← All work
02 / Enterprise energy planning

Designing around
expert workflows.

Understanding spreadsheet habits and testing where a new planning experience supported or interrupted specialist work.

My contributionUX research · Design & validation
ScopeEnterprise web application
ApproachInterviews, journey mapping & testing
Enterprise planning interface; edited to remove branding
A planning workspace evaluated against expert workflows.Project screenshot edited to remove branding; some interface details may differ from the source.View full size ↗
Research in numbers

Six interviews. Two specialist perspectives.

6Discovery interviews
2Specialist groups
4Workflow stages

Discovery sample by specialist group

Specialist group A4
Specialist group B2
036 people

Different roles, connected work.

The interview sample brought together two specialist perspectives to understand handovers, data preparation and planning decisions.

Source: discovery research report. Role labels are generalised. Counts describe the interview sample, not the later usability-test sample.

01 / Discovery

Understand the work
before changing the tool.

Interviews with domain specialists revealed a familiar workflow with costly manual preparation.

  1. 01Collect

    Request forecasts and follow up on missing inputs.

  2. 02Validate

    Compare new data with the previous plan.

  3. 03Analyse

    Adjust inputs and assess operational effects.

  4. 04Report

    Review the proposal with stakeholders.

Reduce

Repetitive preparation

Manual follow-ups, copying inputs and lengthy comparisons.

Preserve

Expert flexibility

Direct changes, contextual judgement and control over the plan.

02 / Validation

Positive ratings can
coexist with failed tasks.

Moderated prototype testing considered independent completion alongside perceived ease.

What users said

“Easy” ratings

Some positive ratings followed an explanation of the intended interaction.

What users did

Missed key actions

Users overlooked tabs and tried editing directly in tables.

Research implication

Observe before prompting

Use independent task performance to locate friction.

Key insight

An explanation can change a rating.

It does not change whether a participant could complete the original task independently.

03 / Recommendations

Match expert expectations
without assuming the solution.

Findings became proposals for design, development and domain stakeholders to review.

What we observedDesign response

Direct editing attempts

Users treated the table like their existing spreadsheet.

To evaluate

Explore inline editing

Assess controls and operational risks with the team.

Missed tabs and comments

Important navigation and remarks were overlooked.

To test

Strengthen visibility

Clarify navigation and bring exceptions into the review flow.

Moving on without saving

Users expected changes to persist as they worked.

Technical discussion

Clarify save behaviour

Discuss autosave and explicit feedback with developers.

Re-entering known inputs

Some information already existed in an earlier plan.

Product discussion

Reuse and review

Start with available data and let experts amend it.

04 / Outcome

An evidence-based
improvement agenda.

My work covered research, journey analysis and collaborative prototype evaluation.

What the work established

Shared understanding of the workflow

Personas, journey analysis and usability findings linked expert behaviour to specific design recommendations.

Evidence boundary

Implementation still needs validation

The reports do not establish that every proposal shipped or quantify post-release efficiency gains.

Edited project screenshots accompany generalised diagrams of the research and design reasoning. Visuals do not imply measured production outcomes. Work was delivered collaboratively.

Next: Fleet payments onboarding ↗All projects
Continue the conversation

Let’s talk about the thinking
behind the work.

Get in touch ↗