Why the Brief Is Never Enough: A Design Consultant's Case Study
“People don’t buy what you do, they buy why you do it.” — Simon Sinek
At one of my engagements for a major pharmacy chain, I was invited to a meeting for a demo of an enterprise app developed by a team of business analysts working in PowerPoint. This organization was transforming itself by moving toward paperless workplace processes, a shift in the direction of digitalization that has been adopted by almost every big player in the industry. The software in question was intended to make life easier for the pharmacists by streamlining the prescription drop-off and medication pick-up process through real-time tracking of information flow. You can imagine the volume of data being generated across the pharmacy stores nationwide on a single day, and the software had to support all the intricacies of the numerous workflows. It became clear early on that the business analysts lacked a foundational understanding of human factors, though they demonstrated considerable expertise in deciphering, analyzing, and refining the pharmacy workflows. The management had immense faith in the team to deliver the product although they lacked confidence in their design capabilities, which is where I was invited as a mentor and consultant to be part of their product development journey.
Pharmacy Workflows
Pharmacy workflows are structured processes to ensure medications are prescribed, verified, prepared, dispensed, and monitored safely and efficiently. This necessitated a move away from legacy software toward an improved, next-generation (NG) platform. The aim was to build efficiency and to increase productivity of the team at the store level, in addition to improving the patient experience. For instance, imagine a pick-up process taking anywhere between 30 to 60 minutes. The central question was whether wait times could be reduced. Given that pharmacy staff regularly switch between answering calls and filling prescriptions, the question was whether interruptions could be minimized with limited staffing. Undoubtedly, these workflows would vary based on community (retail) pharmacies, hospital pharmacies, specialty pharmacies, and the rest, but in general they follow a similar sequence —
prescription intake → clinical review & verification → insurance coverage processing → prescription fulfilment (filling) → final pharmacist verification → dispensing.
In certain cases, there is an additional layer of monitoring and follow-up after dispensing the medication.
Upon closer inspection, it became apparent that the app was made to function exclusively using keyboard inputs, and notably, the ability to use the mouse was deliberately disabled for the end-user. The thought behind building this unconventional concept stemmed from the fact that pharmacists could save time otherwise spent in dealing with a pointing device by focusing on the data input task while simultaneously working their hands on the keyboard. To assist the user, each screen input was assigned a corresponding keyboard shortcut, displayed directly on the screen. However, regardless of whether the user found these shortcuts helpful, they permanently occupied a significant portion of the screen real estate. Their approach was fundamentally contradictory. On one hand, it was assumed that the pharmacists were engrossed in their workflows and did not have time to operate even the mouse, hence the decision to enforce a keyboard-only interaction. On the other hand, it was expected that they would look below the screen for tiny instructions to memorize despite knowing that the pharmacists would be busy. It became clear early on that the cognitive overload would be massive enough for the users to ignore the screen instructions.
Usability Heuristics — Analysis and Violations
I raised my doubts concerning the broken UI experience during a scheduled stakeholder meeting. I noted that forcing a keyboard-only input arrangement would significantly complicate the workflow for the pharmacists and raise their cognitive workload. Moreover, an input device which forms the basis of human-computer interaction, had been removed from the equation which would cause considerable confusion and frustration for the user. Furthermore, this violated a crucial usability principle that says interfaces should support different ways of completing tasks and accommodate both novice and expert users. In this case, it was assumed that the users would be highly qualified and therefore would easily adapt to the new way of system interaction. In reality, pharmacists range in age from 20 to 60.
The screens were cluttered with textual content and input fields. Consolidating multiple tasks onto a single screen — ostensibly to save time — created a false sense of urgency. Another usability principle of simplicity/minimalist design that proposes to present only the information and controls users need to complete the current task. had been broken. After a thorough analysis I concluded that the UI would fail to address the immediate concerns of the management, which was to reduce the processing times. Instead, I proposed a new UI design that focused on simplicity, consistency of standards, and which enhanced learnability by dividing the screen into several portions for comprehension.
Keeping the objective of the presentation in mind, I introduced the new design through an interactive prototype which carried substantial changes from the original draft. I explained my views in precise detail about incorporating principles that respect the efficiency of the experts without disadvantaging novice users. Although the partners in the room were immersed in the original objective of ‘saving time’, they acknowledged the shortcomings of their approach. It was agreed that the screen would remain the way it was visualized by the business analysts, but I was given the freedom to suggest changes to enhance the experience of the product. By the end of my engagement, among other outcomes, I was able to build consistency in the standards of the UI to make it comprehensible.
Screen Real Estate and Device Inputs
The keyboard shortcuts below every screen were to be removed to increase screen real estate. This would provide users with the visual clarity needed to focus on the task at hand. Before I entered the meeting I had done a UI heuristics analysis. This involved analyzing the screens, user journeys, context, and environment against recognized usability principles to produce a ranked assessment of each area of concern.
Improving The Experience Progressively
I was able to convince the partners about several anomalies and the areas of improvement for the screens. The meeting surfaced several important insights and concepts.
