Claim Landing Page
Streamlined access to all claims with a clear to-do panel for priority task visibility.
Click to View Image
North American Risk Services (NARS)
From C3 Chaos to Claim Clarity
Rebuilding the NARS adjuster experience into a unified, scalable claims workspace.
🎯 Overview
For Phase I of the Claim Processing Application, I led the design of a 0→1 enterprise MVP that began replacing the legacy Claims Cube (C3) environment. NARS needed a modern platform that could support cloud migration, be easier to maintain, leave room for future white-label use, and grow beyond the MVP.
The product had a 12-month delivery target. Within that window, we needed to define the highest-value claim workflows, reduce the friction adjusters experienced every day, and create reusable patterns engineering could extend as the platform grew.
The MVP centered on a claim-focused workspace that connected claim details, documents, communication, to-dos, and parties. The goal was to reduce context switching, make workflows more predictable, support compliance-heavy claim work, and give the product team something it could keep building on.
🙋🏼♀️ My Role
As the Product Designer, I led the end-to-end design of the MVP from discovery, workflow mapping, and research synthesis through Figma interface design, prototyping, design systems, and delivery.
I partnered with product, engineering, business analysts, QA, stakeholders, and a junior designer to turn complex claim workflows into structured, accessible, Angular-ready product patterns the dev team could build from during the MVP and future releases.
📌 Key Details
- Duration: 12 Months (August 2021 – August 2022)
- Location: Remote
- Team: 5 Developers, 1 Product Designer, 1 Junior UX/UI Designer, 2 Business Analysts, 1 QA Analyst, 1 Product Owner, and 2 Stakeholders
- Tools: Figma • FigJam • Maze • Miro • HTML/CSS • JavaScript • VS Code (Angular) • Adobe CC • ClickUp
📈 Key Outcomes
67%
Usability Increase
Centralized workflows and clearer hierarchy reduced friction across daily claim work.
71%
Satisfaction Uplift
Predictable patterns and stronger task visibility improved adjuster confidence.
80%
Development Velocity
Reusable components and Angular-ready patterns accelerated MVP delivery.
45%
Support Reduction
Guided workflows and clearer documentation reduced common support needs.
“The progress on the Claim Processing Application has been transformative for our adjusters. Workflows feel clearer, faster, and far more predictable than anything we’ve had before. For the first time, teams can move through claims without the constant friction of switching between tools or second-guessing next steps. We’re extremely pleased with where the product is today and even more excited about the strong, scalable foundation it gives us for continued growth.”
Michael Reynolds – Senior Operations Stakeholder
TL;DR.
I led the UX strategy and UI design for a 0→1 enterprise claims platform MVP that replaced disconnected Claims Cube workflows with a centralized, WCAG 2.1 AA–aligned adjuster workspace. The product unified claim handling, documentation, communication, and task management while introducing a scalable Figma design system built around Angular-ready patterns.
The MVP delivered a 67% increase in usability, 71% uplift in user satisfaction, 80% faster development velocity, and a 45% reduction in support tickets by improving workflow clarity, reducing context switching, and creating reusable product patterns for future growth.
01
The Problem.
NARS needed to move beyond a legacy claims environment that had become difficult to scale and maintain. The new product needed to support cloud migration, future white-label opportunities, changing customer expectations, and an architecture the team could maintain more easily.
Adjusters were still doing daily claim work through disconnected C3 workflows, manual workarounds, spreadsheets, and inconsistent handling patterns. Claim details, documents, activities, ownership, and next steps were available, but users had to rebuild context while moving between them.
The MVP came down to a practical challenge: give adjusters one dependable way to stay oriented around active claim work while giving the dev team a structure it could deliver within the 12-month target and keep building on.
Claims Cube (C3) | Where Workflow Clarity Broke Down
This C3 claim screen shows the dense, disconnected experience adjusters were dealing with every day. Key claim details, documents, activities, policy data, and next steps were available, but the interface made it difficult to understand what needed attention first.
