Improve the IP/service submission process for field engineers

Overview
Field engineers selling Microsoft products created training programs called IPs or Services. These training programs were considered by the engineers to be more effective than the ones that came with the products they sold. They would submit their IP through a manual process managed by the Phoenix Team who would evaluate, and published into the Phoenix data base. Once published, the IP would be available so field engineers, and others, could use this improved training program.

Problem
The process was time-consuming, manual, confusing, and error prone. It would take 4 to 6 weeks to process a request. The people processing the submission would spend 20 to 30 hrs a week managing the process. Users were also confused about what information they needed, how to format the info, and how to fill out the submission form. And errors had to be corrected manually, adding additional time to the process.

Role
I lead the UX design, and research. I collaborated with a variety of stakeholders, and developers.

Goal

Create a self-serve solution addressing business goals, and user needs

• Reduce the manual nature of the submission process

• Reduce the time taken to approve a request

• Save cost to the organization by optimizing the process

• Improve the overall experience for users to make their lives better

Approach
My discovery process started by shadowing the producers administering the submission process, and interviewing members of the team. I conducted contextual interviews with users who submitted IPs for approval. We also conducted some time-on-task exercises.

Team members: 2 product owners, 4 submitters, 1 domain lead, 1 content person, 1 ops person.

Findings

• Admins used spreadsheets to manage the process, very manual

• The process took 4-6 weeks for approval

• Other groups were involved in the approval process (adding time)

• Users were taken to the submission form without being qualified

• The form was confusing, and didn’t provide helpful user feedback

• Users weren’t able to get status updates easily

• Corrections had to be made by admins, not users

Realigned goal
The initial goal was to provide a self-serve solution, but this would require more time and resources. So this iteration focused on solutions the team could deliver. We focused on providing users with information that would qualify them to submit a request properly.

• Create a screen before the form that provided qualifying information

• Optimize the submission form to reduce confusion, and reduce errors

• Provide better, timely status to users waiting for approval

Results

• The new home page would help qualify users so fewer mistakes were made during the submission process, and caught down stream. It also helped users feel more confident about submitting a request

• Implementing form best practices enabled users to understand which fields were required reducing confusion, and mistakes

• Allowing users to check status on their own gave them more timely information about the request, and more control of the submission process. It also freed admins from having to process status requests form users, and reallocate that time to other responsibilities.

Thoughts

Though we had to realign our goal based on constraints, we made improvements to the process that would have a positive impact on business, and users.