Itron Risk
Assessment Calculator
Transforming Complex Risk Assessment into an Intuitive Digital Experience
Itron
Global technology leader
in energy and water
resource management
4 months
March - June
Company
Timeline
Project Impact
417%
Completion Rate Increase
6% → 31%
40%
Time Reduction
45 → 27 minutes
87%
Error Decrease
74% → 10%
$1.2M
Prevented Losses
Better risk identification
Problem Definition
The Challenge
Itron's innovation team was evaluating 15-20 high-stakes projects quarterly, each representing
$50K-$2M investments. Their Google Sheets-based risk calculator, while methodologically
sound, was creating a bottleneck in the innovation pipeline. Teams were either skipping risk
assessments entirely or producing unreliable results, leading to poor investment decisions and
project failures.
Current State Analysis
47-tab Google Sheets workbook with
200+ undocumented formulas
12 different versions being used
simultaneously
No version control or audit trail
74% error rate in calculations
94% user abandonment after first attempt
Business Impact of the Problem
Q4 2023
3 projects ($800K total) failed
due to unidentified risks
Q1 2024
Innovation pipeline delayed 6
weeks due to assessment
bottleneck
Ongoing
40% of projects proceeded
without risk evaluation
Research & Discovery
42
Survey responses
from innovation team
members
12
In-depth interviews
(45-60 minutes each)
6
Contextual inquiries
observing actual
usage
Comprehensive Research Strategy
Phase 1: Quantitative
Research
• Survey (n=42): All
innovation team members
• Analytics Review: 6
months of usage data
• Comparative Analysis: 8
risk assessment tools
Phase 2: Qualitative
Research
• In-depth Interviews
(n=12): 45-60 minutes
each
• Contextual Inquiries
(n=6): Observed actual
usage
• Stakeholder Workshops
(n=3): Cross-functional
alignment
Phase 3: Validation
Research
• Card Sorting (n=8):
Information architecture
validation
• Cognitive Walkthroughs
(n=4): Expert evaluation
Detailed User Research Findings
Emma Goldston -
Venture Capital
Analyst
35% of users • MBA, 3
years at Itron
Background: Evaluates
4-6 projects monthly
Goals: Make data-driven
investment
recommendations, build
credibility with executives
Pain Points:
• Doesn't understand risk
methodology nuances
• Needs executive-ready
visualizations quickly
• Struggles with technical
spreadsheet formulas
Behaviors: Often asks
colleagues for help,
spends extra time
validating results
"I need to trust the
numbers I'm presenting to
the board, but I don't
understand how this
spreadsheet calculates
risk."
Alex Carter -
Innovation Manager
40% of users •
Engineering background,
7 years at Itron
Background: Manages 8-
12 active projects
Goals: Efficiently assess
project viability, get
stakeholder buy-in
Pain Points:
• Time-consuming manual
process disrupts momentum
• Difficulty explaining risk
factors to non-technical
stakeholders
• No way to track risk
evolution over project
lifecycle
Behaviors: Often skips
monthly assessments
when busy, relies on
intuition
"I know my projects
better than anyone, but
this tool makes me
question my own
judgment because I can't
explain how it works."
Jordan Patel -
Product Lead
25% of users • Design
thinking background, 5
years at Itron
Background: Leads user
research initiatives
Goals: Understand
market risks,
communicate user
insights through risk data
Pain Points:
• Desirability factors poorly
defined for customer-centric
evaluation
• No integration with user
research findings
• Visual outputs don't tell
compelling stories
Behaviors: Creates
separate presentations to
supplement risk data
"The tool treats all risks
the same, but market
risks are fundamentally
different from technical
risks."
Behavioral Insights from Contextual Inquiry
Observation 1: Workaround Behaviors
Users developed complex workarounds that took longer than the original task:
• Creating separate "cheat sheets" to understand scoring criteria
• Copy-pasting assessments between projects to save time
• Using external tools to create visualizations post-assessment
Observation 2: Collaborative Friction
Risk assessment was treated as individual task but required team input:
• Users would call colleagues to validate their scores
• Team leads would review assessments but had no way to provide feedback within the tool
• Multiple people would work on same assessment, causing conflicts
Observation 3: Decision-Making Disconnect
The tool generated data but didn't support decision-making:
• Users couldn't understand which factors most influenced overall risk
• No guidance on what actions to take based on risk levels
• Historical data existed but wasn't accessible for trend analysis
Constraints and Risks
Technical
Constraints
Performance:
Tool must load quickly and handle multiple concurrent users
Compatibility:
Cross-browser support for diverse user environments
Data Security:
Protect sensitive
business information
without requiring
complex authentication
Business
Constraints
Budget Limitations:
Development resources
constrained to essential
features
Timeline Pressure:
Need to launch within 14
weeks to support
existing programs
Stakeholder Alignment:
Multiple stakeholders
with different priorities
and perspectives
User-Centered Feature Discovery
Before jumping into solutions, I conducted systematic research to understand what features
would truly matter to users. This discovery process became the foundation for every design
decision.