Management Buy-In
Each stakeholder — spanning technology, infrastructure, development, program management, and senior sponsors including VPs and Directors — was individually briefed on findings relevant to their respective domain. This tactic of keeping the project heads in the loop caused a trickle-down effect and made it easier to get acceptance from the other team members.
There was no concept of branding involved when the business analysts created the prototypes. I was able to convince the project owners to integrate the corporate identity into the screens. Even though it might seem pointless, the corporate identity gives a sense of trust and belonging to the users.
The final improvements to the product along with my suggestions for future improvements, the documented reviews and the design assets were all submitted to the stakeholders. Furthermore, I presented individually to each of the program managers, VPs, and team leads, apprising them of the work completed since joining the team as a mentor.
Rebuilding the Information Architecture
The screens had a small area below that reflected the wait times and the patient information related to pending prescriptions, and more. I suggested moving that information to a dedicated Dashboard. The Dashboard would be the first screen real estate that the pharmacists would encounter after they sign in to their workstations. Moreover, the Dashboard experience was further enhanced with colour-coded indicators to inform the pharmacist and staff about the wait times and pending prescriptions.
From an information architecture standpoint, I implemented a ‘hub-spoke’ navigation model for improving the intuitiveness and visibility of content. It is a centralized design where the ‘hub’ (Dashboard) would act as a single core which connects to multiple peripheral ‘spokes’ which are the different areas of the application. The hub remains persistently active throughout the navigation while the spokes are accessible across multiple tabs facilitating efficient communication and data flow. In the long term, it provides for scalability for newer features to be incorporated as the demand grows.
Heuristic Evaluation
The analysis of the user flows in conjunction with the screens brought various shortcomings to the fore. These were rectified either by removing the intermediary screens, removing the features on the screens, or adding a new screen to streamline the user journey.
Benefits for Development Teams
The application was programmed offshore by a team of developers who were taking inputs from their team leaders onsite. To ensure a smooth development experience I developed a design style guide outlining every element of the page including typography, colour scheme, input fields and their sizes, screen sizes and micro-interactions. Every screen was redone using Photoshop to include colours and buttons that would look and feel like a tangible product. This exercise brought clarity in content and the colour classification in the UIs.
The developers would blindly follow the development process after receiving the prototypes from the business analysts, and there was no filter as to what was logical and viable for the design to succeed. After my entry into the project the developers could voice their concerns on the implementation procedures. I was able to communicate these shortcomings to the project management teams, ensuring they would not percolate down to the final output and cause confusion, miscommunication, and compounding errors.
Imparting Knowledge and Creating Awareness
I conducted an awareness session for the business analyst teams. They were interested in knowing more about the science behind application and web design, notably about usability and human factors. Through this session I was able to introduce the concepts of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), Design as an Art and Science, the history and principles of usability and HCI, the components of usability, online usage stats and the reason behind user frustration, examples of cluttered screens and error handling which are crucial for improving the experience, lastly, insights into smoothing the experience by reducing cognitive load and minimizing unnecessary decision-making — both of which, if left unaddressed, risk causing users to abandon the journey altogether.
Solving the Problem: Delivering Beyond the Brief
When I was introduced to the team, the stated objective was to analyze and suggest changes in the usability of the application. In prior meetings with the VP I was nominated to become a mentor to a group of business analysts and other stakeholders of the project, while simultaneously evaluating the team's current approach to designing the application interface. In due course, I realized my role was not enough to implement the findings, and I assumed the role of a creative director and designer. This was more about delivering the results, and solving the problems, rather than limiting myself to the client’s stated expectations. The problem had been misinterpreted, but that is where a consultant’s instinct and knowledge help in aligning the expectations with the outcomes.
Essential Takeaways
As experts in their respective arenas, consultants are expected to demonstrate flexibility across the full breadth of their domain. As a design consultant my domain expertise covers a range of disciplines which include — user-centered design, design research, systems thinking, UX strategy, innovation strategy, consulting and advisory, business and experience alignment, and business environments where design is rarely discussed or seen as a success factor. With this particular customer, my role was limited to being a mentor and an analyst which would have satisfied the original expectations but would not have yielded the results. Organizations engaged in digital transformation activities with tight deadlines and with a schedule of milestones rarely distinguish between a designer and a consultant or design thinking and others. Unless they possess a mature understanding of these domains, their sole objective invariably remains adherence to the delivery schedule. This is why I began the article with the Simon Sinek quote. The following draws out that connection. From my extensive career, I have learned that clients engage consultants to deliver results (the what). However, the consultants who create a lasting impact are the ones who lead with a clear conviction about why their approach matters. I believed in design thinking, human factors, and user-centered principles — rather than simply executing the client brief. I went beyond the stated ask because I believed in a better outcome. Clients who own product improvement processes are often as uncertain about the outcome as the external consultant arriving mid-lifecycle — both are navigating uncertainty.
Therefore, a design consultant, product manager, or even a business analyst should focus on finding the reasoning behind the approach that would improve the quality of the product, rather than remaining focused solely on fulfilling the client's brief. That minor yet crucial distinction separates the good consultants from the best in the business.