Annotated C3 screen showing where claim context, documentation, activities, and required tasks became difficult to scan, prioritize, and act on efficiently.
What the Legacy Experience Was Creating
Research and workflow analysis pointed to six recurring problems that affected daily claim handling and shaped the priorities for the MVP.
No scalable product structure, workflow model, or reusable UI system existed to support the new MVP.
Claims, documents, communication, and tasks lived across separate C3 patterns, forcing users to rebuild context.
Duplicate entry, repetitive steps, and inconsistent claim records created avoidable effort and risk.
Inconsistent workflow patterns made it harder for adjusters to know what needed attention next.
Claim status, ownership, handoffs, and supporting documentation were difficult to track across teams.
Without clear structure and trust, users were less likely to adopt a new platform with confidence.
02
Project Goals.
Phase I focused on making daily claim work clearer and more reliable while keeping the MVP focused enough to deliver within the 12-month target.
Research helped us identify the workflows that created the most friction for adjusters. Those findings shaped both the scope of the MVP and the experience goals we used to guide design decisions.
We aligned on a claim-centered model that could improve day-to-day usability and still leave room for the product to grow over time.
MVP Focus Areas
We organized Phase I around six connected areas of the claim experience. This gave Product, Design, and Engineering a shared model for what the MVP needed to support before we moved into detailed interaction design.
Claim-Centered Workspace
A shared structure for organizing daily adjuster work around the active claim.
Claims
Claim status, intake, lifecycle context
To-Dos
Task sequence, required actions, follow-ups
Claim Details
Loss details, policy data, claim context
Documents
File access, records, supporting documentation
Communication
Calls, notes, messages, claim history
Parties
People, roles, ownership, contacts
What We Wanted the MVP to Accomplish
These goals gave the team a consistent way to evaluate design decisions across each of the six MVP areas.
Create a consistent foundation users could trust and the product team could expand over time.
Reduce screen switching by giving adjusters a single place to stay oriented around active claim work.
Minimize repetitive work through smart defaults, validation patterns, and clearer system feedback.
Support in-context notes, structured call logs, message history, and audit-ready claim documentation.
Give junior adjusters clearer guidance while helping experienced adjusters move efficiently through higher claim volume.
Make claim status, ownership, handoffs, and next steps easier to understand across teams and roles.
03
Strategic Approach.
Once the MVP scope was clear, I needed a design strategy that could turn the research into product decisions. The direction stayed centered on keeping adjusters oriented around the active claim while giving Product and engineering a structure they could keep building on.
That led to a claim-centered workspace supported by four strategic moves: unify workflows, reduce cognitive load, build trust through clearer structure, and scale through reusable patterns.
From Separate Workflows to a Claim-Centered Workspace
Instead of carrying the C3 structure into the new product, I reframed the experience around how adjusters moved through active claim work. Claims, tasks, documents, communication, and parties needed to feel connected rather than treated as separate destinations.
Legacy C3
Disconnected Workflow Areas
Claims
Documents
Tasks
Communication
Parties
Users rebuilt context across separate screens and patterns.
NARS Core MVP
Claim-Centered Workspace
Active Claim Workspace
Claims
To-Dos
Claim Details
Documents
Communication
Parties
Core claim work moved into one connected workflow model.
Four Strategic Moves
Once we had the product model, these four principles kept the rest of the interaction design, visual hierarchy, component decisions, and dev alignment consistent across the MVP.
01 Unify Workflows
Design Moves
- Claim-centered workspace
- Persistent document access
- Integrated communication tools
Connected core claim work so adjusters could maintain context while moving between tasks, records, and communication.
02 Reduce Cognitive Load
Design Moves
- Clear visual hierarchy
- Progressive disclosure
- Consistent interaction models
Simplified dense claim information so users could scan, prioritize, and act with less effort.