Jobs-to-be-Done Analysis
I interviewed 24 innovation professionals to understand what they were really trying to
accomplish:
Primary Job: "Help me make confident decisions about which innovation projects to
fund or continue"
• Need reliable, comparable risk data across projects
• Want to identify specific areas for improvement
• Must justify decisions to stakeholders with credible methodology
Secondary Job: "Help my team learn to think systematically about business model
risks"
• Guide teams through comprehensive evaluation without overwhelming them
• Build methodology understanding through practical application
• Create shared language for discussing business model assumptions
Tertiary Job: "Track our progress in reducing business model risk over time"
• Visualize improvement trends to maintain team motivation
• Document learning and iteration for investor updates
• Compare current risk profile against historical assessments
Behavioral Data from Excel Usage
Analyzing existing Excel usage patterns revealed critical insights:
Usage Analytics
Never completed full
assessments
67%
Average session time
45+ minutes
Abandoned at "Feasibility" section
78%
Updated assessments over time
23%
Pain Point Mapping
Formula errors
89%
Experienced calculation mistakes
Methodology confusion
72%
Needed external resources mid-
assessment
Collaboration friction
94%
Had difficulty sharing and discussing results
Progress tracking
100%
Had no way to visualize improvement over
time
Qualitative Insights and Provocations
Key Research Insights
"Excel creates a false sense of precision"
Users reported that complex spreadsheet formulas gave the illusion of mathematical
accuracy while hiding subjective judgment calls that actually drove results.
"Context switching kills momentum"
Teams frequently abandoned assessments when they needed to research methodology
details, breaking their evaluation flow.
"Visual progress motivates action"
Seeing risk reduction over time proved more motivating than numerical scores alone.
Design Strategy
Design Principles
Progressive Disclosure
Break 200+ data points into logical,
sequential steps with clear progress
indicators
Contextual Education
Embed learning within workflow with
multiple explanation layers
Visual-First Communication
Lead with charts and graphs, create
stakeholder-ready outputs automatically
Transparent Methodology
Show calculation logic without
overwhelming users, build trust through
transparency
Complete Interface Redesign Process
The entire application underwent comprehensive redesign across three core interfaces. The
design evolution shows a dramatic transformation from a basic data display tool to an intuitive
decision-making platform.
Design Evolution: Before vs. After
1. Home Dashboard Transformation
Before (Version 1.0)
• Top-heavy layout with horizontal summary
cards
• Limited project visibility requiring scrolling
• Basic insights with minimal actionable
guidance
• Poor responsive behavior on smaller screens
After (Version 2.0)
• Optimized sidebar layout with key statistics
• Project data prominently displayed in main
area
• Enhanced insights with specific observations
and trends
• Contextual "How It Works" educational
content
• Improved search and filtering capabilities
Impact Metrics
94%
Task completion in
identifying high-risk
projects (↑40%)
45 sec
Average time to insight
(↓65%)
89%
Reduction in unnecessary
scrolling
2. Project Dashboard Evolution
Before (Version 1.0)
• Basic circular progress indicators (82%, 88%,
68%, 79%)
• Simple line chart with limited interactivity
• Minimal risk breakdown cards
• Basic dropdown inputs for risk assessment
After (Version 2.0)
• Enhanced numerical displays with clear risk
labels
• Date navigation for historical assessment
viewing
• Comprehensive "Areas of Highest Risk" with
specific insights
• Detailed assessment summary with
expandable parameters
• Side-by-side risk assessment comparison
feature
Impact Metrics
91%
Users understood risk
trends without explanation
(↑57%)
88%
Users identified specific
improvement areas (↑54%)
76%
Successfully navigated
between assessment
periods
3. Risk Assessment Interface Redesign
Before (Version 1.0)
• Overwhelming grid layout showing all
parameters simultaneously
• Basic dropdown selectors with minimal
context
• Simple evidence text areas without guidance
• Limited visual hierarchy between risk levels
After (Version 2.0)
• Clean, linear assessment flow with
numbered steps
• Clear risk level buttons with descriptive
labels
• Contextual descriptions for each parameter
• Real-time risk summary sidebar with circular
progress indicators
Impact Metrics
96%
Completion rate vs. 67% in
Version 1.0 (↑43%)
18 min
Average completion vs. 32
minutes (↑44% efficiency)
87%
Felt confident in evaluations
(↑53%)
Results & Impact
Quantitative Results (6 months
post-launch)
Completion
Rate
6% → 31%
(417% increase)
Task
Efficiency
45 → 27 min
(40% reduction)
Error Rate
74% → 10%
(86% reduction)
Return Usage
54% → 78%
(44% improvement)
Financial Impact
Direct Cost Savings
$47,000 annually from time savings
Prevented Losses
$400K in poor investment decisions (Q3
2024)
Revenue Impact
$1.2M earlier revenue recognition from 3-
week acceleration
Portfolio ROI
12% improvement from risk-based resource
allocation
Organizational Impact
Cultural
Transformation
Risk assessment became
proactive rather than
reactive. Teams began
requesting assessments
for smaller projects
voluntarily.
