/
Three types of users, one broken document tool.
A research-led redesign of an internal document service — interviews, log analytics
and a UX audit turned into three shippable iterations.
Role
UX Designer & Researcher (research → design, end-to-end)
Company
Internal tooling for a document-heavy business process
Methods
heuristic audit, qualitative interviews, usability testing, log analytics
Главное изображение кейса
Context
An internal service for working with document templates sat at the centre of a real business process, but it had grown organically and started to slow people down. Different roles used it very differently — and some of that usage was invisible to the team.
Problem
The tool created friction in daily work and dragged on business efficiency, but the *why* wasn't documented. Before redesigning anything, I needed to understand who actually used it, how, and where it hurt.
Process
1
UX audit
Evaluated the interface against usability heuristics and documented exactly how the service behaved today — a shared baseline no one had before.
2
Qualitative research
Identified three user groups by professional role and ran interviews plus usability sessions to surface the real problem flows.
3
Behavioural analytics
For a user group the interviews under-covered, I analysed usage logs to fill the gap with behavioural evidence.
4
Prioritisation
Turned findings into a ranked list of improvements, split across three development iterations so value could ship early.
5
Design & spec
Designed the new version in Figma and wrote the specification for engineering hand-off.
Solution
A redesigned service shaped directly by the research: the three user groups' key pain points mapped to concrete interface changes, sequenced so the highest-impact fixes shipped in the first iteration.
Result
— Replaced guesswork with evidence: `[N]` interviews + log analysis across 3 user groups.
— Delivered a research-backed redesign, phased into 3 iterations for faster payoff.
— `[Add outcome metric once available: e.g. time-on-task, error rate, satisfaction]`
What this case shows
— Research-to-design in one pair of hands — I don't just consume research, I run it.
— Mixed methods — qualitative interviews *and* quantitative log analysis.
— Pragmatic prioritisation — I ship value in iterations, not one giant redesign.