IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/117997.html

Assessing the Impact of Chokepoints in a Customer Onboarding Process

Author

Listed:
  • Rodriguez, A.E.
  • Rosen, John

Abstract

Customer onboarding processes have become dysfunctional, especially with regards to the increasing number, complexity, and often, competing demands, of regulatory and law enforcement bodies with oversight over a firm’s practices. Prospective customers are screened across any number of considerations ranging from conventional ones such as financial considerations (i. e., “Does this customer have an acceptable balance sheet?”) to the more recent socio-cultural ones (i. e. “does this customer have an effective diversity program?” “Has this customer expressed a commitment to environmentally sustainable business practices?”). An impaired sales pipeline resulting from an impaired customer vetting process may lead to lowered economic returns, reduced profitability, erosion of market share. A firm intent on repairing their customer intake processes could examine whether rescinding or reducing extant customer acceptance thresholds will enhance their performance. However, many firms are beset by a peculiar outcome that complicates auditing the onboarding process. Customer portfolios are routinely culled of non-performing customers or costly-to-serve customers, leaving a selection of seemingly successful customers – a data artifact known as a one-class problem. In this paper we simulate the onboarding process to isolate the effect of changes in established acceptance thresholds on customer’s likelihood of success. However, to do so we first address the One-Class problem. When only One Class (“Successful” or “Performing”) customers are available, allows for the deployment of two well-known One-Class algorithms: Support Vector Machines and Isolated Random Forests. This study shows their use in reconstructing a representative sample of the customer pool. Aside from showing how to treat the One Class artifact, our objective is to establish a platform for discussion. For plausible initial conditions this study highlights a tradeoff between reductions in customer thresholds and the firm’s commitment to ensuring customer success.

Suggested Citation

  • Rodriguez, A.E. & Rosen, John, 2023. "Assessing the Impact of Chokepoints in a Customer Onboarding Process," MPRA Paper 117997, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:117997
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/117997/1/Onboarding_MRePec.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Li Chen & Hau L. Lee & Christopher S. Tang, 2022. "Supply chain fairness," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(12), pages 4304-4318, December.
    2. Shon R. Hiatt & Jake B. Grandy & Brandon H. Lee, 2015. "Organizational Responses to Public and Private Politics: An Analysis of Climate Change Activists and U.S. Oil and Gas Firms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 1769-1786, December.
    3. Rajiv Krishnan Kozhikode, 2016. "Dormancy as a Strategic Response to Detrimental Public Policy," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 189-206, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yuliya Snihur & Llewellyn D. W. Thomas & Robert A. Burgelman, 2018. "An Ecosystem‐Level Process Model of Business Model Disruption: The Disruptor's Gambit," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(7), pages 1278-1316, November.
    2. Zhang, Mengdi & Yang, Wanting & Zhao, Zhiheng & Wang, Shuaian & Huang, George Q., 2024. "Do fairness concerns matter for ESG decision-making? Strategic interactions in digital twin-enabled sustainable semiconductor supply chain," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    3. Yang, Zijing & Liu, Songsong, 2025. "Fairness-oriented multi-objective optimization of supply chain planning under uncertainties," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    4. Thomas, Llewellyn D.W. & Snihur, Yuliya, 2025. "Ecosystem framing and infomediary resonance: Amazon’s early years (1995–2003)," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    5. Suzanne G. Tilleman & Michael V. Russo & Andrew J. Nelson, 2020. "Institutional Logics and Technology Development: Evidence from the Wind and Solar Energy Industries," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(3), pages 649-670, May.
    6. Hadani, Michael & Doh, Jonathan P. & Schneider, Marguerite, 2019. "Social movements and corporate political activity: Managerial responses to socially oriented shareholder activism," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 156-170.
    7. Mireille Chiroleu-Assouline & Ariane Lambert-Mogiliansky, 2020. "Optimal Environmental Radical Activism," PSE Working Papers halshs-02492834, HAL.
    8. Liang, Liang & Wu, Xuanyu & Yang, Min, 2025. "Shadows behind the sun: Inequity caused by rooftop solar and responses to it," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 377(PB).
    9. Venkateswaran, Viswanathan & S Kumar, Deepak & Gupta, Deepak, 2021. "‘To Trust or Not’: Impact of camouflage strategies on trust in the sharing economy," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 110-126.
    10. Croce, Annalisa & Toschi, Laura & Ughetto, Elisa & Zanni, Sara, 2024. "Cleantech and policy framework in Europe: A machine learning approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    11. Kira R. Fabrizio & Eun-Hee Kim, 2019. "Reluctant Disclosure and Transparency: Evidence from Environmental Disclosures," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 1207-1231, November.
    12. Hoang, Phi Cong & McGuire, William & Prakash, Aseem, 2018. "Reducing Toxic Chemical Pollution in Response to Multiple Information Signals: The 33/50 Voluntary Program and Toxicity Disclosures," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 193-202.
    13. Rodolphe Durand & Panayiotis (Panikos) Georgallis, 2018. "Differential Firm Commitment to Industries Supported by Social Movement Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 154-171, February.
    14. Karol Kostúr & Marek Laciak & Milan Durdan, 2018. "Some Influences of Underground Coal Gasification on the Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-31, May.
    15. Chung, Sung Hun (Brian) & Odziemkowska, Kate & Piazza, Alessandro, 2024. "Threading the Needle of Corporate Activism: How Firms Frame Their Stances on Polarizing Social Issues," OSF Preprints 2ejyp_v1, Center for Open Science.
    16. Raghu Garud & Arun Kumaraswamy & Anna Roberts & Le Xu, 2022. "Liminal movement by digital platform‐based sharing economy ventures: The case of Uber Technologies," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(3), pages 447-475, March.
    17. Leonardo Marques & Dafne Morais & Ana Terra, 2025. "More than meets the eye: Misconduct and decoupling against blockchain for supply chain transparency," Post-Print hal-05100211, HAL.
    18. Tao, Miaomiao & Wu, Sihong, 2025. "From polluter pays to polluter reborn: Exploring the economic and green implications of corporate carbon risk exposure," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    19. Chiroleu-Assouline, Mireille & Lambert-Mogiliansky, Ariane, 2023. "Radical activism and self-regulation: An optimal campaign mechanism," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    20. Taoyong Su & Wanrong Hou & Edward Levitas & Sibin Wu, 2021. "Product Complexity and Strategic Alliance on Drug Approval," American Business Review, Pompea College of Business, University of New Haven, vol. 24(1), pages 36-53.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • L22 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Firm Organization and Market Structure
    • L23 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Organization of Production
    • M14 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - Corporate Culture; Diversity; Social Responsibility

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:117997. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.