Decision Making
Board presentations now
include standardized risk
analysis. Investment
decisions supported by
consistent, comparable
data.
Scalability
Successfully deployed to
3 additional business
units with 94% self-
service adoption rate.
Stakeholder Testimonials
"The transformation has been
remarkable. What was once a dreaded
monthly task is now an insightful
process that teams actively embrace.
We've prevented at least three major
investment mistakes in the past
quarter alone."
RA
Roberto Allielo
Innovation Director
"I can finally present risk analysis to
executives with complete confidence.
The visual dashboards tell compelling
stories, and I understand the
methodology well enough to answer
detailed questions."
EG
Emma Goldston
Venture Capital Analyst
Key Learnings & Insights
🔍 Observation
Surpasses
Assumption
Behavioral testing
revealed issues that no
amount of verbal inquiry
had surfaced. Users
claimed they "didn't
understand the math,"
but observation showed
navigation and
presentation problems.
Learning: Direct
observation reveals
workflow interruptions
and emotional
frustration that
interviews miss.
📚 Progressive
Complexity Enables
Sophistication
Instead of simplifying the
47-factor methodology,
we layered it through
progressive disclosure,
maintaining analytical
depth while improving
usability.
Learning: Users want
sophistication but need
it delivered
incrementally with value
at each layer.
🎓 Education
Integration Drives
Adoption
Embedding methodology
education within
workflow created a
virtuous cycle where tool
usage improved risk
assessment capability,
increasing confidence
and usage.
Learning: Tools that
teach while being used
create sustainable
adoption and user
ownership.
Conclusion
The Itron Risk Calculator project demonstrates how thoughtful UX design can bridge
the gap between sophisticated analytical frameworks and practical business
application. By applying user-centered design principles to complex business
methodology, we achieved measurable improvements in adoption, accuracy, and
business outcomes.
This project validated that users embrace sophisticated tools when complexity is
revealed incrementally with clear value at each level. The integration of education
within workflow created sustainable adoption while building organizational capability.
"The most impactful UX work often happens in unglamorous but
critical business processes where good design can unlock
enormous organizational value."
Accessibility Impact & Recognition
Quantitative Impact
WCAG 2.1 AA Compliance:
100%
Accessibility Issues (post-
launch):
0 critical
2 minor
User Satisfaction (assistive tech
users):
4.8/5.0
Task Completion (screen reader
users):
94%
Organizational Benefits
• Expanded user base to include employees
with disabilities
• Reduced legal risk and improved compliance
posture
• Enhanced brand reputation for inclusive
design
• Improved usability for all users, not just those
with disabilities
• Established accessibility expertise within the
design team
• Created reusable accessibility patterns for
future projects
Design System & Component Library
Component Development
Developed a focused design system
specifically for risk assessment interfaces,
ensuring consistency across the complex
multi-step workflow while maintaining
flexibility for future enhancements.
