The Portal Problem
A portal can be technically successful and still leave the customer’s job unfinished. The difficulty often sits between the systems you own and the outcomes people need.
01 / The cost behind the licence
A subscription gives access to software. Delivering a working service also involves design, configuration, development, integration, testing and operational support. Those commitments do not end at launch.
A fair business case includes internal effort and supplier costs, separates initial investment from recurring expenditure and avoids treating released staff time as an automatic cash saving.
Bespoke screens translate internal systems into something a customer can use. As services change, the screens, validation, content and accessibility all need attention. A small policy decision can require changes across several interfaces.
Each exception can introduce another branch. Rules may become duplicated across forms, workflows and staff instructions. Testing must then establish that a change behaves consistently across the service, including less common circumstances.
02 / Between the systems
Connecting an application is more than moving data. Identity, permissions, record ownership, validation and failure handling need clear decisions. When an API or underlying service changes, those connections need maintenance.
A customer may need to repeat information because each application holds a different part of the request. Staff can become the integration layer, looking up records and reconciling differences manually.
Membership, bookings and finance may each provide a separate portal. A common brand or sign-in does not resolve inconsistent rules or duplicated records. Consolidation can require data mapping, access reviews and extensive regression testing before any old functionality can be retired.
03 / The unfinished job
If a customer can begin a change but must telephone to finish it, the organisation has digitised only part of the service. Confusing navigation, incomplete capabilities and unclear confirmation can all generate avoidable follow-up work.
Some human intervention is necessary: sensitive exceptions and uncertain authority should not be bypassed. Distinguish that judgement from rekeying data or repairing failed handoffs. Measure job completion, repeat contact and customer effort alongside portal activity.
32%
Accenture, 13 March 2025. Research included 7,143 consumers in six countries and was completed in October 2024.
Accenture · Customer service on the brink, p. 714%
Gartner surveyed 5,728 customers in December 2023; published 19 August 2024.
Gartner · Self-service resolution researchThese studies concern broader customer service experiences. They do not measure portal project costs, establish that particular portals failed, or demonstrate Avelyndo’s results.
04 / Before the next replacement
A replacement can improve usability or provide missing functionality. It can also recreate the same maintenance problem on a new platform if the organisation still needs to design every customer-facing path and exception.
Identify what is actually limiting the service: the interface, the available system actions, data quality or unresolved policy. Then compare alternatives against the same customer jobs, operating requirements and total cost assumptions.
Avelyndo works with available business capabilities and approved policies. It understands a customer’s request, evaluates the circumstances and coordinates appropriate actions without requiring a separately developed journey for every variation.
This does not remove the need for integrations, security controls or all specialist development. It changes where repeated customer-facing design may be avoidable. A scoped evaluation establishes how the approach works in your organisation.