Orchestrating the migration of Michigan Medicine's fragmented, Legacy system into a single, user-centered department intranet.

Role:


Lead UX Designer

Duration:


SEPT - MAy 2025

8 months

Tools:


Figma

FigJam

MS Sharepoint


Skills:


ui/ux design
INteraction design

Prototyping

Visual Identity

Agenda:

Overview

Mutual Purpose

Project Scope

REsearch goals & Metrics

Generative Research

REsearch Synthesis

Project REscoping

Research Deliverables

Ideation

Content Audit

Information Architecture

Mid-fidelity SharePoint

Final Designs

handoff

Reflection

TL;DR

The approach

As a UX designer, I drove an intranet user-centered design, focused on user mental models through research(surveys, card sorting, usability tests, focus groups) to deliver a sustainable and scalable system-hub for 150+ employees to manage 260,000 outpatients.

THe outcome

A unified and intuitive intranet ecosystem built with compliance in mind. The project's success was defined by a meticulous handoff, including design templates + documentation that ensured the migration of 150 faculty and staff AND that the client could manage and grow the site independently.

1. Discover

2. Define

3. Design + Build

4. Handoff

1. Discover

Admin alignment

Scoping the problem

Generative research (surveys & focus groups)

Legacy system audit & Usability tests

Card sorting for site architecture

2. Define

Synthesizing findings

User personas, scenarios & journeys

Insights to design requirements

MoSCoW prioritization

3. Design + Build

Information architecture design

Building live pages & templates in SharePoint

Iterative usability testing on live drafts

Refining UI & components based on evaluation testing

4. Handoff

Deploying SharePoint pages/templates

UX specification

Final user flows & Interaction maps

Delivering adoption materials

Handoff presentations

Overview of the Phases of my design process for this project

MICHIGAN MEDICINE FAMILY MEDICINE COntext

MICHIGAN Medicine COntext

As a nationally recognized leader in patient care, education, and research, Michigan Medicine's Family Medicine department serves over 260,000 outpatients, with 150+ faculty members, and supports 39 residency programs.

As the department scales, its intranet was intended to become the central, HIPAA-compliant hub for its community

The Problem

The first intranet migration stalled. It didn’t give staff a clear reason to switch, so adoption stayed low. People fell back on their usual siloed tools, keeping workflows fragmented and insecure. What was supposed to unite the community instead wasted time, created frustration, and more ad-hoc peer-to-peer requests that strained the whole system.

Our role

My role was to improve the intranet's usability. However, discovery research revealed a hidden truth: usability fixes isn't enough; fundamentally is a mismatch between the site's structure and users' actual needs.

Our role went from designers to strategic partners, connecting institutional security needs, departmental migration goals, and the workflow requirements of its users.

THe SOlutioN

We diagnosed the core issue as a failed information architecture and redesigned the entire intranet from the ground up with user research. Our team then built a new design system of mission-based pages and templates directly within SharePoint, enabling real user testing and technical feasibility. Our final deliverable was a complete enablement package with detailed documentation, empowering the Michigan Medicine team to scale then manage the new intranet independently.

Components of our handoff presentation

Final Design

Signifiers & CLarity

Site Architecture

Consistency & Templates

ADditional Changes

Final Design

Signifiers & CLarity

Site Architecture

Consistency & Templates

ADditional Changes

phase 1

DISCOVER

Understanding full context

Building Mutual Purpose — ADmin and Users

Why is an Intranet important?

An intranet is like your department’s internal website — a private space where only faculty, staff, residents, and team members can access and share information.

Think of this as a digital bulletin board, filing cabinet, and team hub rolled into one.

In a fast-paced, multi-site department like Family Medicine, an intranet centralizes clinical, educational, research, and administrative resources. An intranet helps by:

  • Centralizing important resources (forms, protocols, schedules)

  • Reducing email clutter and confusion

  • Making it easier to find what you need, when you need it

A well designed intranet supports day-to-day workflows, keeps everyone aligned, and helps you do your job, whether you’re a clinician, resident, admin, or researcher.