03 Build Trust Through Structure
Design Moves
- Guided task flows
- Structured documentation
- Status and ownership cues
Made required actions, records, and handoffs easier to understand so adjusters could work with more confidence and fewer missed steps.
04 Scale Through Systems
Design Moves
- Design system foundations
- Angular-ready UI patterns
- Tokenized component styles
Created reusable patterns that supported MVP consistency while giving the product team a foundation for continued growth.
04
Exploration & Research.
Because this was a 0→1 product, I did not want to design from assumptions. I needed to understand how adjusters actually moved through claim work, so I used surveys, interviews, shadowing, workflow observation, click behavior, and support patterns.
We included both junior and senior adjusters so we could understand where experience level changed the workflow. The findings were synthesized into two primary personas and a full claim journey.
Research surfaced recurring friction around context switching, duplicate data entry, task visibility, ownership, and documentation. Those findings changed how we approached the MVP's navigation model, workflow structure, and priorities.
What We Needed to Learn
- How adjusters moved through active claim work.
- Where C3 workflows caused delays, rework, or lost context.
- Which tasks relied on manual tracking outside the system.
- Where claim context, ownership, or documentation broke down.
- Which moments created uncertainty, hesitation, or missed steps.
How It Shaped the MVP
- Confirmed C3 limitations affected both junior and senior adjusters.
- Revealed task clarity, visibility, and ownership as recurring gaps.
- Prioritized a centralized, claim-first structure for the MVP.
- Elevated documentation and communication as trust drivers.
- Separated MVP needs from future-state opportunities.
04.1
Baseline Survey.
We used a 10-question Maze survey with 50 adjusters to get a baseline for how junior and senior users moved through claim work.
The goal was to identify where time was lost, where workflows felt fragile, and which patterns created the most friction across high-volume, compliance-driven tasks.
The responses confirmed that the existing C3 experience was slowing users down through repeated context switching, duplicate entry, unclear next steps, and difficulty locating supporting documentation during active claim work.
Key Survey Questions
- “How much of your workday is spent moving between screens while managing claims?” – 73% said more than 5 hours per day
- “How confident are you that you always know the next required step?” – 61% felt less than confident
- “How much time do you spend re-entering the same information across a claim?” – 68% said more than 3 hours per claim
- “How easy is it to locate the documents or notes you need?” – 78% said not very easy
- “How clearly can you track ownership, status, or escalations?” – 57% felt very unclear
04.2
Interviews.
Building on the survey findings, I conducted 10 one-on-one interviews, split evenly between five junior and five senior adjusters, to understand the behaviors behind the data.
These conversations showed how role, experience level, claim volume, and compliance pressure shaped day-to-day workflows. They also helped guide early decisions around task visibility, document access, guided actions, and claim-level communication.
A clear pattern emerged: junior and senior adjusters needed the same foundation of clarity, but their friction showed up differently. Junior adjusters needed guidance and reassurance. Senior adjusters needed speed, visibility, and fewer interruptions.
What We Heard
Junior and senior adjusters shared the same need for clarity, but their day-to-day friction showed up differently.
Junior Adjusters
- Guidance-Dependent: Needed clearer prompts to move through each step confidently.
- Information Gaps: Struggled to know where key claim details and updates lived.
- Compliance Anxiety: Worried about missing required notes, documents, or steps.
- Workflow Uncertainty: Needed consistent patterns and clearer next actions.
- Centralized Access: Benefited from one place to find claim context quickly.
Senior Adjusters
- Speed & Accuracy: Needed faster access to reliable claim details and history.
- C3 Fatigue: Lost time moving across screens to complete routine work.
- Visibility Gaps: Needed quick views into claims status, risk, and ownership.
- Manual Friction: Wanted fewer repetitive updates, steps, and workarounds.
- Handoff Clarity: Needed clearer signals for tasks, escalations, and follow-ups.
04.3
Personas.