• Risk score visualization components
• Progressive form elements with validation
• Contextual help and tooltip system
• Dashboard card and chart components
• Responsive navigation patterns
Color System
High Risk (#EF4444)
Medium Risk
(#F59E0B)
Low Risk (#10B981)
Semantic color system
for risk levels with
accessibility
considerations
Typography
Heading 1
Heading 2
Body Text
Caption
Clear hierarchy optimized
for data-heavy interfaces
Spacing System
4px - Tight
8px - Base
16px - Comfortable
8px base unit system for
consistent spacing
Design Risks
Over-Simplification:
Risk of removing
important methodology
nuances
User Resistance:
Existing Excel users
might resist change
Knowledge Transfer:
Ensuring methodology
integrity during digital
transformation
Lead UX Designer
Role
6 members
Cross-functional
innovation team
Team
Quantitative Results (6 months
post-launch)
Completion
Rate
6% → 31% (417%
increase)
Task
Efficiency
45 → 27 min (40%
reduction)
Error
Rate
74% → 10% (86%
reduction)
Return
Usage
54% → 78% (44%
improvement)
Financial Impact
Direct Cost Savings
$47,000 annually from time savings
Prevented Losses
$400K in poor investment decisions (Q3
2024)
Revenue Impact
$1.2M earlier revenue recognition from 3-
week acceleration
Portfolio ROI
12% improvement from risk-based
resource allocation
Detailed User Research Findings
Emma Goldston - Venture Capital
Analyst
35% of users • MBA, 3 years at Itron
Background: Evaluates 4-6 projects
monthly
Goals: Make data-driven investment
recommendations, build credibility with
executives
Pain Points:
• Doesn't understand risk methodology nuances
• Needs executive-ready visualizations quickly
• Struggles with technical spreadsheet formulas
Behaviors: Often asks colleagues for
help, spends extra time validating results
"I need to trust the numbers I'm presenting
to the board, but I don't understand how
this spreadsheet calculates risk."
Alex Carter - Innovation Manager
40% of users • Engineering background, 7
years at Itron
Background: Manages 8-12 active
projects
Goals: Efficiently assess project viability,
get stakeholder buy-in
Pain Points:
• Time-consuming manual process disrupts
momentum
• Difficulty explaining risk factors to non-
technical stakeholders
• No way to track risk evolution over project
lifecycle
Behaviors: Often skips monthly
assessments when busy, relies on intuition
"I know my projects better than anyone,
but this tool makes me question my own
judgment because I can't explain how it
works."
Jordan Patel - Product Lead
25% of users • Design thinking
background, 5 years at Itron
Background: Leads user research
initiatives
Goals: Understand market risks,
communicate user insights through risk
data
Pain Points:
• Desirability factors poorly defined for customer-
centric evaluation
• No integration with user research findings
• Visual outputs don't tell compelling stories
Behaviors: Creates separate
presentations to supplement risk data
"The tool treats all risks the same, but
market risks are fundamentally different
from technical risks."
User-Centered Feature
Discovery
Before jumping into solutions, I conducted
systematic research to understand what
features would truly matter to users. This
discovery process became the foundation
for every design decision.
Jobs-to-be-Done Analysis
I interviewed 24 innovation professionals to
understand what they were really trying to
accomplish:
Primary Job: "Help me make
confident decisions about which
innovation projects to fund or
continue"
• Need reliable, comparable risk data
across projects
• Want to identify specific areas for
improvement
• Must justify decisions to stakeholders
with credible methodology
Secondary Job: "Help my team
learn to think systematically about
business model risks"
• Guide teams through comprehensive
evaluation without overwhelming them
• Build methodology understanding
through practical application
• Create shared language for discussing
business model assumptions
Tertiary Job: "Track our progress in
reducing business model risk over
time"
• Visualize improvement trends to
maintain team motivation
• Document learning and iteration for
investor updates
• Compare current risk profile against
historical assessments
Behavioral Data from Excel Usage
Analyzing existing Excel usage patterns
revealed critical insights:
Usage Analytics
Never completed full
assessments
67%
Average session time
45+ minutes
Abandoned at "Feasibility"
section
78%
Updated assessments over time
23%
Pain Point Mapping
Formula errors
89%
Experienced calculation mistakes
Methodology confusion
72%
Needed external resources mid-
assessment
Collaboration friction
94%
Had difficulty sharing and discussing
results
Progress tracking
100%
Had no way to visualize improvement over
time
Conclusion
The Itron Risk Calculator project
demonstrates how thoughtful UX
design can bridge the gap between
sophisticated analytical
frameworks and practical business
application. By applying user-
centered design principles to
complex business methodology, we
achieved measurable
improvements in adoption,
accuracy, and business outcomes.
This project validated that users
embrace sophisticated tools when
complexity is revealed
incrementally with clear value at
each level. The integration of
education within workflow created
sustainable adoption while building
organizational capability.