Initial Design

Home

Education

Administration

Research

Use Cases

The initial intranet was functionally abandoned. Users faced poor navigation, outdated content, and a search so unreliable they used public search engines for internal documents. Usage was driven by administrative mandate, not genuine need, offering no compelling reason for users to abandon their workflows.

🩺 Clinical Support

  • Quick access to OB precepting materials, clinical guidelines, or call schedules

  • Links to Epic help pages or templates

  • A one-stop shop for referral workflows, contact lists, or telehealth info

🧪 Research Coordination

  • Guidance on submitting grant proposals, IRB protocols, and departmental processes

  • Track research recognition, publications, or funding opportunities

🗣️ Communication & Culture

  • Internal announcements, department updates, and meeting minutes

  • Celebrations, retirements, awards, or new hires

  • Let people feel connected across clinics, academic divisions, and admin

📚 Education & Training

  • Residents can find their rotation schedules, didactic materials, or procedural logs

  • Attendings can post onboarding resources, policies, or evaluation forms

  • A shared place for M+Care curriculum content or faculty development workshops

📁 Administrative Efficiency

  • Find HR forms, PTO policies, or internal directories

  • Submit conference leave requests or reimbursements

  • Avoid emailing 3 different admins just to get a travel form

These are just some of the many use cases we documented throughout our research.

how might we?

How might we turn the intranet from an obligation into a go-to tool that supports and streamlines daily work?

Scoping the Problem

Project Objectives and GOals

Our engagement with Michigan Medicine began with a clear, but limited, set of client-defined goals focused on surface-level improvements to the existing intranet.

Initial Project Goals (Hover to see FInal Goals)

  1. Improve Usability and Drive Adoption
    Redesign the intranet to align with user workflows and reduce reliance on email.

  1. Strengthen Information Architecture
    Restructure content around departmental missions and ensure compliance.

  1. Ground Improvements in Research
    Use stakeholder interviews and benchmarking to inform improvements.

Initial Project Goals (Hover to see FInal Goals)

  1. Improve Usability and Drive Adoption
    Redesign the intranet to align with user workflows and reduce reliance on email.

  1. Strengthen Information Architecture
    Restructure content around departmental missions and ensure compliance.

  1. Ground Improvements in Research
    Use stakeholder interviews and benchmarking to inform improvements.

Challenge #1

During discovery, we reached a critical turning point. Scoping the project, even with two PMs, was a trial-and-error process. We were initially confident we could solve their intranet design problems, but our user research and workflow analysis revealed a deeper, more fundamental issue: this wasn't just a design problem; it was an information problem.

Scoping this project, even with two PMs, was a process of trial and error. At first, we were confident we could solve their intranet design problems, but user research and workflow feedback revealed our limiting factor was an information problem. We shared these findings with the team and adjusted our approach accordingly.

Applying best practices to the existing structure would have been like painting over a crumbling foundation. We shared our findings with the client, and together, we shifted our approach to address the root cause

Uncovering the real problem

Research Goals

We set 3 research goals to ground our design process in user evidence and ensure we solved the right problems.

  1. Diagnose the intranet's current state to establish a baseline of user sentiment and identify key barriers to adoption

  2. Map existing user workflows to pinpoint specific sources of friction and prioritize areas for improvement.

  3. Determine core user needs and mental models that drive their habits and behaviors.

Audience

Users constantly dealt with high-stake workflows steeped in medical jargon and multi-personnel structures, so we prioritized understanding their specific processes and domain to design a scaleable solution.

Success METRICS

A Success measurement plan & our impact

Working with multiple PMs, scoping extent of the solution was a crucial part for the success of this project. We wanted to create an ambitious information-rich intranet that could be easily adopted and scaled. So some KPI's that defined as success were:

more Exposure & ADoption

Reach 75% Weekly Active Users (WAU)

Increased adoption rates across all mission areas and user groups.

more usability & enjoyment

Reach 90% User Success in terms of Completion Rate

Achieve 2x Faster Document Retrieval Across Teams

More Integration &
Collaboration

Enhance departmental collaboration through platform features.

Better alignment with HIPAA security compliance standards.

It was important for us to measure the success of our efforts and collaborate with the PMs and team executing the migration to provide a clear vision for the project’s goals.

