Opteamis
Make the creation of a call for tenders easier to understand and more fluid
Team
Date
Start of design - Q2 2023
End of design - Q2 2023
Methods
Expert analysis, card sorting, userflow, guerilla test, prototyping
Introduction
Opteamis is a VMS (Vendor Management System) platform that brings companies and IT service providers together. Clients publish invitations to tender, contract and manage their services from the platform, while ESNs and freelance consultants search for their next assignment.
Recruited as a UX designer in September 2021, my mission was to ensure the quality of the user experience. My recruitment led to the creation of the Product department, where I defined the initial design foundations to support the strategy initiated by Johan Dhennequin, Head of Product. On a day-to-day basis, we worked together to identify problems in using the Opteamis platform.
5,98%
Of service providers log on to the platform several times a week on platform.
90 %
90% of connections come from of an Opteamis business introducer email.
3 problems led to this statistical situation : access to the information was frustrating, getting to grips with the platform was complicated and regular use of the platform was difficult because of ergonomic problems that made it difficult to understand and use.
Therefore, decision was made to review the fundamental of Opteamis' experience : redesigning the navigation, the home page and the essential flows such as creating calls for tender.
Problem
How can new guided flows be introduced without appearing too long or restrictive for experienced users?
Goals
Enhance understanding and ease of use of creation flows
Reduce time spent on the creation process
Create an experience that is optimised but adaptable to the specific needs of our major customers
Context
Before I came, there were no designers. The developers got into the habit of using a readily available solution to develop functionality: Bootstrap modals. They used them to create all the flows, to which they added text fields, search bars and drop-down menus as required.
Except that certain flows (such as creating a call for tenders) involved a lot of information, resulting in very long forms to fill out in the modal. Moreover, the use of technical/business jargon made it very difficult to understand, and no help was provided in the modal due to lack of space and the developers' fear of overloading it.
The challenge
Convince decision-makers to include the redesign of the workflow in the roadmap
Most of the production was devoted to fixing bugs or adding extra options. However, there was no room for redesign projects, even for features, pages or flows that were identified as being difficult for users to use.
This project was an opportunity to make Opteamis' collaborators to understand that it was necessary to overhaul the foundations of the platform (home page, creation and modification paths, etc.) which had been designed since 2008.
‘The aim was to show that we could solve the problems faced by thousands of users on the platform by focusing on substantive issues and applying user-centric methods.’
Expert analysis
The interface was analysed using a grid based on the heuristic criteria of Bastien & Scapin. 37 occurrences were identified. Main problems were guidance, respect for codes and names, and errors that led to an increased workload.
Issues
Due to user research done in january 2022 and expert analysis, several issues were identified.
A painful workflow
Impressions of length
No possibility to save and resume a flow
No guidance for new users
Use of technical and confusing words
Bad errors prevention
Card sorting
Focus on tender creation
We decided to sort the cards to create logical groups in order to respect the users' mental schema.
Card sorting is a method that is normally organised in workshops with user groups. But given the special nature of this project, it was complicated to convince the other managers of the importance of asking their staff for help with a workshop, as they were themselves reticent about user-centred methods. I worked alone on the card sorting and then validated them individually with several users.
Starting information
Results
Userflow
Step 1
Defining the main thematic stages
Each step must answer a simple question such as ‘What’ or ‘How’. In addition, the way in which the steps are linked together must suit our users' mental model.
Step 2
To place information groups
In each stages, we listed the groups of information defined during card sorting. This ensured that the information was relevant and logically placed along the flow.
Step 3
Modelise the flow
We have specified all the expected interactions and the cases that may arise. This involved classifying mandatory and optional actions, as well as specifying the moments of choice given to the user and their consequences on the path. We also added the technical conditions (e.g. user roles) that can have an impact on the user journey and that are required by developers as part of DDD (Domain Driven Design).
Prototyping
Concepts
Enable users to choose their flow from the start
Previously, the choice of creating an invitation to tender as ‘Technical assistance’ or ‘Fixed price’ came too late in the creation process. It was either never seen or too late, forcing the user to select the right option and do it all over again. In this first modal, we provide a simple, explained choice so that the user is redirected to the desired path.
Set up a new navigation level when creating
We've standardised a new level that is displayed during a multi-step journey. It's a fixed scroll bar to which we've integrated the progress you've made along the path, as well as all the navigation choices linked to it. For example: ‘Cancel’, ‘Previous’ or ‘Next’.
Provide visual guidance to direct users
Thanks to the space saved by using full pages, we have inserted illustrations, text and blocks to help users understand their context, particularly if they are lost.
Test guerilla
We initiated guerilla testing with 4 users (internal Opteamis sales representatives) to quickly identify potential usability and wording problems and confirm the logic of the course.
Furthermore, it helped us to demonstrate to decision-makers how a solution is evaluated when working on the user experience of a digital product.
Modality
1.
Presentation
2.
User test
3
Post-test interview
Some questions
"Is there missing informations ?"
"Is there any words that seems hard to understand ?"
"Do you mostly specify a mission duree or do you use a start and end dates ?"
"Does the course seem longer or shorter to you?"
"From 1 to 5, how would you rate this new course?"
Result
"It's fast and nothing is missing."
— Anonymous user, Account manager
‘It's logical and effective. In the future, we could imagine other parameters in tender creation’
— Anonymous user, Account manager
"If we could ever create a call for tender so quickly and easily, it could help us to get to sourcing and closing the deal more quickly."
— Anonymous user, Global Account manager
Iterations
Making data anonymisation clearer
Users were afraid that the Opteamis daily rate would be visible to the customer. We had to find a clear solution so that they no longer had any doubts, as the fear of divulging critical information to the client could prevent them from creating their call for tenders. We therefore created a special ‘visible only to you’ wording to avoid any confusion.
Help users easily visualise and calculate their margins
Sales people often need to caculate and optimise their margins. They don't want to pay too much for the services of a consultant, or offer too low a daily rate, otherwise they won't find the right profile. That's why we've created a visual display to help them manage their margins effectively.
Results
The project was a great success. After a showcase to decision-makers, product and technical teams have decided to integrate the redesign of the key pages and paths into the 2024-2025 roadmap. In addition, it was concluded that the call for tender creation path should serve as the basis for all creation experiences, such as the creation of an account, an assignment or a consultant profile.
Learnings
All stakeholders tend to put themselves in the designer's shoes
I've often heard similar feedback: "It's too long, we should shorten it!" or "Users aren't going to want a 6-stage route". Hearing this kind of feedback might make us question whether we should shorten the workflow. But in truth, the users who tested the prototype said that the route was fast and fluid. The reason for these contradictions: stakeholders tend to borrow the designer's role in criticising the interface.
It is dangerous to rely only on statements (even from a client) when designing. These statements should, however, be used as clues to question the relevance of an interface and the choices made. If we're not careful, stakeholders can degrade the quality of an experience or influence project decisions.
“This project has shown me that one person's perception is not systematically correlated with another person's reality.”
Not all users are necessarily interested or involved
The level of involvement of the project's stakeholders may vary. There will always be those who are reluctant to change, those who sponsor the project and those who are neutral. Very often in workshops, it can be complicated to get users who are resistant to change (or who question the importance of the product's methods) to come and take part in the workshops. Once in the workshop, you also have to get them on board. Similarly, you need to know how to encourage the sponsoring users so that they can pull the rest of the group up. Nevertheless, there is a risk of being trapped by the confirmation bias in listening only to these users, as they are often the "most pleasant" users since they will tend to confirm what we say or what we create.