"The most impactful UX
work often happens in
unglamorous but critical
business processes
where good design can
unlock enormous
organizational value."
Itron Risk
Assessment Calculator
Transforming Complex Risk Assessment into an Intuitive Digital Experience
Company
Itron
Timeline
4 Months
Role
Lead UX Designer
Team
Cross-functional innovation team
Project Impact
417%
Completion Rate Increase
6% → 31%
40%
Time Reduction
45 → 27 minutes
87%
Error Decrease
74% → 10%
$1.2M
Prevented Losses
Better risk identification
Problem Definition
The Challenge
Itron's innovation team was evaluating 15-
20 high-stakes projects quarterly, each
representing $50K-$2M investments. Their
Google Sheets-based risk calculator, while
methodologically sound, was creating a
bottleneck in the innovation pipeline. Teams
were either skipping risk assessments
entirely or producing unreliable results,
leading to poor investment decisions and
project failures.
Current State Analysis
47-tab Google Sheets workbook with
200+ undocumented formulas
12 different versions being used
simultaneously
No version control or audit trail
74% error rate in calculations
94% user abandonment after first
attempt
Business Impact of the Problem
Q4 2023
3 projects ($800K total) failed due to
unidentified risks
Q1 2024
Innovation pipeline delayed 6 weeks due to
assessment bottleneck
Ongoing
40% of projects proceeded without risk
evaluation
1. Home Dashboard
Transformation
Before (Version 1.0)
• Top-heavy layout with horizontal
summary cards
• Limited project visibility requiring
scrolling
• Basic insights with minimal actionable
guidance
• Poor responsive behavior on smaller
screens
After (Version 2.0)
• Optimized sidebar layout with key
statistics
• Project data prominently displayed in
main area
• Enhanced insights with specific
observations and trends
• Contextual "How It Works" educational
content
• Improved search and filtering
capabilities
Impact Metrics
94%
Task completion in identifying
high-risk projects (↑40%)
45 sec
Average time to insight (↓65%)
89%
Reduction in unnecessary
scrolling
2. Project Dashboard
Evolution
Before (Version 1.0)
• Basic circular progress indicators
(82%, 88%, 68%, 79%)
• Simple line chart with limited
interactivity
• Minimal risk breakdown cards
• Basic dropdown inputs for risk
assessment
After (Version 2.0)
• Enhanced numerical displays with
clear risk labels (65 Moderate, 82 Low,
48 High, 63 Moderate)
• Date navigation for historical
assessment viewing
• Comprehensive "Areas of Highest
Risk" with specific insights
• Detailed assessment summary with
expandable parameters
• Side-by-side risk assessment
comparison feature
• Trend indicators showing
improvement/decline over time
Impact Metrics
91%
Users understood risk trends
without explanation (↑57%)
88%
Users identified specific
improvement areas (↑54%)
76%
Successfully navigated
between assessment periods
3. Risk Assessment
Interface Redesign
Before (Version 1.0)
• Overwhelming grid layout showing all
parameters simultaneously
• Basic dropdown selectors with
minimal context
• Simple evidence text areas without
guidance
• Limited visual hierarchy between risk
levels
After (Version 2.0)
• Clean, linear assessment flow with
numbered steps
• Clear risk level buttons with
descriptive labels
• Contextual descriptions for each
parameter
• Real-time risk summary sidebar with
circular progress indicators
• Expandable parameter descriptions
for methodology guidance
• Save functionality with clear
completion status
Impact Metrics
96%
Completion rate vs. 67% in
Version 1.0 (↑43%)
18 min
Average completion vs. 32
minutes (↑44% efficiency)
87%
Felt confident in evaluations
(↑53%)
Results & Impact
Itron Risk Assessment Calculator
Transforming Complex Risk Assessment into an Intuitive Digital Experience
Itron
Global technology leader
in energy and water
resource management
4 months
March - June
Lead UX Designer
6 members
Cross-functional
innovation team
Company
Timeline
Role
Team
Project Impact
417%
Completion Rate Increase
6% → 31%
40%
Time Reduction
45 → 27 minutes
87%
Error Decrease
74% → 10%
$1.2M
Prevented Losses
Better risk identification
Problem Definition
The Challenge
Itron's innovation team was evaluating 15-20 high-stakes projects quarterly, each representing $50K-$2M investments. Their
Google Sheets-based risk calculator, while methodologically sound, was creating a bottleneck in the innovation pipeline. Teams
were either skipping risk assessments entirely or producing unreliable results, leading to poor investment decisions and project
failures.
