The problem
Analysts couldn't do their jobs without leaving the platform. The system didn't reflect how analysis actually worked — information was badly organized, essential features were missing, and the interface created cognitive overhead instead of reducing it.
The problem ran deeper than UX. The analysis rules themselves were outdated, out of sync with current business logic. A better interface alone wouldn't have fixed this — both layers needed to change.
Approach
I started with a critical diagnostic of the existing system — mapping what was missing, what was poorly designed, and what was fundamentally broken. The conclusion was uncomfortable: the right call was to discontinue the system and build something new.
We ran co-creation sessions with the entire risk and credit team — not just interviews, but structured working sessions designed to surface how analysis actually happened in practice. That process aligned operations, product, and design before a single screen was drawn.
The new module centralized everything analysts needed in one place. I designed specific functionality for each analysis scenario, explored multiple interface versions to find the best organization, and updated the analysis rules to reflect current business logic.
Analysis workspace
Case review flow
Decision interface
Outcome
The analysis methodology improved. Approval rates went up. The time it took to complete a single case came down.
Analysts had a workspace that matched how they actually worked — instead of one they had to fight against. The product and the operation finally moved in the same direction.
The biggest lesson from this project was about co-creation. When you bring the people who use a tool into the design process, decisions get made faster and adoption is smoother. They're not just end-users — they're domain experts who know what the product needs to do.
Let's talk about what you're building.
Get in touch.
Contact me