1,500+ insurance professionals. A platform built for data entry, not service delivery. The interface was the smallest part of the problem.
Diagnosis, not brief: When I mapped the full service ecosystem, I found a spreadsheet operating as a shadow contact database, an email channel that had migrated entirely off-platform, a supervisor role with no designed touchpoint, and an IT ownership model that turned a 30-second task into a 3-day wait. None of these were interface problems. All of them were surfacing as interface friction.
The brief arrived as a UI redesign. The first thing I did was reframe it — not to be clever, but because the wrong diagnosis would have produced the wrong solution.
Before designing anything, I mapped who was actually touching this service and how they depended on each other. The ecosystem exposed four undesigned relationships, one completely missing actor touchpoint, and two channels operating entirely outside the service boundary.
"There was no designed touchpoint between Claims Handlers and Insurers. Every piece of communication was happening through personal Outlook accounts — nothing in the system, no record kept, nothing that survived when someone left the team."
Key ecosystem findingThe blueprint was built in three passes: as-is, failure map, to-be. Physical Evidence, Frontstage, Backstage, and Support Processes as distinct swim lanes. Read the full as-is story first, then see what the to-be replaced.
| Stage | 📍 Physical Evidence | 👤 Frontstage — Actor actions | ⚙️ Backstage — Staff processes | 🔗 Support — Systems & tools | ⚡ Service failure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| — Claim intake | |||||
| Intake | Printed claim form. Personal spreadsheet. Sticky notes for contact names. | Handler receives claim. Searches spreadsheet for insurer contact. 15–30 min to find right person. | No triage logic. All claims enter one queue regardless of type or urgency. | Shared spreadsheet (not linked to platform). No single source of truth. | Contact not found → manual search. Claim stalls. Shadow layer |
| — Contact management | |||||
| Contact update | IT ticket printout. Email thread with IT. 3-day wait confirmation. | Handler needs to update insurer phone. Raises IT ticket. Waits 3 days. Claim stalls. | IT receives ticket. Updates backend record. No SLA visibility for handler. | IT ticketing system (separate tool). 3-day SLA. | 3-day wait to fix a 30-second task. Wrong owner |
| — Claim communication | |||||
| Notify insurer | Personal Outlook inbox. Email printouts. No in-system record. | Handler emails insurer from personal Outlook. No record in platform. No traceability. | No structured comms protocol. Each handler improvises. Supervisor has no visibility. | Personal email (Outlook). Entirely off-platform. Knowledge lost when handler leaves. | Communication invisible. Lost on handoff. Off-platform channel |
| — Supervisory oversight | |||||
| Status check | Phone. Personal notes. Verbal conversations. No system artefact. | Supervisor interrupts handler for update. 3–5 hours per day lost across team. | No system visibility for supervisors. Oversight done verbally or by email. | Phone, email. No aggregate view. Each check is manual. | 3–5h lost daily. Supervisor blind. Actor: role gap |
| — Claim handoff & task routing | |||||
| Handoff | Email. Verbal briefing. No structured artefact or record. | Handler manually updates fields, then emails supervisor separately. No confirmation. | No structured handoff protocol. Each handler decides individually. | Personal email + verbal. No record of what was communicated. | Handoff invisible or lost. No context for next handler. No protocol |
| — Claim resolution | |||||
| Resolution | Personal Outlook sent items. No closure artefact in platform. | Handler closes claim. Sends closure email from personal Outlook. No standard process. | No defined resolution protocol. No institutional learning. | Personal email. No closure record in platform. No pattern data captured. | Inconsistent quality. No learning loop. No learning infrastructure |
Blueprint insight: Of the 14 as-is steps, 6 existed only as workarounds for backstage failures — not genuine process complexity. The Physical Evidence row exposed the organisation's artefacts (sticky notes, printed emails, spreadsheets) as a visible map of every undesigned service layer.
