Discovery Research for an Excel-to-Web Evaluation Tool
Streamlining an internal project delivery evaluations process
Type of Project
UX Research, Discovery, Business Analysis, Low-Fidelity Wireframes
My Role
UX Lead, BA
Case Study
Objective
Background
iDAP Navigator is an internal project delivery evaluation process that previously ran in an Excel workbook. This project set out to replace it with a scalable web application that streamlines evaluation, scoring, and documentation, and improves collaboration and meeting efficiency. I was responsible for discovery and initial low-fidelity wireframes before handoff for final design and build.
Users
The users for this product are NLS employees categorized into Team Leads, Champions, Steering Committee members, and Delivery Leads. Of the 24 survey respondents, 16 were Team Leads, 6 were Champions, 3 were on the Steering Committee, and 1 was a Delivery Lead, with some holding more than one role.
Role & Constraints
I was UX Lead on this endeavor, responsible for research and wireframe concepts, and I also did business analysis, working out business needs and helping prioritize features. The team also included a Product Owner/Project Manager, a QA analyst, and a Development Lead, working remotely. A few constraints: 1) I had five weeks for this project, 2) limited access to internal employees and 3) as an interim project between client engagements, I could be pulled onto client work at any time.
Problem
Excel made a collaborative process amongst client teams of 10+ incredibly difficult.
Respondents described:
One link allowed per cell, and links breaking when the file was downloaded.
Long comments that were hard to read in small cells.
Comments being overwritten when several people contributed.
No filtering by role or project stage, and no way to hide questions that don't apply.
Redundant questions and trouble finding where to enter responses.
Data locking after the entry window, forcing people to request access to update.
These slowed evaluations, invited errors, and added administrative work. One Team Lead called the spreadsheet "the worst part of the process."
Process
1. Survey
I surveyed users, mostly those on the latest spreadsheet version, about their roles, tasks, frustrations, and feature priorities. Of 24 responses:
87.5% mainly entered responses.
Filtering was rated very or extremely important by 87.5%, and making comments by 83%.
79% wanted real-time editing, commenting, and author/date tracking, and 50% wanted notifications.
Must-haves included filtering by role or project stage, seeing outstanding items, and tracking action items.
One respondent called filtering the best part of the Excel version, so the new tool had to keep it.
2. Focus groups and interviews
I recruited about 5 to 8 participants for follow-up focus groups and individual interviews to clarify survey responses. Users wanted to filter and respond without affecting, or being affected by, others working at the same time, and to step through an evaluation one section at a time, like an insurance application.
3. Workflow and navigation flows
I mapped the review process end to end: an admin initiates a review, Team Leads comment, Champions review and score (1 to 5), everyone joins a roundtable, the Steering Committee scores success-indicator questions, and action items are assigned. I also mapped navigation through clients, projects, reviews, questions, scores, and action items, with comments tied to roles and stamped with author and date.
4. Business analysis and MoSCoW prioritization
I ran a MoSCoW session with our developer, the PO/PM, and QA to prioritize features for the MVP.
Must-have: filtering by department, product, and phase; role-based access; comments with automatic names and timestamps; multiple documentation links; marking questions "not applicable"; single sign-on; secure storage with version control; automated score calculations; and review templates.
Should-have: basic reporting and score export.
Could-have: document uploads, historical data migration, AI comment summaries, comment history, alerts, and action-item tracking.
Won't-have: advanced analytics, comprehensive training, and customization for non-iDAP processes.
5. Wireframes and handoff
I produced initial low-fidelity wireframes and documented our research findings to be presented to executives. Research notes, flows, prioritization, and wireframes were handed off to the development team and a new UX designer was onboarded.
Outcome
Results
When I was pulled onto a client project, another UX designer who continued with the design build out. The discovery work set the roadmap that guided the build team to ship the tool, which I've been told significantly increased efficiency in the internal review process.
Feedback
"I had an idea of how we could make a tool flow, but I love how you brought experience and end user feedback to the table. You were able to come up with something that makes sense more than just what's in my head… Since we were starting from scratch, your UX/BA support was instrumental in clarifying project goals and enhancing the user-friendliness of the future tool."
— Sarah Jimison, Product Owner / Project Manager