Sales managers were responsible for reviewing daily field activity across regions using fragmented internal tools.
As activity volume increased, the system failed to scale with their workflows — slowing reviews, approvals, and decision-making.
This project focused on redesigning core workflows so the system could support scale without breaking clarity, trust, or speed.
Internal Enterprise Web Application
Sales Managers , Sales Executives , Regional Managers, Leadership
High-frequency sales operations, deep data, financial accountability
I worked as a UX Designer focused on core sales workflows inside an existing, legacy enterprise platform. My responsibility was to:
I worked closely with:
This project included:
This system was the backbone of daily sales operations for a large, distributed sales organisation. It was used to:
On paper, the system worked. In practice, people didn’t trust it. As data volume and business complexity grew:
The problem wasn’t missing features. The problem was that the system became harder to reason about as it scaled. This project was about restoring clarity, accountability, and trust inside a complex enterprise tool — not adding more functionality.
As daily activity volume increased, small inefficiencies in tracking, review, and approvals slowly added up to real operational friction.
The challenge here wasn’t adding more features.
It was figuring out how to design workflows that could hold up under scale — across roles, deep data, and constant time pressure — without losing context, accountability, or trust.
Monthly targets were being set manually across two plans, often ignoring seasonality, regional context, and past performance. Managers relied on gut feel or spreadsheets, leading to targets that were either too safe or unrealistically aggressive.
We redesigned target setting as a guided flow. The system could auto-suggest targets using last year’s data, seasonal trends, and regional patterns, while still allowing managers to review current vs previous performance, adjust assumptions, and renegotiate with context.
Designing within real constraints
Target-setting time dropped, debates reduced, and teams aligned faster on achievable goals—shifting focus from arguing numbers to improving outcomes.
So we made states mutually exclusive and easy to reason about, with clear ownership and next actions—no sneaky inferred logic that hid accountability.
Why it mattered
Clear states cut doubt early. No more manual double-checks before even starting.
Bulk flows with inline context, quick approve/reject/modify, and visual cues for what really needed eyes. Validation-first flows, clear inline errors with fix paths—no green “success” unless data was actually clean.
Trade-off
Denser UI, but decisions got faster and more reliable. We owned that choice.
Why it mattered
Visible errors beat hidden ones every time. Trust rebuilds faster when the system is honest.
Grouped lost cases by reason/status/owner, tied funnels to actual actions, and aligned tracking to how sales really happens—not some idealized version.
Why it mattered
Managers went from “What happened?” to “What do we do next?”—that shift felt huge.
Tested with 18 real users (12 managers, 6 TSMs) via digital sessions and interviews.
What improved:
Full case study available on request (NDA-bound).