I kept the persona set intentionally small: junior adjusters and senior adjusters. Those were the two groups that consistently changed how we thought about the experience.
The difference was useful because it changed actual design decisions: clearer guidance for newer adjusters and speed plus visibility for experienced adjusters. I used the personas to pressure-test navigation, task sequencing, documentation patterns, and workflow density.
04.4
Workflow Journey.
Once the survey, interviews, and persona work were pulled together, we mapped the full claims workflow journey in Miro from intake through investigation, evaluation, resolution, and closure.
The map made it easier to see where adjusters lost time, where context broke down, and where the experience created uncertainty instead of momentum.
It also showed recurring breakdowns around documentation access, communication tracking, manual prioritization, ownership visibility, and claim handoffs across the legacy C3 structure.
05
Discovery Workshop.
I brought Product, stakeholders, business analysts, engineering, and adjuster leads into a FigJam workshop to turn the research into MVP priorities.
The workshop gave us one place to connect what we heard in research to the parts of C3 that created the most friction: disconnected workflows, unclear next steps, documentation risk, and limited claim context.
We came out of the workshop with four priorities: unify daily claim work, clarify high-value tasks, strengthen documentation trust, and create reusable system patterns for the MVP.
06
Ideation & Strategy.
In FigJam, I started turning the research and workshop priorities into a product structure that supported real adjuster behavior without recreating the limitations of C3.
Early concepts explored how users would enter the platform, manage claim work, access documentation, complete tasks, and maintain context across high-volume workflows.
What We Explored
- Dashboard-first versus claim-first workflow models
- Persistent document access across active claims
- Task sequencing, ownership, and escalation visibility
- Workspace density and information hierarchy
- Communication patterns tied directly to each claim
What We Prioritized
- A centralized, claim-first workspace
- Persistent access to documents and communication
- Clear to-do sequencing and ownership visibility
- Scannable layouts for high-volume claim work
- Reusable patterns aligned to Angular implementation
06.1
Sketching.
Early concepts leaned toward operational dashboards, but stakeholder reviews showed they added more complexity than the MVP needed.
I recommended a more focused claim-first model that prioritized scannability, task sequencing, and faster decision-making over broad dashboard visibility. This tradeoff reduced scope risk and kept Phase I focused on the workflows adjusters used most often.
Sketching in FigJam helped us work through the structure and workshop priorities before investing in higher-fidelity screens. We explored low-fidelity directions for the claim landing page, active claim views, to-do handling, document access, and communication patterns.
Claim Summary
Paired high-level claim context with a dedicated documents view to reduce screen switching.
Click to View Image
Claim Details Workspace
Introduced tabbed navigation with persistent document access to keep claim context in view.
Click to View Image
06.2
Hi-Fi Wireframes.
Once we agreed on the core workflow, we moved into high-fidelity wireframes in Figma to test layout behavior, navigation clarity, and task sequencing before final UI design.
These wireframes gave stakeholders and the dev team the same thing to react to across realistic claim scenarios. Priority workflows included claim intake, task handling, claim details, and document management.
This helped us catch structural issues earlier, reduce downstream dev rework, and clarify how the product should behave under high-volume claim activity.
Claim Landing Page
Consolidated active claims and to-do visibility into a cleaner, more focused workspace.
Click to View Image
To-Do Request
Surfaced required task fields in a focused view to reduce confusion and improve completion speed.
Click to View Image
Claim Summary + Documents
Paired summary data with documentation access to support faster decisions and fewer screen jumps.
Click to View Image
07
Validation.
Because this was a regulated claims product, I kept validation focused on reducing workflow risk without slowing the MVP down. Later-stage MVP reviews involved approximately 10 team leads, unit managers, and stakeholders who evaluated realistic claim scenarios for clarity, documentation, communication, and operational fit.
We used targeted walkthroughs with Unit Managers, Product leadership, and operational stakeholders to check the highest-impact workflows before the engineering moved further into implementation.