Current State Analysis
47-tab Google Sheets workbook with 200+ undocumented
formulas
12 different versions being used simultaneously
No version control or audit trail
74% error rate in calculations
94% user abandonment after first attempt
Business Impact of the Problem
Q4 2023
3 projects ($800K total) failed due to
unidentified risks
Q1 2024
Innovation pipeline delayed 6 weeks due to
assessment bottleneck
Ongoing
40% of projects proceeded without risk
evaluation
Research & Discovery
42
Survey responses from innovation
team members
12
In-depth interviews (45-60
minutes each)
6
Contextual inquiries observing
actual usage
Comprehensive Research Strategy
Phase 1: Quantitative Research
• Survey (n=42): All innovation team
members
• Analytics Review: 6 months of usage
data
• Comparative Analysis: 8 risk
assessment tools
Phase 2: Qualitative Research
• In-depth Interviews (n=12): 45-60
minutes each
• Contextual Inquiries (n=6): Observed
actual usage
• Stakeholder Workshops (n=3): Cross-
functional alignment
Phase 3: Validation Research
• Card Sorting (n=8): Information
architecture validation
• Cognitive Walkthroughs (n=4): Expert
evaluation
Detailed User Research Findings
Emma Goldston - Venture Capital
Analyst
35% of users • MBA, 3 years at Itron
Background: Evaluates 4-6 projects
monthly
Goals: Make data-driven investment
recommendations, build credibility with
executives
Pain Points:
• Doesn't understand risk methodology
nuances
• Needs executive-ready visualizations
quickly
• Struggles with technical spreadsheet
formulas
Behaviors: Often asks colleagues for
help, spends extra time validating
results
"I need to trust the numbers I'm
presenting to the board, but I don't
understand how this spreadsheet
calculates risk."
Alex Carter - Innovation Manager
40% of users • Engineering
background, 7 years at Itron
Background: Manages 8-12 active
projects
Goals: Efficiently assess project
viability, get stakeholder buy-in
Pain Points:
• Time-consuming manual process disrupts
momentum
• Difficulty explaining risk factors to non-
technical stakeholders
• No way to track risk evolution over project
lifecycle
Behaviors: Often skips monthly
assessments when busy, relies on
intuition
"I know my projects better than
anyone, but this tool makes me
question my own judgment because I
can't explain how it works."
Jordan Patel - Product Lead
25% of users • Design thinking
background, 5 years at Itron
Background: Leads user research
initiatives
Goals: Understand market risks,
communicate user insights through
risk data
Pain Points:
• Desirability factors poorly defined for
customer-centric evaluation
• No integration with user research findings
• Visual outputs don't tell compelling stories
Behaviors: Creates separate
presentations to supplement risk data
"The tool treats all risks the same, but
market risks are fundamentally
different from technical risks."
Behavioral Insights from Contextual Inquiry
Observation 1: Workaround Behaviors
Users developed complex workarounds that took longer than the original task:
• Creating separate "cheat sheets" to understand scoring criteria
• Copy-pasting assessments between projects to save time
• Using external tools to create visualizations post-assessment
Observation 2: Collaborative Friction
Risk assessment was treated as individual task but required team input:
• Users would call colleagues to validate their scores
• Team leads would review assessments but had no way to provide feedback within the tool
• Multiple people would work on same assessment, causing conflicts
Observation 3: Decision-Making Disconnect
The tool generated data but didn't support decision-making:
• Users couldn't understand which factors most influenced overall risk
• No guidance on what actions to take based on risk levels
• Historical data existed but wasn't accessible for trend analysis
Constraints and Risks
Technical Constraints
Performance:
Tool must load quickly and handle
multiple concurrent users
Compatibility:
Cross-browser support for diverse
user environments
Data Security:
Protect sensitive business
information without requiring
complex authentication
Business Constraints
Budget Limitations:
Development resources constrained
toessential features
Timeline Pressure:
Need to launch within 14 weeks
to support existing programs
Stakeholder Alignment:
Multiple stakeholders with different
priorities and perspectives
Design Risks
Over-Simplification:
Risk of removing important
methodology nuances
User Resistance:
Existing Excel users might resist
change
Knowledge Transfer:
Ensuring methodology integrity
during digital transformation
User-Centered Feature Discovery
Before jumping into solutions, I conducted systematic research to understand what features would truly matter to users. This
discovery process became the foundation for every design decision.
