self service
Dev lead: Christina Morris
Overview:
CU Boulder boasts a sizable on-campus resident population, all of whom can electronically submit maintenance issues on campus through the FixIt system. These requests are promptly dispatched to the facilities team for resolution. The redesign of the FixIt maintenance management system focused on improving the front-end submission process for users. Key objectives identified during the planning phase included developing a modern, mobile-friendly interface to enhance submission accuracy and accommodate a larger user base.
discovery:
During the discovery phase, I identified three primary user types for the maintenance tool. The existing site had a single-page form designed for task experts, such as maintenance staff or frequent users. However, this design was confusing for new users due to complex processes and terminology. By providing contextual interviews with facilities staff, resident life, and administration, I gained valuable insights into the diverse needs and pain points of different user groups. Stakeholders wanted to emphasize the FAQ section to reduce inquiries, but it was placed below the fold, leading to underutilization, as confirmed by user inquiries and analytics.
- Residents: Residents typically engage with the site only when they encounter a problem, so it's crucial that the terminology and steps are clear and explicit. This is especially important for our international population, who would benefit from language support options.
- Maintenance staff: Maintenance staff may initiate a follow-up submission after identifying an issue. Since many facilities employees speak English as a second language, language support options are essential for effective communication.
- University staff: University staff share a similar experience with residents but are more familiar with locations and areas. However, they also tend to use the tool infrequently unless necessary.
An experience that depicts the journey from the initial submission to its resolution, highlighting pain points. The example provided showcases one of three maps designed, each tailored to specific user groups and occasionally accounting for sub-classes of users.
Broadly speaking, the goal is to streamline the submission of maintenance issues across campus. The main "How Might We" (HMW) question formulated is:
How might we more accurately and efficiently submit a work order to enhance the efficiency of maintenance reception?
One key feature of this prototype for testing is the ability to define the issue from a set of options. This significantly improves accuracy, enhances intake and response times, and allows maintenance staff to redirect submissions that facilities do not address, ultimately reducing unwanted submissions.
Protoype development:
Following the conceptualization phase, I translated the identified design requirements and synthesized feedback into an interactive prototype. Adhering to a mobile-first approach was crucial, considering that most students and maintenance staff interact with the site on mobile devices, as shown by Siteimprove analytics data.
10 particpatants for testing
72 Evaluation responses (qual / quant)
particpatant profile
During user testing, we ensured consistency by involving the same range of participants as in the earlier inquiry phase. The testing process incorporated task-based questions designed to measure various Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for quantitative data analysis. The prototype was deployed on a designated device and tested using an Ipevo document camera.
- Students
- Assistant-director level resident life
- Community center coordinator
- Structural trades
- Mechanical trades
- ES Supervisor
- Housing facilities service desk
- Housing facilities service desk manager
I conducted comprehensive A/B testing using prototypes, which were presented the diverse group of members. To ensure the accuracy of the usability assessments, an overhead camera was utilized to meticulously verify user interactions within the prototype. This approach provided valuable insights into the practical application and user experience of the design.
A testing summary was compiled and presented to project stakeholders, comprising video excerpts and feedback data. Based on the insights gathered, adjustments and additional iterations were incorporated into the prototype before progressing to the high-fidelity design phase.
Final design
This stage of the design process brings the conceptual work to life, showcasing how the final product will look and function.
Visual Design and Aesthetic Goals:
- Clean and Modern Layout:
The UI features a clean, layout with a well-organized structure, ensuring users can easily navigate and find the information they need. Consistent use of typography, color schemes, and spacing creates a visually appealing and cohesive look. - Responsive Design:
The design is fully responsive, ensuring a seamless experience across different devices and screen sizes. Whether accessed from a desktop, tablet, or smartphone, the UI maintains its usability and aesthetic integrity. - Intuitive Navigation:
A clear and intuitive navigation bar is prominently placed, providing easy access to key sections such as "Submit a Work Order," "Track Your Requests," "FAQ," and "Contact Support." Dropdown menus and contextual links enhance the navigation experience, allowing users to quickly find relevant options and resources.
The initial home screen adopts a search-first approach, encouraging users to explore the FAQ section before submitting an issue. This reduces the volume of inquiries by addressing common questions upfront. Iconography reinforces internal terminology, aiding users unfamiliar with certain terms—a need identified during initial inquiries and validated through testing.
The completion screen features a stepped progression layout with essential ticket information and a quick feedback mechanism. If users select a sad expression, a form input appears for them to explain any difficulties encountered during submission. This information is passed to the staff for review, allowing them to follow up directly with the authenticated user.
Project Summary
Two key outcomes were achieved:
- Improved Form Submission Accuracy: By segmenting the user experience into defined categories, we gained insights into user issues and their locations. This led to more accurate form submissions, ensuring tickets reached the appropriate maintenance staff promptly.
- Enhanced FAQ Section: A robust FAQ section was developed to reduce the overall volume of submissions.
User feedback:
User feedback, gathered through surveys and end-of-submission feedback responses, indicated a positivity rate exceeding 80%. Furthermore, a reduction in support calls was observed post-implementation.
An important takeaway was the need for a streamlined form entry for expert users, particularly facilities staff requiring a faster, more efficient process. The system underwent a soft launch, with adjustments made during the rollout to address any issues that arose.
