top of page

Improving onboarding data management

I led a UX project to fix a critical blocker in our geospatial software onboarding process, where operators were forced to re upload entire .zip files to add or edit a single polygon file.

 

Through stakeholder interviews, and workflow observation, I validated the problem as the top source of wasted time and frustration. I mapped the user journey, brainstormed multiple solution paths, and delivered a prototype.  After usability testing confirmed 100% task success, I collaborated with engineering reviewing staging builds, and ensuring design fidelity. The outcome reduced onboarding errors, saved time to initiate next process, and increased adoption of our in house tool over a third party tool.

ROLE

UX/UI Designer

UX Researcher

SKILLS

Interviews, UX Research, User Journey, User Scenarios, User Flows, Agile Methodology, Design Thinking, Communication, Advanced Figma skills

Onboarding portfolio image.png

Summary

Users experience

  • Geo data operators regularly needed to add or edit single polygon files during onboarding.

  • Current system forced them to delete and re upload entire .zip files, even for minor edits.

My experience

  • Led the project end to end, applying design thinking within agile methodology

  • Drove research, journey mapping, ideation, prototyping, usability testing, and engineering handover.

  • Acted as the bridge between operators, PM, and engineering team to ensure design intent was carried through to final build.

Why the current workflow didn't work

  • Wasted 15 to 20 minutes per re upload, multiple times a week.

  • Increased risk of errors in recreating datasets.

  • Forced operators to wait until all polygon files were ready before initiating the next process.

What I fixed

  • Enable operators to add or edit individual polygon files directly within the onboarding flow.

  • Allow users to start onboarding even with missing polygon files and continue to the next step (quality check), since they could add files later.

  • Improve efficiency, reduce errors, and increase adoption of the in house tool.

1. Project Context

I improved the onboarding process for geospatial data, a workflow critical to initiating quality checks and asset matching. The original process lacked flexibility, users could not add or edit individual polygon files. Instead, they were forced to delete and re upload an entire .zip file, even if only a single polygon needed updating.

This was not just an inconvenience, it created real workflow inefficiencies and increased the risk of errors. My role was end to end UX designer, responsible for everything from research to delivery. I collaborated closely with the head of engineering, product manager, and geo data operators in an agile environment.

Key details:

​

  • Scope: Research → design → prototype → engineering handover

  • Methodology: Agile methodology and design thinking

  • Team: Myself (UX), PM, Head of Engineering, geo data operators

existing screen

2. Research and Discovery

I conducted a deep research phase to understand operator workflows and validate the pain point.

Approach:

​

  • 3 in depth interviews with geo data operators.

  • Observed operators performing uploads in their real workflow.

  • Support ticket review: Analysed 6 months of logged Jira tickets for recurring issues.

Findings:

​

  • 100% of operators complained about the inability to add/edit individual polygons.

  • Operators wasted 15 to 20 minutes per re upload, often multiple times a week.

  • Frustration led to operators not using our tool and reverting to an external third party tool.

user interview

3. The problem

The research phase made it clear that operators faced a serious workflow blocker. The inability to add or edit individual polygon files without disrupted efficiency, wasted time, and increased errors. 

Problem:

How might we enable operators to add or edit individual polygon files without forcing them to re upload entire datasets?

4. Exploring Solutions

With the problem clearly defined, I led a brainstorming session with the product manager and head of engineering. The goal was to explore a wide range of solutions, and select an approach that balanced usability with technical feasibility.

Explored options could be:

​

  • Context menus (right click to add/edit) → rejected as too hidden for new users.

  • Bulk editing mode → powerful but too complex for MVP.

  • Direct buttons in tree view and map → easy to find and match how users naturally expect to work.

low fidelity

5. Prototype and Iterate

Once I had defined the solution direction, I moved into prototyping using Figma. The aim was to create an interactive flow that operators could click through, giving them a sense of how the new onboarding process would actually work in practice.

In this stage, I made several key design decisions that directly addressed the problems uncovered in research:

​

  • Tree view: Introduced a 'Add file' icon button to make the action highly visible and quick to access, eliminating the need to replace an entire dataset for a small change.

  • Map view: Added a 'Edit' icon button with a tool tip, so users could edit polygons directly on the map, aligning with how operators naturally think about their work.

I shared the early prototypes in design review sessions with the Product Manager and Head of Engineering. I iterated on the design, ensuring the final prototype was both usable for operators and technically feasible for engineering.

high fidelity
7.png

6. Test  and Validate

After building the prototype, I conducted usability testing to validate whether the new flows were intuitive and solved the problems operators faced. I ran three usability sessions with geo data operators, giving them realistic tasks such as adding a single polygon and editing an existing one.

The results confirmed that the design direction was effective:

​

  • 100% task success rate: All operators were able to add and edit polygons on their first attempt.

  • Positive feedback: Users described the new flow as “quick and straightforward.”

  • Refinements: Feedback highlighted the need for additional guidance, which led to the introduction of tooltips for new users.

7. Deliver

Delivery wasn’t just a matter of exporting design files. I collaborated closely with the engineering team throughout development to ensure the final implementation matched the design intent and worked seamlessly for operators.

Agile collaboration:

​

  • Participated in two-week sprint planning and meetings.

  • Joined daily standups to clarify design details and get feedback.

  • Reviewed staging builds to validate design intent and flag any issues.

​

Handover package included:

​

  • A final, polished Figma file with updated components.

  • A supporting document covering constraints, dev notes, and miro/sprint/ticket details.

  • Ongoing collaboration with the team until final release.

8. Reflection

The impact of this feature was both measurable and immediate. By addressing a seemingly small but critical workflow blocker, we not only improved operator efficiency but also drove stronger adoption of the in-product onboarding tool.

Key outcomes included:

​

  • Eliminated unnecessary .zip file re uploads, saving operators time.

  • Increased usage of the in house onboarding tool, reducing reliance on third party tools.

​

Because Fugro does not currently run structured quantitative usability testing, I will use Jira to measure the impact more formally. Specifically, I will check whether onboarding related support tickets decrease in the month following release, which should provide a clear indicator of adoption and efficiency gains. 

​

Reflecting on the process, I found that quantifying time savings and efficiency gains was essential to align stakeholders on why we needed to fix this problem.

6.png
bottom of page