| Stage | 📍 Physical Evidence | 👤 Frontstage — Actor actions | ⚙️ Backstage — Staff processes | 🔗 Support — Systems & tools | ✅ Service fix |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| — Claim intake | |||||
| Intake | Digital claim record. Role-filtered queue view. Inline contact card. | Handler opens claim in role-filtered queue. Insurer contact surfaced inline. No search needed. | Rule-based triage routes claim by type + urgency on arrival. | Governed contact database integrated into platform. Self-service, audited. | Contact resolved in seconds. Claim enters workflow immediately. Fixed: ownership shifted |
| — Contact management | |||||
| Contact update | Inline edit field in contact card. Audit log entry. Instant confirmation. | Authorised handler edits contact directly in platform. Live in 30 seconds. Audit trail auto-logged. | Permissions model enforces who can edit. All changes versioned and attributable. | Contact DB is part of CMS. IT dependency removed entirely. | 30 seconds. No ticket. Fixed: self-service |
| — Claim communication | |||||
| Notify insurer | Claim communication thread in platform UI. Message templates. Supervisor dashboard notification. | Handler composes message inside claim record. Or sends from Outlook — auto-synced back. | All claim comms attached to claim record. Searchable. Supervisor sees full thread. | Outlook integration (two-way sync). Message templates for standard scenarios. | Full audit trail. Knowledge stays after handoff. Fixed: channel reintegrated |
| — Supervisory oversight | |||||
| Status check | Supervisor dashboard screen. At-risk claim flags. Portfolio view. | Supervisor opens team dashboard. At-risk claims surfaced automatically. No interruptions. | System applies risk indicators to surface priority claims in real time. | Role-based supervisor view — first designed touchpoint for this actor. | Self-serve oversight. Handlers uninterrupted. Fixed: actor touchpoint added |
| — Claim handoff & task routing | |||||
| Handoff | Structured handoff form in platform. Auto-notification receipt. Claim timeline event. | Handler completes structured handoff form. System auto-notifies next handler + supervisor. | Handoff creates event in claim timeline. Next handler sees full context. | Task queue with structured assignment. Automated notifications. Full audit trail. | Handoff is a designed moment. Context preserved. Fixed: structured protocol |
| — Claim resolution | |||||
| Resolution | Resolution summary screen. Feedback prompt. Closure confirmation email generated from platform. | Handler completes templated resolution flow. Structured closure comms sent from platform. | Resolution data feeds service review cadence. Pattern analysis identifies recurring failures. | Resolution templates + structured feedback. First institutionalised learning loop. | Consistent quality. Learning loop active. Fixed: learning infrastructure |
Internal inefficiencies don't stay internal — they cascade to the claimant. Mapping the end-to-end claimant experience showed how every backstage failure became a frontstage moment of anxiety. The recovery arc is causal, not cosmetic.
The recovery arc is causal, not cosmetic: Phases 1–4 failures all had the same root — a fragmented internal service. Fixing the backstage directly improved every claimant touchpoint. The claimant experience was not redesigned separately — it improved because the service did.
I spent time with handlers, supervisors, ops managers, and IT — watching how they actually worked, not how the system was supposed to work. The methodology was deliberate: contextual observation first, interviews second, cross-role synthesis third.
Before any co-design or blueprint work began, I mapped all six stakeholders by power and interest. This determined sequencing — who I engaged first, how, and what I needed from each. The matrix made visible a crucial dynamic: the highest-power stakeholder (IT) was also the one most at risk of blocking change.
The map only made sense when all four rows were visible at once. What looked like minor friction from the handler's chair was the thing that paralysed the supervisor.
| Actor / Stage | Claim Intake | Contact & Notify | Processing | Handoff | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claims Handler | Receives claim, searches spreadsheet for insurer | Emails insurer from personal Outlook — no record in system | Checks status by memory or asking colleagues | Manually updates fields. Emails supervisor separately | Closes claim, sends closure email from personal Outlook |
| Handler's thought | "Is the spreadsheet up to date?" | "I need to remember to log this email later" | "I'm losing track of mine vs reassigned" | "Did my supervisor see this?" | "I'll just do what I did last time" |
| Team Supervisor | No visibility into new claim volume | Unaware of which insurers are being contacted | Spends 3–5h/day on status calls | Learns of handoffs only if handler remembers | No view of resolution quality or patterns |
| Pain Peaks | HIGH — 15–30 min contact search | HIGH — No comms traceability | MED — Cognitive overload | HIGH — Invisible, error-prone | MED — No institutional learning |
| SD Opportunity | Integrated contact DB removes shadow layer | Outlook integration brings comms on-platform | Role-based dashboard eliminates status calls | Structured handoff protocol + auto-notify | Resolution templates + feedback loop |
These four principles came directly from what the research had shown — not design philosophy, but specific lessons this service had already taught us. Each one was tested at least once when a stakeholder pushed back.
Six interventions — each targeting a specific service layer failure. The screen redesign was the last thing we built. The first was organisational: changing who owned what in the service.
The interface redesign came last. The 14→8 step reduction didn't come from better IA. It came from removing 6 steps that only existed because something backstage was broken. Fix the root cause, and the complexity largely dissolves.
The most useful thing I did had nothing to do with design methods. It was getting IT, Compliance, handlers, and supervisors in the same room — in several cases genuinely for the first time. Not to reach agreement. To look at the same problem together.
Desktop Walkthrough · Litigation Claim Scenario · 8 participants · 90 minutes · 6 weeks into project
The questions I was measuring against: does a supervisor's day actually look different? Does a handler have what they need when they open a claim? Does a handoff stay intact when someone's off sick?
The deepest impact was structural: this was the first time the brokerage had a service blueprint for its claims operation. The design work created organisational infrastructure that outlasts the interface itself.
"Fix the backstage first. The frontstage will follow."A principle that held at every pushback point in this project