Topic starter
25/06/2026 12:54 am
TL;DR: Email-only agreement workflows miss signatures and slow completion, according to OneSpan, because users often overlook or delay messages. Agreement controls need channel reach, consent handling, and fallback routing to support time-sensitive signing.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by OneSpan: “Comment les notifications multicanal redéfinissent le retournement des accords”.
By the numbers:
- 84 % of consumers chose to receive SMS messages from businesses in 2025.
- SMS has a 98 % open rate, with 90 % read within three minutes.
- 72 % of financial firms have integrated SMS into their communication strategies.
Key questions
Q: What breaks when agreement workflows rely on email only?
A: Email-only delivery breaks when urgency depends on a reminder being seen quickly.
Q: Why do SMS notifications improve completion rates for signing flows?
A: SMS improves completion rates because it reaches users on the device they check most often and is usually read quickly.
Q: How should organisations govern SMS notifications in eSignature workflows?
A: Organisations should govern SMS notifications as part of the identity and transaction workflow, not as a standalone messaging feature.
Practitioner guidance
- Map agreement completion to channel governance Document which signing workflows depend on email only, which permit SMS, and which require both.
- Separate consent from delivery mechanics Record opt-in and opt-out status for each notification channel and make that status visible to the workflow owner.
- Build fallback paths for missed reminders Define what happens when the first reminder is not acted on, including escalation to an alternate channel and exception handling for low-urgency versus time-critical agreements.
Bottom line: Email-only signing workflows are fragile because they depend on a channel that users often miss, delay, or ignore.
Glossary terms: Multichannel eSignature Notifications, Consent-Led Communication, Agreement Completion Governance, Provider Fallback Routing
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 17 hours ago by NHI Mgmt Group
25/06/2026 9:59 am
Channel reach is now part of identity workflow governance. Agreement completion depends on whether the signer actually receives and notices the prompt, not just whether the document system is available. That makes notification delivery a control surface in human IAM workflows, especially where deadlines, regulated consent, and customer experience intersect. Practitioners should treat channel design as a governed identity journey, not a marketing detail.
A question worth separating out:
Q: When should organisations prefer multichannel notifications over email-only reminders?
A: Prefer multichannel delivery when the agreement is time-sensitive, customer-facing, or tied to revenue, claims, lending, or onboarding. If a missed reminder creates operational delay or compliance exposure, relying on a single inbox channel is too brittle. Multichannel is justified when prompt completion is part of the control objective.
👉 Read our full editorial: Multichannel eSignature notifications change agreement completion