Generative research

4 Methodologies

  1. Survey

  2. USability Test

  3. Card Sort

  4. Focus Group

To validate our initial hypothesis and understand the user's reality, we conducted a multi-method research plan. This deep dive was critical; it provided the evidence that shifted our project's focus from minor fixes to a fundamental redesign and allowed us to build our solution on a foundation of real user data.

phase 1: Quantitive Survey

THe Stakes… Painting a picture

n = 74 respondents

Our survey not only allowed us to quantify current usage, challenges, and awareness across the department, but also revealed a tool that had fundamentally failed to integrate into the department's culture and workflows.

Quotes:

"I never use it [...] honestly, I don’t even know what it’s good for.”

Scoping this project, even with two PMs, was a process of trial and error. At first, we were confident we could solve their intranet design problems, but user research and workflow feedback revealed our limiting factor was an information problem. We shared these findings with the team and adjusted our approach accordingly.

"I’m a lead for a few things on the intranet, but I can’t update my own page [...] It’s out of date, and emailing changes is exhausting."

Scoping this project, even with two PMs, was a process of trial and error. At first, we were confident we could solve their intranet design problems, but user research and workflow feedback revealed our limiting factor was an information problem. We shared these findings with the team and adjusted our approach accordingly.

"I regularly need to know who the medical directors are [...] but that info is hard to find or outdated on the intranet.”

Scoping this project, even with two PMs, was a process of trial and error. At first, we were confident we could solve their intranet design problems, but user research and workflow feedback revealed our limiting factor was an information problem. We shared these findings with the team and adjusted our approach accordingly.

Key Findings:

  1. Functionally Abandoned: 69% of respondents never (29%) or rarely (40%) used the site; 28% didn’t know it existed.

  2. Email & Workarounds Dominated: Email was the primary communication tool (35%); users preferred Dropbox and Google Drive for collaboration.

  3. Need for Reorganization: Users wanted clearer organization and easier access to resources. One clinician noted, “The site is heavily oriented to clinical faculty… I cannot find information that is helpful for research processes.”

Significance:

  1. The Bar for Success is High: The solution must be significantly better than existing tools to win users back.

  2. Information Architecture is the Central Problem: The core issue is not about colors or fonts, but about a fundamentally broken organizational structure.

  3. Personalization is Non-Negotiable: A role-based approach is the only way to make the intranet relevant to its diverse audience.

phase 2: Usability Tests and System audit

phase 2: Usability Tests & System audit

system Audit and Usability test

n = 7 Participants

To deepen our understanding of real usage, we ran task-based, 1:1 moderated usability sessions with faculty and staff in their own work settings. Meeting users where they work gave us richer context on workflows, constraints, and the tools they actually rely on.

Dually, this increased exposure for our migration, building empathy with faculty and stakeholders, snowballing efforts.

Key Findings:

  1. The Nav Bar Was the Primary Mental Model: All users immediately looked to the main navigation bar to begin a task, expressing frustration when forced to scroll or hunt for information on the page itself.

  2. Search Was Broken and Untrustworthy: The search function was so ineffective that users refused to engage with it, with one stating they were "not gonna go through three pages of random file[s].

  3. The IA Was "Clunky" and "Unfamiliar": Users consistently struggled with the content organization, describing it as illogical and reporting difficulty finding information even when they knew it existed.

phase 3: Card Sort

Card Sorting Activity

n = 4 respondents

Of phase 3, we strived to uncover how information was organized within our users, then how they would group and label content based on their intuition, setting a great foundation for our Information Architecture.

Key Findings:

  1. Users Organize by Role & Mission: Participants grouped content by mission area (e.g., Clinical, Research) or role (e.g., Residency, Faculty), revealing that the current structure doesn’t match user mental models.

  2. “Quick Links” = High-Frequency Tools: Users saw “Quick Links” as a primary navigation space for essential tasks—especially Documents & Forms and Logos & Branding—not just a list of miscellaneous links.

