The field that looks expendable
Your homeware shop’s automated website audit flags a required “Delivery phone” field as checkout friction. As the owner, you must decide whether to remove it. Fewer questions look inviting, especially when customers expect quick purchases. But a shorter form can move work into fulfilment.
Paid, but waiting for a booking
In this hypothetical shop, all figures are assumed, not measured. It handles 30 furniture deliveries each week. Its supplier needs a phone number to arrange delivery. Before removal, a dining-table order includes “Delivery phone.” After removal, a test purchase reaches “Paid,” but the supplier’s booking record has no number. Payment succeeds while dispatch waits. The missing field creates a follow-up backlog; the audit’s finding does not establish that the information is unnecessary.
Two ways to finish the same orders
Keep the field and assume each entered number takes two staff minutes to check: 30 × 2 = 60 minutes per week. Remove it and assume all numbers must be obtained by email, taking six staff minutes each, including verification: 30 × 6 = 180 minutes per week. Assume replies arrive before dispatch. With 180 staff minutes available weekly for delivery administration, both options fit, but keeping the field leaves 120 minutes for delivery problems. Choose that option here. A conversion gain from removal remains unproven.
Remove the duplicate, preserve the handoff
Now suppose the CRM, the shop’s customer records system, already supplies a current, verified number for every order. Removing duplicate entry needs zero follow-up minutes, making removal preferable to reviewing retyped numbers. Test a returning customer and a first purchase without the field. Compare “Delivery phone” in each supplier booking record with the verified customer record. A blank or different number means the handoff failed: retain the field until repaired. Remove it only for orders whose verified number already reaches booking.