I sorted the feedback into three buckets: what needed to change for launch, what we could solve with clearer interaction patterns, and what should move into Phase II.
What Validation Needed to Confirm
- Could adjusters move through core claim tasks with less uncertainty?
- Did the workflow structure support task clarity and documentation access?
- Were communication patterns clear enough for claim-level recordkeeping?
- Could refinements improve usability without expanding MVP scope?
How Feedback Was Prioritized
- MVP refinements: task clarity, documentation access, communication visibility.
- Low-risk improvements: hierarchy, labels, guided actions, and workflow cues.
- Deferred requests: broader feature ideas better suited for Phase II.
- Implementation alignment: changes that fit the existing Angular-ready patterns.
07.1
Testing.
We used realistic claim scenarios and Maze-supported feedback prompts to walk through how users completed tasks, reviewed documents, handled communication, and moved through claim details in the MVP.
The walkthroughs focused less on visual polish and more on workflow clarity, task confidence, information accessibility, and whether users could complete core actions without unnecessary interruption.
Findings from Testing Sessions
- Task clarity needed stronger cues – Users needed clearer signals around required actions, sequencing, and what needed attention next.
- Documents needed to stay closer to context – Users wanted supporting records easier to access while reviewing or updating an active claim.
- Communication needed stronger claim connection – Calls, notes, and follow-ups needed to feel connected to the claim record, not separate from it.
07.2
Iterations.
The feedback led to a small set of focused changes that improved day-to-day usability without changing the MVP architecture.
These updates addressed three workflow gaps uncovered during testing: capturing call notes in context, connecting notes to documents, and keeping multi-user communication traceable.
Calling Workflow
Feedback
Adjusters needed to capture call notes in real time without leaving the active claim.
Iteration
Added an inline note field and dial pad to support call documentation directly inside the claim workflow.
Click to View Image
Document-Linked Notes
Feedback
Notes stored only at the claim level made it harder to connect them to specific files.
Iteration
Added note entry directly into the Documents workflow to strengthen audit trails and keep file context easier to review.
Click to View Image
Multi-User Messaging
Feedback
The original messaging pattern assumed one-to-one conversations, but complex claims often involved more than one adjuster.
Iteration
Allowed other users to be added to an existing thread so claim communication stayed in one traceable history.
Click to View Image
08
Collaboration & Delivery.
I worked closely with Product, Design, Engineering, Business Analysis, QA, Operations, and stakeholders throughout the MVP. I stayed involved from problem framing through implementation so workflow intent, business rules, and technical feasibility did not get lost at handoff.
Early handoff was pretty hands-on: ClickUp tickets, Figma prototypes, design-system references, and direct HTML/CSS collaboration inside Angular. As the process matured, I added standardized, AI-assisted design-system documentation so the dev team had clearer guidance for component behavior, interaction details, and implementation standards.
01 Product & Operations
Collaboration Focus
- Aligned MVP priorities and scope
- Turned research into product decisions
- Reviewed workflow rules and operational risk
Kept product scope and operational needs aligned as research moved into delivery decisions.
02 Engineering
Collaboration Focus
- Reviewed technical feasibility early
- Aligned Figma patterns to Angular behavior
- Partnered directly in HTML/CSS implementation
Kept interaction patterns feasible and implementation-ready through ongoing design-engineering partnership.
03 QA & Handoff
Collaboration Focus
- Documented states, validation, and edge cases
- Linked ClickUp tickets to design standards
- Standardized guidance with AI assistance
Made handoff easier to follow through structured standards and consistent implementation guidance.
04 Stakeholder Alignment
Collaboration Focus
- Facilitated workshops around MVP priorities
- Framed tradeoffs with user and technical rationale
- Used validation evidence to refine direction
Kept decisions transparent and evidence-based as scope and priorities evolved.