  3. People = Critical Resource: Users repeatedly emphasized the need for colleague directories and contact details tied to specific responsibilities—highlighting people as a core resource.

phase 4: Focus Group

FOcus Group

n = 23 Participants

Our focus group focused on hearing direct feedback with a diverse set of members from stakeholders to residents, uncovering cultural blockers and defining the intranet. This method was extremely effective in building empathy and importance around our project for them, materializing our impact.

Quotes:

"With our schedules, we will not self-study. It needs to be immediately obvious."

Scoping this project, even with two PMs, was a process of trial and error. At first, we were confident we could solve their intranet design problems, but user research and workflow feedback revealed our limiting factor was an information problem. We shared these findings with the team and adjusted our approach accordingly.

"It’s not just about documents; we need to know who to talk to [...] and who’s in charge of keeping each SharePoint page updated."

Scoping this project, even with two PMs, was a process of trial and error. At first, we were confident we could solve their intranet design problems, but user research and workflow feedback revealed our limiting factor was an information problem. We shared these findings with the team and adjusted our approach accordingly.

"The intranet should be our homepage for day-to-day operations [...] the first place we go."

Scoping this project, even with two PMs, was a process of trial and error. At first, we were confident we could solve their intranet design problems, but user research and workflow feedback revealed our limiting factor was an information problem. We shared these findings with the team and adjusted our approach accordingly.

"What makes Google Docs so useful is the fluid sharing [...] That’s the level of collaboration we’re used to."

Scoping this project, even with two PMs, was a process of trial and error. At first, we were confident we could solve their intranet design problems, but user research and workflow feedback revealed our limiting factor was an information problem. We shared these findings with the team and adjusted our approach accordingly.

Surprise!!

Scoping this project, even with two PMs, was a process of trial and error. At first, we were confident we could solve their intranet design problems, but user research and workflow feedback revealed our limiting factor was an information problem. We shared these findings with the team and adjusted our approach accordingly.

One member of the focus group was an individual of low-vision and was vocal about how important it was for the intranet to be screen reader accessible. This was a small detail and surprise interaction that shaped our delivery!

Scoping this project, even with two PMs, was a process of trial and error. At first, we were confident we could solve their intranet design problems, but user research and workflow feedback revealed our limiting factor was an information problem. We shared these findings with the team and adjusted our approach accordingly.

Key Findings:

  1. Learning is a "Daunting" Task: Participants found learning the intranet daunting and preferred departmental training over self-study. This mandated an intuitive, zero-learning-curve design.

  2. Clarity on "Who Does What": Users requested clear information on colleague responsibilities to know who to contact for specific topics, validating the need for an enhanced directory.

phase 2

Define

Transforming Data to Action

FEedback -> Insights

Synthesis the "Aha" Moment!

Our affinity map synthesized hundreds of data points into a clear verdict: minor fixes would not work.

This synthesis was our point of realization, providing the undeniable evidence that our initial scope was flawed and a simple redesign would fail.

Evolving the Approach

Project Objectives and GOals (REfined)

We shifted from workflow fixes to an integrative redesign and with a new understanding of actual user requirements and a targeted project scope.

Final Project Goals (Hover to compare)

  1. Target High-Impact Improvements
    Map existing workflows to uncover hidden pain points and understand what’s preventing effective use of the intranet today.

  1. Define the Ideal User Experience
    Develop a new information architecture and toolset that reflect user mental models and reduce friction in task completion.

  1. Enable Seamless Collaboration
    Bridge communication gaps across departments. Design the intranet to work with—not against—existing platforms and tools critical to staff workflows.

  1. Optimize for Adoption
    Enhance the SharePoint implementation with proven best practices and design a seamless onboarding experience to drive user adoption. Identify key communication barriers and design features to streamline interdepartmental workflows.

Final Project Goals (Hover to compare)

  1. Target High-Impact Improvements
    Map existing workflows to uncover hidden pain points and understand what’s preventing effective use of the intranet today.

  1. Define the Ideal User Experience
    Develop a new information architecture and toolset that reflect user mental models and reduce friction in task completion.

  1. Enable Seamless Collaboration
    Bridge communication gaps across departments. Design the intranet to work with—not against—existing platforms and tools critical to staff workflows.

