REDESIGN
Legacy code. Disconnected workflows. Outdated visual design. Confusing interfaces.
Our system-wide UX patterns were falling short for our users, and they were switching to our competitors in droves as a result. We had to figure out how to address these issues across the platform— and as a result of our efforts, the company saved over $4.5 million in recaptured ARR.
the problem.
92%
of closed-lost reports* cited ‘poor usability’ as a primary reason for product-related churn
64%
of those, cited a lack of integration, difficulty navigating, and overall system organization / cohesiveness
After analyzing 584 feedback reports, each team member documented our unknowns, assumptions, and research inquiries. We used this to inform our prioritization matrix, which we populated during a 4 hour collaborative brainstorming session. We categorized the most prevalent problems into four groups according to our certainty levels surrounding their underlying causes:
Research Heavy
Low problem clarity, high risk. Approach: Generative Research
Design Heavy
High problem clarity, high risk. Approach: Wireframing, User testing, Iteration
*An ongoing part of our process includes collecting and tagging customer feedback. In lieu of generative research — which management requested we forego due to tight timelines — we retroactively gathered and analyzed feedback related to overall system usability.
Solutioning with very little research meant we had to make a lot of assumptions — if I were to go back, I would have pushed much harder for doing generative research upfront. We were often told to postpone or eliminate research for the sake of faster timelines, and I regret not speaking up sooner about the long-term value research provides. Since the redesign, we’ve retroactively had to fix interactions that could have well been informed by more thorough research. Stakeholder management can be intimidating, but it’s better than risking creating the wrong solution due to incorrect assumptions.
Research Light
Low problem clarity, low risk. Approach: Review existing data, whiteboarding
Ship & Measure
High problem clarity, low risk. Approach: Protoyping, handoff to engineering
the solution.
An excerpt from our value proposition presentation to C-level executives.
We consolidated our findings into five thematic problem areas — navigation, data organization, bulk actions, awareness, and collaboration. We then translated these 5 thematic problem areas into 3 top priorities, which, if successfully addressed by the end of the redesign, would have the furthest reaching effect for our users. We also strategized around how we would go about achieving those priorities.
ONE
Improve usability, increase the speed of onboarding, and reduce product-based churn
— Intuitive and consistent experience
— Improved data retrieval & ownership
Value Proposition
From there, we revisited the insights we had gathered and identified the top areas of friction for our users. We confirmed that our customers often ran into problems with organization and data portability.
As much as $2.2 million could be at risk (and that’s just for just one feature!) lest we fail to address some of these most frustrating pain points.
-
Known Problem
Confusing language and an unclear hierarchy means navigation does not allow users to efficiently reach their destination, adding extra clicks and extending time-to-task.
Key Questions
Can we group or consolidate our product offerings?
What is our users ‘mental model of how our current offerings work together?
How can we improve our navigation to grow to include more expansion products?
-
Known Problem
Tables function differently across our platform, and we annot search, sort, or filter based on attributes, “trapping” information in the system. Organizational structure is hard to navigate and rigid. Lack of responsive design means tables are unreadable on smaller screens.
Hypotheses
If we allow our users to enter and better easily manipulate their data already in the system we will get less requests for exports/imports and analytics.
If we have flexible table and filter structures, we would have more flexibility to consolidate our pages and possibly workspaces.
If we can support both “static” (labels or folders) and “dynamic” (filtered) views, we can cover most feedback we get around item organization.
-
Known Problems
Certain functionality is very tedious — sharing documents with users, adding users to routing, data portability, etc.
Hypotheses
Many import requests can be solved by bulk functionality (where most/all tables allowing for checkboxes to perform bulk functions).
Instead of providing an import template, bulk editing would be less time consuming, and bulk document import/edit would be the most impactful to users.
-
Known Problems
Viewing and editing related items and attachments is tedious because there are several, separate spots in which the information is displayed
Users have little visibility into what actions they need to perform because notifications are not customizable and thus become overwhelming, causing users to opt out entirely
Tasks are difficult to assign and complete, resulting in confusion as to where and how tasks can be addressed
Hypotheses
A better linking and attachments system (Related Items) will allow users to more easily navigate between items in the system & view uploaded uncontrolled documents.
A better tasks and notifications system will tie users’ actions to tangible objects in the system, both making users aware of tasks and walking them through workflows.
-
Known Problems
Users don’t have an easy way to collaborate with their co-workers or external partners, so they usually resort to other means of communication and have to re-import back into the system.
Hypotheses
Adding bulk functionality to the routing workspace will make the workflow much more efficient.
Adding a redline (change comparison) feature and a basic commenting functionality will satisfy the needs of most users.
TWO
Implement missing functionality that increases appeal to enterprise-level customers
— Bulk actions
— À-la-carte or curated workspace packages
The business will:
Modernize and grow upmarket while reducing product-related churn
Sell workspaces on an individual basis or in bundles
Reduce customer service burden during onboarding
Develop faster with a flexible infrastructure
THREE
Increase speed and efficiency of designing and building future features
— Building a new, comprehensive design system
— Increase design and development speed
Our users will:
Gain more flexibility with their information
Onboard more quickly
Have a more consistent experience
Save time instead of repeating tedious actions
the results.
$4.5 million
saved in recaptured ARR
+30
increase in NPS score
the lessons.
Although most of the work we had initially planned for the redesign is currently in the implementation phase, the Redesign (capital R) will never be complete. For as many problems we solved, we uncovered another two, and for every question answered, three more arose. This should point to our success — not only was our goal to address the most pressing problems facing our users today, but also to create a backlog of work that might provide value tomorrow. A huge focus of the redesign was scaling to meet the needs of our enterprise customers as Greenlight Guru moved upmarket.
As is the nature of iterative design, features are never finished, only shipped. The team continues to work on further enhancements that build upon the foundational design work summarized here.