Comparing two platforms
The process to request a statement of work (SOW) was brought under scrutiny by the Procurement department. Each line of business completed the process differently based on the relationships each line had built with their vendors. The Procurement department wanted to evaluate two platforms to help streamline the process and achieve cost savings.
Presentation documents are available upon request.
Role: Project Lead, Co-Design Facilitator, Design Researcher, UX Designer
Re-defining the engagement
Most of the time our customers have a sense of what they need to get done when engaging the UX team. This engagement was meant to be a simple usability test, but it morphed into a long-term engagement that included interviews, a facilitated workshop, A | B testing, and continued UX feedback on platform iterations. After discussions, we arrived at the plan shared because they saw the value of understanding their users more holistically and getting their feedback.
Initial interviews informed the workshop, which helped better define a singular process for all business users that were requesting an SOW for a work engagement.
A|B Testing
After some research and RFQs, the project team had narrowed it down to two platforms they identified to carry out the SOW process. In order to test these platforms, we guided 10 users through different tasks to test both platforms’ ability to complete an SOW, as well as user perception for desirability and usability. This feedback was tallied and presented to the project team to help inform vendor selection.
Providing input
The platform selected was not the one users preferred. To help drastically improve the platform design and experience, I provided the platform team with feedback directly gathered from the A | B tests. From there, the platform team would check-in with me to review any updates and get additional feedback on the new changes which hadn’t been tested with users.