  1. Optimize for Adoption
    Enhance the SharePoint implementation with proven best practices and design a seamless onboarding experience to drive user adoption. Identify key communication barriers and design features to streamline interdepartmental workflows.

4-Step Definition

We integrated raw feedback into insights and a clear design foundation through a 4-step definition process.

Defined our users through personas, their context through scenarios, their emotional journey through the journey map, and our priorities through design requirements.

  1. Personas

  1. User Scenarios

  1. Journey Maps

  1. Design Requirements

  1. Personas

  1. User Scenarios

  1. Journey Maps

  1. Design Requirements

Research Wrap up Presentation

What did we discover about our users and their problem space?

We presented a comprehensive summary about our research findings to our stakeholders, management team, and PMs. This way we were able to put context behind our requests and initiatives and guide with clarity for efficiency.

phase 3

Design and Build

Broad Ideation -> FOcused, pragmatic Implementation

Defining Possibilities

IDEAtion and Sketches

We sketched 64 solutions, ranging from interactive dashboards to new navigation, and converged on the approaches that best met our design requirements.

Strategic content design

entire INtranet COntent Audit

I preformed a thorough content audit of 4 mission areas, 12 primary pages, and 240 links, recommending navigational flows, finding copy issues, sorting links, flagging dead links, and surfaced useful links.

Then we translated the audit into flowcharts by using card-sorting results to organize content around users’ mental models, promoting the most valuable links surfaced in focus-group feedback, and tightening copy and resource labels so files and links are presented clearly and consistently.

content Audit for Research page

Flowchart of Research Page after Organization

Top-Down Approach

Deconstructing the Old to Build the New

With an organized build environment in place, we rebuilt the Information Architecture top-down by mission area adhering to user's mental models. Additionally, placing anchors(i.e. navigation elements, consistent category labels, or conceptual “landmarks”) mirroring how people chunk information, lowering cognitive load and speeding time to content.

Initial IA (Hover to see final)

Initial IA (Hover to see final)

Embracing Real world constraints

Briefing wireframes to Implementing in Sharepoint

We skipped wireframing and built mid-fidelity pages directly to validate feasibility early. This move made the process more dynamic with real constraints, allowing faster iteration and less rework.

Example #1

This shows the two different card options from the draft of the Residency Program Teaching Opportunities Page (later the Residency Page).

We debated two primary approaches: a general announcement-style card versus a detailed event information card.

Example #2

These two screenshots were our mid-fidelity designs for our Document ad Forms and About Us Page.

We experimented with different layouts and ways to establish information hierarchy, navigation clarity, and scannability. At this stage, the focus is on layout, structure, and content prioritization.

Example #3

The first iteration of the Research page was designed to chunk large amounts of information into digestible, navigable sections and make the page more approachable for users.

Early feedback suggested that the original Research resources felt overwhelming and difficult to browse, so our design intent was to reduce cognitive load and improve findability.

Evaluating user Flows

n = 6 Participants

Validating with users along the way

With our mid-fidelity pages, we ran 6 usability tests across Research, Ed, and Admin users for a sense check, if this direction was resulting in improvement.

We measured task success/failure rate and # of erroneous clicks to validate the new IA and user flows against real tasks (e.g., “Find a critical form,” “Check a policy and request an update”).

MISCLICKS CHARTS

gray is administration, blue is education, and green is research.

What Worked.

Scoping this project, even with two PMs, was a process of trial and error. At first, we were confident we could solve their intranet design problems, but user research and workflow feedback revealed our limiting factor was an information problem. We shared these findings with the team and adjusted our approach accordingly.

The usability tests validated the new IA. 43 successful tasks with only 8 erroneous clicks overall (0.19 per success). Users moved quickly once on the right page, confirming the page layouts, labels, and quick links are effective.

Scoping this project, even with two PMs, was a process of trial and error. At first, we were confident we could solve their intranet design problems, but user research and workflow feedback revealed our limiting factor was an information problem. We shared these findings with the team and adjusted our approach accordingly.

Beyond the metrics, the redesign’s impact is clearest when looking at the user flows themselves. The ‘before’ journeys were marked by dead ends and repeated searching. The redesigned flows remove that friction, guiding users directly to what they need.