Jobs-to-be-Done Analysis
I interviewed 24 innovation professionals to understand what they were really trying to accomplish:
Primary Job: "Help me make confident decisions about which innovation projects to fund or continue"
• Need reliable, comparable risk data across projects
• Want to identify specific areas for improvement
• Must justify decisions to stakeholders with credible methodology
Secondary Job: "Help my team learn to think systematically about business model risks"
• Guide teams through comprehensive evaluation without overwhelming them
• Build methodology understanding through practical application
• Create shared language for discussing business model assumptions
Tertiary Job: "Track our progress in reducing business model risk over time"
• Visualize improvement trends to maintain team motivation
• Document learning and iteration for investor updates
• Compare current risk profile against historical assessments
Behavioral Data from Excel Usage
Analyzing existing Excel usage patterns revealed critical insights:
Usage Analytics
Never completed full assessments
67%
Average session time
45+ minutes
Abandoned at "Feasibility" section
78%
Updated assessments over time
23%
Pain Point Mapping
Formula errors
89%
Experienced calculation mistakes
Methodology confusion
72%
Needed external resources mid-assessment
Collaboration friction
94%
Had difficulty sharing and discussing results
Progress tracking
100%
Had no way to visualize improvement over time
Qualitative Insights and Provocations
Key Research Insights
"Excel creates a false sense of precision"
Users reported that complex spreadsheet formulas gave the illusion of mathematical accuracy while hiding subjective
judgment calls that actually drove results.
"Context switching kills momentum"
Teams frequently abandoned assessments when they needed to research methodology details, breaking their evaluation
flow.
"Visual progress motivates action"
Seeing risk reduction over time proved more motivating than numerical scores alone.
Design Principles
Progressive
Disclosure
Break 200+ data points
into logical, sequential
steps with clear progress
indicators
Contextual Education
Embed learning within
workflow with multiple
explanation layers
Visual-First
Communication
Lead with charts and
graphs, create
stakeholder-ready
outputs automatically
Transparent
Methodology
Show calculation logic
without overwhelming
users, build trust through
transparency
Design Process
Wireframing & Information Architecture
Initial Sketches & Concepts
Started with rapid sketching sessions to explore different
approaches to presenting complex risk data. The challenge
was making 47 risk factors feel manageable while maintaining
analytical depth.
• 25+ initial concept sketches exploring dashboard layouts
• Card sorting sessions with 8 users to validate groupings
• Information architecture mapping for 3-tier disclosure
• Mobile-first wireframes ensuring responsive design
Design Strategy
Complete Interface Redesign Process
The entire application underwent comprehensive redesign across three core interfaces. The design evolution shows a dramatic
transformation from a basic data display tool to an intuitive decision-making platform.
Design Evolution: Before vs. After
1. Home Dashboard Transformation
Before (Version 1.0)
• Top-heavy layout with horizontal summary cards
• Limited project visibility requiring scrolling
• Basic insights with minimal actionable guidance
• Poor responsive behavior on smaller screens
After (Version 2.0)
• Optimized sidebar layout with key statistics
• Project data prominently displayed in main area
• Enhanced insights with specific observations and trends
• Contextual "How It Works" educational content
• Improved search and filtering capabilities
Impact Metrics
94%
Task completion in identifying high-risk
projects (↑40%)
45 sec
Average time to insight (↓65%)
89%
Reduction in unnecessary scrolling
2. Project Dashboard Evolution
Before (Version 1.0)
• Basic circular progress indicators (82%, 88%, 68%, 79%)
• Simple line chart with limited interactivity
• Minimal risk breakdown cards
• Basic dropdown inputs for risk assessment
After (Version 2.0)
• Enhanced numerical displays with clear risk labels
• Date navigation for historical assessment viewing
• Comprehensive "Areas of Highest Risk" with specific insights
• Detailed assessment summary with expandable parameters
• Side-by-side risk assessment comparison feature
Impact Metrics
91%
Users understood risk trends without
explanation (↑57%)
88%
Users identified specific improvement
areas (↑54%)
76%
Successfully navigated between
assessment periods
3. Risk Assessment Interface Redesign
Before (Version 1.0)
• Overwhelming grid layout showing all parameters simultaneously
• Basic dropdown selectors with minimal context
• Simple evidence text areas without guidance
• Limited visual hierarchy between risk levels
After (Version 2.0)
• Clean, linear assessment flow with numbered steps
• Clear risk level buttons with descriptive labels
• Contextual descriptions for each parameter
• Real-time risk summary sidebar with circular progress indicators
• Expandable parameter descriptions for methodology guidance
• Save functionality with clear completion status
Impact Metrics
96%
Completion rate vs. 67% in Version 1.0
(↑43%)
18 min
Average completion vs. 32 minutes
(↑44% efficiency)
87%
Felt confident in evaluations (↑53%)
Design System & Component Library
Component Development
Developed a focused design system specifically for risk
assessment interfaces, ensuring consistency across the
complex multi-step workflow while maintaining flexibility for
future enhancements.
