Tables hid the decision path
In the old dashboard, priority, assignment, and next-step information appeared across multiple columns rather than as one action hierarchy.
Selected work Enterprise product UX
Work Order System Redesign
Internal redesign · release not disclosed
I led a three-month UX redesign of an internal maintenance dashboard: grouping work-order details for triage, moving chat beside the task, and designing cards for mobile use.
- Role
- UX design lead (project scope)
- Context
- Davies North America · Internal dashboard
- Timeline
- 3-month redesign
Project study / Davies role · 2023-presentEnterprise product UX
01 / The work
My contribution.
Workflow analysis, responsive UX and interface design
The original dashboard spread priority, owner, status, and next actions across multiple columns. On mobile, the table required horizontal scrolling to see those details.
I reorganized the information for scanning and updating work orders, designed a mobile card view, and brought chat into the detail panel. I worked with the in-house product and IT teams.
- Working with
- In-house product and IT collaboration
- Scope
- Workflow comparison, dashboard UX, responsive QA, support-theme review
- Tools
- Figma, HTML/CSS, JavaScript
Compared
Workflow hierarchy
Existing and redesigned paths were compared for the placement of status, ownership, and next actions.
QA
Responsive field workflow
Desktop table and mobile card behavior were reviewed separately across target breakpoints.
Themes
Support review
Recurring questions about status, ownership, and next steps informed the interface problem definition.
Evidence noteDirectional findings come from workflow comparison, responsive QA, and support-theme review; no production analytics are claimed.
02 / The question
The dashboard hid the next action.
Mobile was treated like a smaller desktop
At mobile widths, the table required horizontal scrolling and did not isolate the fields selected for the field workflow.
Status was visible but not actionable
Users could see labels, but the interface did not clearly communicate what each state meant or what action belonged to it.
Chat lived outside the moment of decision
Communication and work order state appeared in separate surfaces, leaving their relationship implicit in the interface.
Project context
Work changed hands
Work orders moved between people, statuses, and locations. Each handoff needed a visible owner and next action.
Desktop and mobile had different jobs
The documented requirements called for overview density on desktop and compact task context, updates, and less horizontal movement on mobile.
Communication was part of the workflow
Notes and chat were not secondary features. They explained why a work order changed and what needed to happen next.
03 / The decisions
The interface had to make triage visible.
Persistent dashboard hierarchy
The dashboard places priority, status, location, owner, and due signals in the same order on each row.
Contextual chat inside work order detail
Communication was placed beside the work order it affects so the message and the task state remain visible in the same interface.
Tabbed detail structure
Summary, tasks, notes, files, and activity became separate but connected areas. This preserved depth without making one long screen carry every interaction.
Mobile card mode
Cards compress the same work order into a field-friendly shape: status, priority, location, due date, and next action stay visible without horizontal scrolling.
Approach & process
Map the operational path
The redesign began by separating scan tasks, update tasks, and detail tasks. Each view was then shaped around the job it needed to support.
Design for progressive density
High-level lists show what matters for triage. Detail views expand into notes, files, chat, and history only when the user needs that context.
Treat mobile as a different interface
Mobile screens use cards and grouped fields, not squeezed tables. Responsive QA checked this pattern separately from the desktop table.
Reusable patterns
Status and priority tokens
Color and label rules were used to distinguish urgency and progress without relying on color alone.
Reusable work order cards
Cards share spacing, label, and action rules across desktop summary areas and mobile views.
Detail panel patterns
Notes, summary, chat, and files use consistent containers that keep each type of supporting context in a defined area.
Responsive table fallback
Desktop keeps the power of structured rows, while smaller breakpoints switch to readable card patterns.
04 / In detail
The work, up close.
Dashboard overview
The dashboard groups the information needed to scan, decide, update, and review a work order.
Contextual communication
The chat window sits inside the work order context, keeping messages and task state on the same surface.
Detail view
Tabbed content keeps summary, notes, details, and related task information structured instead of overwhelming the page.
Mobile adaptation
The mobile view presents the selected field-workflow details and actions in cards instead of a compressed desktop table.
05 / What it establishes
What changed in the redesigned interface.
A more explicit action hierarchy
Priority, ownership, status, and the next action appear together in the redesigned workflow instead of being distributed across dense columns.
A dedicated mobile pattern
The mobile card model presents the fields and actions selected for field use instead of compressing the desktop table.
Support themes reflected in the UI
Status meaning, ownership, and next-step context are made explicit in the redesigned screens; production impact has not been measured.
How the work was reviewed
Workflow comparison
Existing and redesigned task paths were compared for how they expose priority, ownership, status, and the next available action.
Responsive QA
Desktop table behavior and mobile card behavior were reviewed separately because each breakpoint supports different work.
Support signal review
Confusion points were tracked against UI support themes, especially around status meaning and next-step clarity.
Looking back
The mobile layout forced a useful decision: which fields belong in the list, and which can wait until someone opens a work order? I kept status, priority, location, due date, and the next action on the card.
Workflow comparison and responsive QA helped review that choice. They do not establish whether people complete work faster; that would need testing with users or production data.