User Flow 1: Finding a Form for the First Time

Before

After

User Flow 2: Verifying a Policy and Requesting an Update

Before

After

User Flow 3: Starting a Departmental Project

Before

After

The diagrams illustrate three Major user flows before and after the redesign.

where it broke and how we addressed it.

Scoping this project, even with two PMs, was a process of trial and error. At first, we were confident we could solve their intranet design problems, but user research and workflow feedback revealed our limiting factor was an information problem. We shared these findings with the team and adjusted our approach accordingly.

  • No failures: All admin basics and highly visible research resources were found by all participants.

  • Some friction: Tasks like Project Support Contact, Educational RVU Form, and Authorship Guidelines displayed misalignments, where 1–2 participants struggled.

  • Consistent breakdowns: Tasks 7 & 8 (Block Month Presentations & Education Faculty Meetings) had 60–67% failure rates, both tied to the Education section. Users expected “presentations” to be under Presentations and Meetings or “faculty” to be separated from “residency/education.

Scoping this project, even with two PMs, was a process of trial and error. At first, we were confident we could solve their intranet design problems, but user research and workflow feedback revealed our limiting factor was an information problem. We shared these findings with the team and adjusted our approach accordingly.

WHY?

Scoping this project, even with two PMs, was a process of trial and error. At first, we were confident we could solve their intranet design problems, but user research and workflow feedback revealed our limiting factor was an information problem. We shared these findings with the team and adjusted our approach accordingly.

The failures weren’t comprehension issues but entry-point issues (e.g. misleading labels, role ambiguity (faculty vs. residents), and shallow sub-navigation).

Scoping this project, even with two PMs, was a process of trial and error. At first, we were confident we could solve their intranet design problems, but user research and workflow feedback revealed our limiting factor was an information problem. We shared these findings with the team and adjusted our approach accordingly.

What we changeD!!

Scoping this project, even with two PMs, was a process of trial and error. At first, we were confident we could solve their intranet design problems, but user research and workflow feedback revealed our limiting factor was an information problem. We shared these findings with the team and adjusted our approach accordingly.

To address this, we relabeled Education pages to match user language, added role-based entry points and sub-navigation, built cross-links and Quick Links to provide multiple reliable paths, aligned page and file names with common search terms to improve searchability, and introduced onboarding tips to help users learn the structure quickly.

Scoping this project, even with two PMs, was a process of trial and error. At first, we were confident we could solve their intranet design problems, but user research and workflow feedback revealed our limiting factor was an information problem. We shared these findings with the team and adjusted our approach accordingly.

FInal Designs

INtroducing a new standard for intranet experiences

We changed the intranet into a mission-based navigation with clear labels, scannable subpages, quick links to top tasks, streamlined forms, and community features like org charts and page owners, resulting in a clean, intuitive hub that cuts time-to-content, restores trust in finding resources, and keeps staff coming back. 

phase 4

Handoff

Concept to Execution

Deployment and Migration

Packaging the work

With the final designs validated then checked by our PMs and stakeholders, we then packaged the work so Family Medicine can run and evolve the intranet without us. All deliverables are SharePoint-compatible and documented against the live implementation. 

Key Achievements

1) From liability to productivity engine

We rebuilt the intranet to support people who are already stretched thin.  Grounded in real workflows with critical resources surfaced up front, the new intranet reduces administrative drag, replaces non-compliant workarounds, and gives clinicians time back.

2) Nurturing a “single department” culture

We designed for connection so teams do not feel isolated. Role-based IA, an interactive org chart, and explicit page ownership dissolve silos and connect programs, staff, and information into one coherent department.

3) A system that grows with you

We handed over templates, specs, and simple governance so updates feel safe and manageable. Family Medicine can manage, extend, and improve the intranet independently, without recurring external design support.

  1. Packaging the work

We provided a library of ready-to-deploy, user-tested page layouts for all mission areas, document libraries, and common components like quick-link panels. This ensures that as the department grows, any new content will maintain the same high standard of usability and visual consistency we established.