Design-to-Dev Workflow
Figma / Prototype → ClickUp → Design System Standards → Angular Implementation → QA Review
This workflow kept design intent visible through handoff and implementation and gave the dev team a clear source for components, states, layout behavior, interaction details, and implementation guidance.
9
Visual Design.
For the visual design, I kept coming back to operational usability.
Because adjusters spent long periods inside high-volume workflows, the interface prioritized accessibility, repeatable patterns, and fast scanning over unnecessary visual complexity.
Typography, spacing, color, table structure, and component behavior all worked together to support faster scanning, reduce cognitive fatigue, and keep workflows predictable across the MVP.
Applied WCAG 2.1 AA contrast, readable states, keyboard considerations, and clear interaction feedback across the system.
Created reusable layouts and components so users could build familiarity across claims, tasks, and documents.
Used color, emphasis, and alerts intentionally so urgent information stood out without overwhelming the workspace.
Designed tables, summaries, and panels for fast scanning, clear comparison, and confident decision-making.
9.1
Color Palette.
The color palette was designed for heads-down, high-focus claim work while staying aligned with the NARS brand.
Deep blues and structured neutrals supported long reading sessions and dense data review. Semantic colors for alerts, success, and status were used intentionally so urgent items stood out without making the UI feel noisy.
All color decisions were tested against WCAG 2.1 AA contrast standards to support readability, accessibility, and fast recognition of system states.
Primary
Secondary
Grayscale
9.2
Typography.
While NARS traditionally used Optima Pro in print, the product team standardized on Barlow for the Claim Processing Application to better support screen-based, data-heavy workflows.
Barlow’s open counters, generous x-height, and clean geometry created a stronger hierarchy across tables, forms, and multi-column layouts. This helped adjusters scan quickly, maintain context, and work through dense claim information with less visual strain.
Barlow
9.3
Design System.
As the MVP expanded across connected workflows, consistency became critical pretty quickly.
I created a scalable Figma design system that aligned closely with Angular implementation patterns, helping the dev team move faster while keeping the experience visually and behaviorally consistent.
The system became the bridge between design and development. It included reusable components, tokenized styles, spacing standards, typography hierarchy, interaction states, and accessibility-conscious patterns that could scale across future releases.
I also worked closely with the dev team inside VS Code and Angular-based workflows to make sure components, tokens, and interaction patterns translated cleanly from Figma into implementation. As the system matured, I used AI-assisted documentation to standardize component guidance and make implementation expectations easier for the team to reference. Together, these practices reduced duplicated effort, improved handoff clarity, and contributed to an 80% increase in development velocity across the MVP.
Components
10
The Solution.
The final MVP, later piloted as NARS Core, brought the claim-centered strategy into one connected workspace built around how adjusters processed active claims.
Claim handling, documentation, communication, task management, and parties were brought into a connected workflow so adjusters could maintain context while moving through daily work.
The final experience focused on scannability, predictable tasks, and day-to-day efficiency while giving the team reusable patterns it could keep building on.
NARS Core | Where Claim Work Came Together
This workspace shows how claim details, task indicators, documentation, parties, and communication stayed connected so adjusters could scan, access, and act without rebuilding context.
Annotated NARS Core workspace showing how claim context, required actions, documentation, parties, and communication were brought into one connected workflow.
What Changed
These four product changes show how the claim-centered strategy carried through the final MVP.
01 Centralized Claim Workspace
What Changed
- Unified claim landing page
- Claim details and to-dos together
- Documents tied to each claim
Brought claims, tasks, documents, communication, and parties into one shared workspace.
02 Modular UI Architecture
What Changed
- Scannable tables and summaries
- Modular claim data panels
- Consistent screen patterns
Organized dense claim information into predictable layouts for high-volume work.
03 Compliance-Ready Workflows
What Changed
- Structured calls and messages
- Document-linked notes
- Status and ownership cues
Added guided actions, documentation support, and visibility cues for required claim work.