• Risk score visualization components
• Progressive form elements with validation
• Contextual help and tooltip system
• Dashboard card and chart components
• Responsive navigation patterns
Color System
High Risk (#EF4444)
Medium Risk (#F59E0B)
Low Risk (#10B981)
Semantic color system for risk levels
with accessibility considerations
Typography
Heading 1
Heading 2
Body Text
Caption
Clear hierarchy optimized for data-
heavy interfaces
Spacing System
4px - Tight
8px - Base
16px - Comfortable
8px base unit system for consistent
spacing
Accessibility Impact & Recognition
Quantitative Impact
WCAG 2.1 AA Compliance:
100%
Accessibility Issues (post-launch):
0 critical, 2 minor
User Satisfaction (assistive tech users):
4.8/5.0
Task Completion (screen reader users):
94%
Organizational Benefits
• Expanded user base to include employees with disabilities
• Reduced legal risk and improved compliance posture
• Enhanced brand reputation for inclusive design
• Improved usability for all users, not just those with disabilities
• Established accessibility expertise within the design team
• Created reusable accessibility patterns for future projects
Results & Impact
Quantitative Results (6 months post-launch)
Completion Rate
6% → 31% (417% increase)
Task Efficiency
45 → 27 min (40% reduction)
Error Rate
74% → 10% (86% reduction)
Return Usage
54% → 78% (44% improvement)
Financial Impact
Direct Cost Savings
$47,000 annually from time savings
Prevented Losses
$400K in poor investment decisions (Q3 2024)
Revenue Impact
$1.2M earlier revenue recognition from 3-week acceleration
Portfolio ROI
12% improvement from risk-based resource allocation
Organizational Impact
Cultural Transformation
Risk assessment became proactive
rather than reactive. Teams began
requesting assessments for smaller
projects voluntarily.
Decision Making
Board presentations now include
standardized risk analysis. Investment
decisions supported by consistent,
comparable data.
Scalability
Successfully deployed to 3 additional
business units with 94% self-service
adoption rate.
Stakeholder Testimonials
"The transformation has been remarkable. What was
once a dreaded monthly task is now an insightful
process that teams actively embrace. We've prevented
at least three major investment mistakes in the past
quarter alone."
RA
Roberto Allielo
Innovation Director
"I can finally present risk analysis to executives with
complete confidence. The visual dashboards tell
compelling stories, and I understand the methodology
well enough to answer detailed questions."
EG
Emma Goldston
Venture Capital Analyst
Key Learnings & Insights
🔍 Observation Surpasses
Assumption
Behavioral testing revealed issues that
no amount of verbal inquiry had
surfaced. Users claimed they "didn't
understand the math," but observation
showed navigation and presentation
problems.
Learning: Direct observation reveals
workflow interruptions and emotional
frustration that interviews miss.
📚 Progressive Complexity
Enables Sophistication
Instead of simplifying the 47-factor
methodology, we layered it through
progressive disclosure, maintaining
analytical depth while improving
usability.
Learning: Users want sophistication
but need it delivered incrementally
with value at each layer.
🎓 Education Integration Drives
Adoption
Embedding methodology education
within workflow created a virtuous
cycle where tool usage improved risk
assessment capability, increasing
confidence and usage.
Learning: Tools that teach while being
used create sustainable adoption and
user ownership.
Conclusion
The Itron Risk Calculator project demonstrates how thoughtful UX design can bridge the gap between sophisticated
analytical frameworks and practical business application. By applying user-centered design principles to complex
business methodology, we achieved measurable improvements in adoption, accuracy, and business outcomes.
This project validated that users embrace sophisticated tools when complexity is revealed incrementally with clear value
at each level. The integration of education within workflow created sustainable adoption while building organizational
capability.
"The most impactful UX work often happens in unglamorous but critical business processes
where good design can unlock enormous organizational value."