  1. UX Specifications

We delivered a detailed component guidebook defining spacing, hierarchy, interaction states, and design rationale for the entire system. This document serves as the "single source of truth" for the design, allowing any future developer or content manager to understand the "why" behind every element and build new features that feel consistent with the user-tested patterns.

  1. Final User flows & Interaction Maps

We provided a complete visual blueprint of the new user experience. This included streamlined routes to high-frequency content and a full interaction map of the site architecture, giving stakeholders a clear, at-a-glance understanding of how the new, simplified structure works.

  1. Adoption Toolkit

Recognizing the cultural reluctance to "self-study," this toolkit was designed to lower the barrier to adoption and ensure the new intranet wouldn't suffer the same fate as the old one. Its purpose is to make the transition intuitive and to empower the team to maintain the site's integrity over time. It included:

  • "Where to Find X" Quick-Start Guides: Simple, one-page documents tailored to different user roles (e.g., Researchers, Residents) that visually map their most common old tasks to their new locations.

  • A Content Ownership & Governance Guide: A clear checklist defining roles and responsibilities for Mission Area Content Managers, establishing a schedule for reviewing and archiving outdated content to prevent "content decay."

  1. Handoff Presentation

Our final presentation was not a simple walkthrough; it was a strategic communication tool tailored to two key audiences. The purpose was to create universal buy-in, demonstrate the value of the user-centered process, and empower the team to take confident ownership of the new system.

  • For Leadership: This deck focused on the strategic impact, directly linking our initial research insights to the final design solutions and measurable success metrics. It answered the question, "How does this solve our business problems of inefficiency, security risk, and departmental silos?"

  • For the Implementation Team: This deck was a practical training session, walking the team through the deliverables—how to use the SharePoint templates, where to find the UX specs, and how to deploy the Adoption Toolkit—ensuring they had the knowledge and confidence to manage the system from day one.

Reflection

Look for surprises!

Scoping this project, even with two PMs, was a process of trial and error. At first, we were confident we could solve their intranet design problems, but user research and workflow feedback revealed our limiting factor was an information problem. We shared these findings with the team and adjusted our approach accordingly.

What do users actually need?

Scoping this project, even with two PMs, was a process of trial and error. At first, we were confident we could solve their intranet design problems, but user research and workflow feedback revealed our limiting factor was an information problem. We shared these findings with the team and adjusted our approach accordingly.

How to build for sustainable scale.

Scoping this project, even with two PMs, was a process of trial and error. At first, we were confident we could solve their intranet design problems, but user research and workflow feedback revealed our limiting factor was an information problem. We shared these findings with the team and adjusted our approach accordingly.

Presence and transparency for change.

Scoping this project, even with two PMs, was a process of trial and error. At first, we were confident we could solve their intranet design problems, but user research and workflow feedback revealed our limiting factor was an information problem. We shared these findings with the team and adjusted our approach accordingly.

Industry Standard evaluation

Scoping this project, even with two PMs, was a process of trial and error. At first, we were confident we could solve their intranet design problems, but user research and workflow feedback revealed our limiting factor was an information problem. We shared these findings with the team and adjusted our approach accordingly.

Revisiting deliverables

Scoping this project, even with two PMs, was a process of trial and error. At first, we were confident we could solve their intranet design problems, but user research and workflow feedback revealed our limiting factor was an information problem. We shared these findings with the team and adjusted our approach accordingly.

Designing for use AND Attention

Scoping this project, even with two PMs, was a process of trial and error. At first, we were confident we could solve their intranet design problems, but user research and workflow feedback revealed our limiting factor was an information problem. We shared these findings with the team and adjusted our approach accordingly.

Thanks for stopping by! Look forward to chatting ;)

NAVIGATION

HOME

SELF

Case Studies

UM MEdicine

Talentpeak

uNFOLD

NoAA

Umich CAmpus

Locali

Get in TOuch

LINKEDIN

EMAIL

INSTAGRAM

Extras

RESUME

THOUGHTS

KEVXU@UMICH.EDU

Designed & made by @ KEVXU 2024

UPDATED 09.11.2025

HOME

Self

in

cv