushed to add an air pump service
The call. Flat tyres were a consistent 7 to 7.4% of every case, and our only fix was sending a technician or a tow truck, both overkill for a problem that often just needed air. I made the case for adding a simpler service despite pushback.
The outcome. Air pump service shipped in phase one. A new service category, added because the data supported it.
→ Phase 1
03
Stopped asking questions users couldn't answer
The call. The towing flow asked what kind of tow truck was needed, whether the car was in neutral, whether the handbrake was on. Most users had no idea. I removed these questions and defaulted to a trained person assessing the car in person instead.
The outcome. This in person assessment became the default towing path across the top 8 cities.
→ Top 8 cities
04
Turned a denial into a clear next step, not a dead end
The call. Accident towing legally requires a no objection certificate from the police, a police document confirming there's no dispute. Without it, we had to turn the user away, a rule I couldn't change. I designed a clear holding screen explaining exactly why, and what to do next.
The outcome. Users saw a specific next step, not an error message with nowhere to go.
→ Clear next step
How the design Evolved
Round 1 · Solution approach
Analysed 6,604 call records Reframed from trust to visibility Defined 3 design principles
Round 2 · Service flows + structure
Simplified service selection Reduced triage from 14 to 6 Made custody the default path
Round 3 · High fidelity exploration
Dynamic entry hierarchy Confidence-building wording Escalation and edge case flows
Round 4 · Shipped ✓
22% app intake at launch Scaled to 100%
What we actually shipped

Phase 1 for roadside assistance add-on policyholders. Phase 2 extended to all policyholders with own damage cover. Phase 3 opens to non-policyholders as a standalone paid service.

Service OS is the internal tool the ground crew used to manage each case.

Three systems had to work together for this to function. I designed the customer app, extended the existing Service OS with scenarios specific to this project, and worked within the existing agent portal to shape how assignment and handoff actually worked.

Customer App
End-to-end roadside assistance flow
  • Emergency entry + awareness hook
  • 9 service types + adaptive probing
  • Custody vs self-serve towing
  • Live tracking + real-time ETA
  • OTP verification + photo custody certificate
  • Payment for non-policyholders
Service OS
RSA within the crew management tool

This tool already existed and was used for other scenarios before this project. My work here was designing how it specifically handled RSA cases, the crew's view of an assigned case, what they see, accept, and update as they work through it.

  • Job assignment by skill + location
  • Status updates across milestones
  • Vehicle photo capture (8-angle)
  • Tow truck request on customer's behalf
The request loop, from booking to resolution

A request starts the same way everywhere, through the app, with probing done either in app or by an in house agent on a call. What happens next depends entirely on location.

In the top 8 cities, and only there, the case goes to an in house crew member through the crew management tool. They accept, travel, assess in person, resolve directly, and can offer custody service. The customer sees live tracking the whole way, since everything is in house. Standalone paid RSA, not tied to an ACKO policy, is only available here too.

Beyond the top 8 cities, only ACKO own damage policyholders can access RSA. There's no in house crew, fulfillment goes to an external partner network with no dedicated setup for us, and assignment alone takes 15 to 20 minutes. An agent manually updates status based on what the partner reports, so the app only reflects it once that happens. Live tracking works for about 40% of these cases, depending on the partner's own tech. The same manual path applies if a top 8 city drop location is beyond 100 kilometers.

What I couldn't fix, and what I did instead
Beyond the top 8 cities, fulfillment still runs through manual partner coordination, the same slow process that existed before this redesign, and custody service isn't available there either, only in house crews can offer that. That's a business and operations level constraint, not something design alone can solve, it needs investment in local crew coverage that didn't exist. What I could control was making sure the parts within design's reach, the intake and the probing experience, stayed just as good regardless of location, so the app never feels broken even in the cities where fulfillment behind the scenes still is.
What changed after launch

The drop in support calls matters most. It means customers found what they needed without having to ask anyone. That's what the product was supposed to do.

50%+
Faster case registration
16 min to 8 min
2,188
Cases registered digitally
Initial launch window
22%
App intake at Phase 1
Scaled to 100%
~43%
Fewer support calls
~350 to ~200/week
~90%
Customer experience score
Post-launch
30 min
Faster average towing
84% turnaround time adherence
Key Learning
"2,188 people didn't call anyone. They opened an app, got help, and moved on. That's the only metric that mattered."
If I ran this project again
01
Service blueprints before stakeholder meetings, not during them
On complex service products, the first artefact needs to own all open questions, before anyone has a position to defend
02
Design advocacy needs a business case, not just a user case
Air pump shipped because I had demand data. Tyre puncture is still in the pipeline. Operations teams respond to numbers. User need alone isn't enough.
03
The most important constraints live with the operations team, not in any planning document
The no objection certificate rule only surfaced in a November email, months into the project. The first week of any service project should be spent with operations, not designing screens.
Final Takeaway
"The best service design isn't felt in the interface. It's felt in the moment someone realises help is already on the way."
Other key projects