From Compliance to Value
I'm leading design on a retention-critical redesign at a global sustainability-ratings platform — reframing what was a compliance obligation into a value journey for the supplier side of the product. The specifics stay confidential; the shape of the work, the method, and my role are here. The prototype, the screens, and the findings are available in a private walkthrough.
The value gap
Context — the product rates companies on their sustainability performance. The suppliers being rated receive a scorecard and are expected to act on it and improve. The surface I redesigned is where that follow-up work is meant to happen.
Suppliers who go through sustainability assessments often struggle to translate the results into meaningful improvement. The work feels disconnected from outcomes, and momentum is lost between assessment cycles.
Work doesn't persist
Effort on corrective actions and evidence feels lost cycle-to-cycle — suppliers start from scratch each year.
Guidance feels generic
Recommendations aren't tailored to a supplier's size, sector, or maturity, so they're hard to act on.
Action ↔ score is opaque
Suppliers can't see how an improvement translates into progress, so effort feels unrewarded.
The workflow is fragmented
Documents, actions, and collaboration live in disconnected places, with no shared plan across the team.
Motivation is externally driven
Suppliers often engage only because a partner requires it — which amplifies frustration when the process feels like busywork.
Give suppliers a personalised, goal-driven improvement plan where every action has a visible link to impact, prior work persists, and progress is legible — so the experience becomes a tool suppliers want to use, not one they have to.
The shape of the work
Enough to show how I work and where the design is heading. What I've kept back is the strategy, the business bet, and the decisions still in play.
Retention-critical surface
A redesign of the flow that turns a rated supplier into an improving one — cross-functional with PM, engineering, research, and business stakeholders.
Design lead, end-to-end
Problem framing → hypothesis map → interactive prototype → testing across supplier archetypes → synthesis → pilot recommendation.
Hypothesis-first, prototype-tested
I framed discovery around testable hypotheses, then built the primary path as a working prototype — so decisions were pressure-tested with real suppliers, not debated in the abstract.
AI-native prototyping
Built the primary path first in Gemini Canvas, then rebuilt in Claude Code — a fully working React app that pressure-tests at a depth Figma can’t reach.
Output shape
A synthesis around one question — does the reframe hold? — with per-hypothesis verdicts, a ranked list of gaps, and a scoped pilot recommendation.
What the redesign does
The concept we tested pulls all of it into one goal-driven home: a supplier’s score potential, a plan built around a goal they choose, and every action in one place, each tagged with the score impact it carries — replacing buried per-action pages with a single answer to what should I do next, and why.
Make the work persist
Actions and evidence carry forward between assessment cycles, so nothing restarts from zero.
Personalise the guidance
A suggested plan turns a flat checklist into a route toward the supplier’s chosen goal.
Show the action → impact link
Every action is tagged with the score it’s projected to add — effort reads as movement, not busywork.
Unify the workflow
Score, plan, actions, AI-matched evidence, and collaboration on one surface the whole team works from.
The working prototype and its screens are part of a private walkthrough — I’m glad to share them in a conversation.
How we’ll know it worked
Success was defined up front, and every measure is baselined against the current experience. Targets stay confidential — what I can share is what we’re measuring, and why.
Between-cycle engagement — north-star
Do suppliers return to the hub between assessments? This is the momentum the old experience lost, and the metric I’d lead with.
Goal adoption
Do suppliers set an improvement goal? The whole plan hinges on that first step being taken.
Action throughput
Do recommended actions actually move from not-started to done each cycle — not sit untouched?
Evidence acceptance
Are submitted documents accepted first time, instead of bouncing back rejected?
Perceived value
A UX-Lite read on ease and usefulness — and whether suppliers say they’d choose to use it, not have to.
What testing is telling us
I ran the discovery hypothesis-first: seven explicit bets about whether the reframe would land, each testable in the prototype. Testing them early meant learning cheaply, before any of it was built for real.
The headline: the core reframe held — suppliers described a plan-centred experience as something they’d choose to use, and score prediction was the strongest confirm. But one bet came back at risk — a launch blocker we found cheaply in a test instead of expensively in a pilot. The per-hypothesis detail is part of the private walkthrough.
Want to go deeper?
In a conversation I can go deeper on how I framed the hypotheses, ran the testing rounds, and shaped the pilot recommendation — including how I built alignment across PM, engineering, and business stakeholders. The strategic and product specifics stay confidential.