04 Scalable System Foundation
What Changed
- Reusable Figma components
- Tokenized color and spacing
- Angular-ready UI patterns
Created reusable components and implementation-aligned patterns for future growth.
11
Final Designs.
The final MVP covered the core workflows adjusters needed most: secure login, claim landing, filtering, to-dos, documents, parties, calling, messaging, and shared communication history.
Browse the final NARS Core workflows below to see how the same interaction patterns and visual structure carried across the MVP.
12
Reflection & Key Contributions.
NARS Core gave the team a clear direction for replacing the legacy C3 environment. For me, it was a chance to lead a complex 0→1 enterprise product from early research through implementation while balancing user needs, operational requirements, technical feasibility, and MVP scope.
Reflection
This project reinforced how much good scope decisions matter in a complex enterprise product. The claim-first direction gave us a focused way to solve the highest-value workflows first while leaving room for broader product capabilities later.
It also strengthened how I work with engineering through handoff and implementation. Staying close to the build helped us resolve issues earlier and preserve design intent as the product moved into Angular.
Key Contributions
- MVP Design Direction: Turned disconnected C3 workflows into a centralized, claim-first product structure that established the direction for Phase I.
- Research-to-Product Decisions: Used Maze surveys, interviews, and Miro workflow mapping to identify where adjusters lost time, rebuilt context, and needed clearer task guidance.
- Cross-Functional Alignment: Used FigJam workshops with product, stakeholders, business analysts, engineering, and operations to prioritize the highest-impact MVP workflows.
- Core Workflow Definition: Defined claims, to-dos, documents, communication, and parties so adjusters could move through daily work with less friction and more confidence.
- Scope & Usability Balance: Recommended a focused claim-first experience over dashboard-heavy views that added complexity and implementation risk.
- Workflow Validation: Used targeted review sessions and Maze-supported feedback prompts to surface gaps in task clarity, documentation visibility, and communication flow.
- Scalable Design System: Created reusable Figma components, tokens, interaction patterns, and accessibility-conscious foundations that supported consistency across the MVP.
- Engineering Partnership: Aligned Figma patterns with Angular implementation to reduce handoff friction and keep the interface practical to build.
- Documentation & Communication: Shaped patterns for in-context call notes, document-linked notes, and shared messaging history.
- Adoption-Ready Experience: Prioritized predictable workflows, clear status cues, WCAG 2.1 AA–aligned patterns, and stronger operational trust in a regulated environment.
- Product Roadmap Influence: Surfaced research-backed insights that helped product and stakeholders shape MVP priorities and clarify opportunities for Phase II expansion.
What I’d Do Differently.
I would bring direct adjuster prototype validation into the process earlier and more consistently. Discovery included adjuster research, while later MVP reviews leaned more heavily on team leads, unit managers, and stakeholders. Earlier end-user sessions could have surfaced refinements around documentation, messaging, and task sequencing sooner.
I would also define what we wanted to measure after launch at kickoff and work with engineering to track those behaviors in the product. We had survey benchmarks, shadowing, click behavior, support trends, and delivery comparisons, but stronger analytics from day one would have made post-launch measurement easier to sustain.
What’s Next.
Phase II built on the successful MVP and pushed the Claim Processing Application into a more refined everyday tool for adjusters.
With the core workflows in place, Phase II focused on improving navigation, strengthening claim context, reclaiming screen space for high-value data, and refining the interface for more complex claim scenarios.
Phase II built directly on the MVP by making the experience more intuitive and efficient and preparing it for expanded features like Search, Notifications, Reserves, and Payments.
Coming Very Soon: Claim Processing Application – UI Redesign & Experience Refinement (Phase II)
Want a sneak peek?
View NARS (Phase II) final designs – “UI Redesign & Experience Refinement”
Thank you for your time & consideration. 🙏🏻
Good design earns trust – by making complex work feel clear, actionable, and calm.