Disable number porting during activation

[SD08]

It seems to me that a significant number of the activation and porting errors adding to the pile of help requests are at least complicated by, if not a direct result of, attempting simultaneous activation and porting in the same operation.

Public Mobile has acknowledged as much in this message from moderator Dave_M on Nov.15:
http://productioncommunity.publicmobile.ca/t5/Announcements/Doing-wireless-different-has-its-ups-and...
Quoting the relevant portion:
"Separate the activation from the port. If you do the activation first you will have your account setup and ready to go. You can then log into self-serve and complete your port. This prevents incorrect porting information from affecting your activation."

Therefore, my idea is to at least temporarily disable the option during activation that allows customers to port their numbers. Simply leave them with the option to select a new number, and in the place where they would normally enter porting information, display a brief message as to how they may port their number afterward through their self-serve account. At most this would force customers to spend a few extra minutes changing their service provider, but better that than adding unnecessarily to the risk of spending a week+ without service at all, and adding to the activation error backlog.

While this may seem a bit like closing the barn door after the horses have left, it would help minimize any further pile-on. I mean, just because the promotion is over, doesn't mean there are necessarily zero customers signing up at the moment. At the very least, if Public Mobile is planning any further promotional offers soon, then this should ideally be implemented before that.  If this ends up making a difference, perhaps this measure can be left in place indefinitely, at least until the risk of errors from the activation/porting combination is mostly fixed/eliminated.

[srlawren]

@SD08 thanks for posting this idea!  I wholeheartedly support it, and I've thought of posting it myself a couple of times.  I think PM will be reluctant to do it, unfortunately, as it might "scare off" or deter some people that aren't aware of the benefits of doing it separately, and don't want to be bothered with the longer process.  

I think alternatively a more guided porting request form that helps to ensure folks don't enter their info correctly (suggested fields to actually fill in, where to find the info needed, whose name to use as the authorizing name, etc), and that they meet the requirements (account still active, no outstanding overdue balance), and that gives better feedback on the status of the request and so on, would be an idea.

[kav2001c]

@SD08 & @srlawren

Why not disable number port at time of activation permanently?

Usually this is only a problem for Koodo clients but why not putting into activation instructions they need to do a number change after line is active?

Public (& Bell) are only 2 carriers I ever saw who try to do activation + port in one go

Fido, Wind, Koodo, Rogers, Mobilicty and I am sure many others always assign a dummy number first

[srlawren]

@kav2001c didn't realize that was the norm!  Okay, then yes I like the idea of permanently removing the activate+port 1-step option.  

[kav2001c]

@srlawren well to be fair, the norm is usually the guy in the kiosk submitting port request but we do things different here right 

But I think seperating activation issues from port issues would have seriously helped the backlog

Plus as an added bonus, if you did have a port issue at least you could use the Public temp number right?

[SD08]

@srlawren

Those are all great ideas about a guided porting request form.  PM should do that even if they don't eliminate the single-step activation+port option.

@kav2001c

Exactly - if customers activate first, then they have a backup number as insurance against a port error.

Thanks for supporting the idea guys.  Anyone else who finds this a good idea, please vote this up, so we can help make the backlog go away faster, and improve the PM experience for everyone.  

[DustinDauncey]

I'm for this as a workaround, but it should not be the ultimate solution IMHO. The ultimate solution should be to get the system working as well as other provider systems do for this task. Doing it all in one operation adds to a much better user experience (when it works).

[outdoorsaddix]

Agreed! From what we seems to be learning some of the issues are PM related, some are issues that are industry wide and systematic. It makes logical sense to do this, every time I have signed up for new service from the big 3 in store, they give me a temp number and then process the port.