UX WORK › CASE STUDY
Less Friction,
More Flow.
Embedded Files
Simplifying mainframe scheduling to improve team velocity.
Role
Sole UX Designer
Timeline
February — May 2021
Scope
UX strategy, heuristic evaluation, usability testing, information architecture, interaction design
Team
Executives, SMEs, Developers, Testers
TL;DR
The problem
ScheduleMon, IBM's internal mainframe scheduling tool. was error-prone and confusing in a live production environment where mistakes had real operational consequences. Leadership had opinions but no evidence.
What I did
As the sole designer, I ran a full research cycle: heuristic evaluation, moderated usability testing, ISO-inspired benchmarking, then redesigned the highest-risk workflows using IBM's Carbon Design System.
The key insight
The issue wasn't visual clutter. It was misalignment between system structure and user mental models, experienced users were slow and cautious because the system gave them no confidence.
The result
Clearer task execution, reduced operational risk, and leadership with evidence-based priorities instead of opinions. ScheduleMon shifted from "hard to learn and risky" to "understandable and controlled."
OUTCOMES
↓ Reduction
in operational risk from improved feedback and action hierarchy
live production environment
ISO
9241-inspired benchmark metrics translated frustration into signals leadership could act on
success rate, SEQ, time-on-task
0→1
UX practice introduced to a design-new team; strategy, research, and delivery
sole designer
THE PROBLEM
Critical tool.
No shared understanding of what was broken.
ScheduleMon helps teams reserve shared mainframe machines, manage workloads, and monitor usage in a live production environment where errors have real operational consequences.
Over time, executives heard consistent feedback that the tool was confusing for new users, hard to navigate for critical tasks like booking or modifying reservations, and error-prone in exactly the moments it couldn't afford to be.
But there was no shared understanding of what specifically was broken, why users were struggling, or how to prioritize fixes without guesswork. Leadership needed evidence, not opinions. That's where the work started.
KEY INSIGHT
The system gave users no reason to trust it.
The issue wasn't visual clutter. It was a fundamental mismatch between how the system was structured and how users thought about their work.
Users didn't know where to start key tasks. They couldn't tell which actions were safe versus risky. And they had no reliable feedback confirming the system had done what they asked. Even experienced users were slow and cautious, and onboarding new users was especially painful.
APPROACH
Evidence first. Redesign second.
Before designing anything, I turned a vague request for "design help" into a shared roadmap, then ran the research that gave the team something to build on.
FOUR TASKS TESTED
METRICS
Frustration translated into clear signals.
Moving beyond anecdotal feedback required a framework. Four ISO 9241-inspired metrics that gave leadership something to point to, not just feel.
FINDINGS & DESIGN
Four themes. One coherent redesign.
Usability testing surfaced four consistent themes, each translated into focused design decisions rather than a wholesale visual overhaul.
Post-study digital sketches translating usability findings into structured design directions, using IBM Carbon as the foundation.
Machine Availability - Before
Baseline view of machine availability, showing a flat list with limited hierarchy and minimal context for decision-making.
Machine Availability - After
Annotated redesign of the machine availability view, applying usability insights to improve hierarchy, labeling, and clarity.
Reservation Creation and Management - Before
Difficult to understand availability and requiring extra effort to take action
Reservation Creation and Management - After
A more structured and guided scheduling experience with clearer controls, improved visibility into availability, and streamlined actions, reducing reliance on filters and making the workflow easier to navigate.
RESULTS
"Understandable and controlled" even in production.
ScheduleMon shifted from "hard to learn and risky" to "understandable and controlled", and leadership had a repeatable model for improving internal tools going forward.
TAKEAWAY
The value of UX isn't the design. It's the clarity it creates for everyone around it.
Working as the sole designer on a team new to UX, in a live production environment where errors have real consequences taught me how to introduce a practice, not just execute a project.
The research didn't just inform the redesign. It changed how the team made decisions. Evidence replaced opinion. Priorities became shared. And the process became repeatable.
That's the signal this project carries, not just what shipped, but what the team could do differently because of it.
Google Sites
Report abuse