File Pattern Management System
This project focused on redesigning a secure file transfer and onboarding system used by internal teams to manage client data integrations. The platform handles the intake, validation, and setup of data pipelines — including sensitive health data — and automates tasks like encryption setup, ticket generation, and file pattern validation.
My Role: UX Design, UI Design
Methods and Tools: Conducting Stakeholder Workshops, Usability Studies, Information Architecture, Figma, and Figjam
The Problem Space
It took 3 to 4 weeks to get a client onboarded and their file patterns created. There were Word docs, Excel sheets, manual ticketing, and lots of “Did you get my email?” going around.
Account Managers were chasing down missing info. Admins were rewriting broken intake forms. Nobody really had a clear view of what was happening, or when anything would get done.
“We send everything to admin and then… we just wait.”
The Problem Space
It took 3 to 4 weeks to get a client onboarded and their file patterns created. There were Word docs, Excel sheets, manual ticketing, and lots of “Did you get my email?” going around.
Account Managers were chasing down missing info. Admins were rewriting broken intake forms. Nobody really had a clear view of what was happening, or when anything would get done.
“We send everything to admin and then… we just wait.”
Mapping the Chaos
We kicked off with understanding how things were really happening behind the scenes. We mapped the entire end-to-end user flow — from client onboarding to file pattern creation and enablement.
This helped align cross-functional teams (Product, Ops, UX, and Engineering) on:
Who owns which steps (AM vs Admin vs Automation)
Where the bottlenecks and handoffs occur
What inputs and outputs were expected at each stage
How backend logic (e.g., SNOW triggers, Protegrity approvals) connected with the UI
What research told us
We began by conducting a heuristic evaluation of the existing file management portal, identifying key usability breakdowns and found 11 major usability issues.
Talking to the SMEs
Once we mapped the chaos, we talked to the right people to find out what was really going wrong — technically, operationally, and behaviorally.”
Heuristic Analysis
We conducted interviews with:
Account Managers
Admins
Product team leads
Ops specialists
This helped uncover:
What was triggering issues under the hood (e.g., lack of ownership, backend ticketing delays)
What legacy behaviors existed (e.g., Excel and email dependency).
What expectations users had about the system vs what it actually did.
As we spoke with SMEs, product managers, and operational leads, it became clear that the current system needed to be replaced with a new unified onboarding experience.
Our Findings
01
Users struggled to complete forms due to overwhelming field volume and lack of structure, often skipping technical inputs they didn’t understand, leading to incomplete or error-prone submissions.
“We end up rewriting half the forms just to clean things up.” – Admin
03
Fragmented systems and disconnected request tracking made it difficult to trace client progress, often forcing teams to dig manually across platforms to link SNOW tickets, forms, and client queries.
“We get messages like ‘which request number is this?’ and then we scramble to find it.” – Admin
Users lacked confidence in the system due to limited visibility and no clear sense of progress or roles, which led to constant follow-ups, hand-holding, and reliance on informal communication channels to stay updated.
“After I submit, I have no idea what's happening. I usually just ping someone to check.” – Account Manager
02
The absence of a clear rejection and feedback loop created confusion and stalled progress, as users received no guidance on how to fix errors or who to follow up with.
“It got rejected... but I don’t know what I missed.” – Account Manager
04
Our Findings
Users struggled to complete forms due to overwhelming field volume and lack of structure, often skipping technical inputs they didn’t understand, leading to incomplete or error-prone submissions.
“We end up rewriting half the forms just to clean things up.” – Admin
Fragmented systems and disconnected request tracking made it difficult to trace client progress, often forcing teams to dig manually across platforms to link SNOW tickets, forms, and client queries.
“We get messages like ‘which request number is this?’ and then we scramble to find it.” – Admin
The absence of a clear rejection and feedback loop created confusion and stalled progress, as users received no guidance on how to fix errors or who to follow up with.
“It got rejected... but I don’t know what I missed.” – Account Manager
Users lacked confidence in the system due to limited visibility and no clear sense of progress or roles, which led to constant follow-ups, hand-holding, and reliance on informal communication channels to stay updated.
“After I submit, I have no idea what's happening. I usually just ping someone to check.” – Account Manager
Who we were designing for
Admin
Account Manager
Mapping out the Automation Flow
Automation was fundamentally integral to the solution. Through discussions with the core working groups, which comprise system architects, developers, and project managers, we were able to identify key processes that could be automated,increasing user efficiency.
End-to-End User Flow
With a clear understanding of user flows, we can streamline multiple processes, reducing friction, and ensuring that users can achieve their goals with minimal effort.
👆
**This map captures the full redesigned journey across AM and Admin roles. Due to its scale, the image here offers a high-level snapshot — detailed sections are shown below for clarity.
👆
This section highlights the redesigned experience for Account Managers — from intake to submission and feedback.
Wireframes
Wireframing our solutions helps map out the hierarchy of functions and focus on capturing the service portal's core purposes. This enabled us to validate our preferred design direction with stakeholders.
High Fidelity Wireframes
Smart intake forms with autosave and draft mode, replacing scattered Word/Excel docs
Role-based handoffs that clearly separate AM and Admin responsibilities
Slide-out PHI panel for focused, guided edits of sensitive fields
Rejection feedback loop with comments, not dead ends
Live status tracking so no one is left wondering “what’s next”
Automated ticket generation and system validations in the background
Usability testing
After building our first round of wireframes, we conducted scenario-based usability testing with four Account Manager participants. Our goal was to evaluate how well the new design supported their real-world tasks — especially in areas where we knew the old system was failing.
AM- Our key objective was to measure the usability of our solution through observing user interactions the following keys flows.
Filling and uploading work intake form
Verifying information and submitting Work intake form for user onboarding
Key insights
AMs felt more confident starting the onboarding process but got stuck during file pattern editing.
PHI editing caused the most confusion — language like “detokenize” and “reverse audit” wasn’t intuitive.
Rejection messages lacked detail, making users feel uncertain about how to act.
Everyone loved the draft save feature, calling it a “safety net.”
“I’m happy I can leave it and come back. That’s new!”
aDMIN
Our key objective was to measure the usability of our solution through observing user interactions the following keys flows.
Filling and uploading file patterns
Bulk edit file patterns
Validate PHI Preferences for necessary file patterns
Verifying information and submitting Work intake form for user onboarding
Usability testing
To validate our redesigned flows, we conducted usability testing with both Account Managers and Admins, using a mix of remote and in-person sessions.
Participants were given guided tasks that reflected real scenarios — from onboarding a new client to submitting file pattern details with PHI.
We tested with Figma prototypes, encouraged users to think aloud, and captured both behavioral observations and direct quotes.
Key findings
From
Mentioned scenarios where AMs missed key details such as missing an important file pattern creation.
Raised concerns around delete actions being too risky without safeguards.
Our usability testing results indicated that only 1/4 of users were able to edit the PHI with some guidance.
Design and strategic implications
To
→ We enabled direct pattern creation for Admins, reducing back-and-forth and giving them autonomy to correct gaps without delaying the workflow.
→ We introduced more confirmation prompts and role-based controls to minimize errors, reinforcing Admins’ role as gatekeepers of system stability.
To address these issues, we implemented a slide panel for users to expand and edit PHI preferences.
Iteration Version 2
Fixing the editable fields
One common feedback was the overwhelming amount of input fields within each dataset. Although it was not currently feasible to remove or reduce the fields, we were able to improve the layout and visual distribution of these fields.
Building a editable PHI Preferences
Success Metrics
86% Reduction
in Processing tIme
60% Increase
in succesful approvals
Prototype
xx
Conclusion
xx
