Compass Real Estate is a brokerage with around 250 internal staff members who manage and approve over 34,000 + agents' documents during deal transactions. This is done to process payments and ensure the company stays in compliance in an internal tool called Deals Review System (DRS).

Company
Compass Real Estate

Team
1 PM and 15 Engineers

Timeline
8 weeks

Takeaways
Designing B2B Internal Tools

The Problem

The existing workflow was time-consuming, leading to 20% of deals escalating due to delayed processing. As the company expanded its DRS across regions, the system's limitations hindered the internal staff's speed and accuracy.

The Solution

I designed a tool that restructured filters to help internal staff find and prioritize their assigned deals and search for one-off deals. This streamlined process ensures deals comply with regulations by the closing date, keeping both realtors and our company compliant.

Prelude

The slow system caused delays, escalations, and errors.

The current workflow was time-consuming, and 20% of deals escalated because they were not processed on time. At the time, the company was expanding the DRS across its regions, but the current system has limitations that impact the speed and accuracy of the internal staff. 

Final Design

Restructured filters improved deal prioritization and audits.

I restructured the filters to support transaction coordinators finding deals based on their assignments and prioritizing their deals while supporting their search for one-off deals; then, I can increase the number of deals audited daily.

Outcome

The feature was launched to 30 internal staff. There were all unique clicks, only utilizing the tool once (One and Done). Deal completion increased by 20%, and no deals were escalated because they were not processed in time.  

Research

Timeline
3 weeks

My Contribution
User Interviews, Mapping Exercise

Research and Design: Problem

Our internal tool has significant delays and inefficiencies, leading to deal oversight. Identifying the root cause is crucial to streamlining processes and boosting productivity.

Research and Design:: Outcome

Through research, we learned that delays were found in three key areas of the internal staff’s workflow: assigning deals, prioritizing deals, and searching for deals.

01: Research and Design Process

I interviewed ten internal staff to learn their workflow and pain point in the process.

In collaboration with the User Research team, we developed a research script to understand how internal staff define deals, their methods for prioritizing deals, and what criteria determine when a deal is considered complete for compliance purposes.

02: Research and Design Process

The workflow showed audit delays, workflow gaps, and payment issues.

I learned about their workflow and discovered that a single deal auditing process can take approximately  3- 5+ months to close. I also discovered a gap between their assigned deals and most impending deals. This problem limits their speed and accuracy and causes delays in agent pay.

Research Findings

The current layout impedes staff efficiency in locating teams and deals due to information overload and poor organization. This results in wasted time and fragmented workflows when searching for information and responding to inquiries.

Finding One: Terminology

The current layout fails to effectively categorize deals by office and team. Due to the high volume of information and limited space between offices and teams, it's challenging to locate specific groups and teams.

Finding Two: Key Deals

Staff identify key deals using closing dates, expiration dates, and pending documents. Current tables lack filtering and sorting options, and contain excessive columns, hindering focus on critical information.

Finding Three: Staff Time Spent

The internal staff split their time between searching deals with filters and answering queries about deals outside their queue. This process is inefficient, particularly when alternating between one-off and assigned deals.

Design and Build

Timeline
5 weeks

My Contribution
Interaction Model, Usability Testing, Future Exploration

Design: Problem

We needed to develop a quick solution to help internal staff complete audits efficiently. This solution was based on research into internal staff filters within their selected groups and teams, showing relationships despite backend technical limitations.

Design: Outcome

I designed an experience that restructured the filters to support transaction coordinators finding and prioritizing deals while supporting their search experience, increasing the number of deals audited per day.

01: Design and Build Process

First, I needed to create a seamless experience between the assigned and one-off deals.

Based on research findings, internal staff primarily filter within their selected groups and teams. Consequently, I separated the "Group" and "Team" filters from other filters. I also explored using a dropdown menu for navigation. In my final design, I implemented tabs for navigation (distinguishing between filter and search bar). This approach mimics the current workflow while visually emphasizing the hierarchy between the two filtering options.

(1) Dropdown Experience

(2) Tab Experience

Dashboard Homepage

Final Dashboard Design

02: Design and Build Process

Working with engineers, I effectively designed modal experience to separate groups and teams to create a “One-and-Done Approach”.

Due to time constraints, I explored a modal design and introduced a search bar for quick navigation and selection. Research showed that internal staff are assigned deals by groups or clusters of teams, so I kept the Groups and Teams separate. Later, I collaborated with a content strategist to design the relationship between these two data points. After meeting with the Engineering lead, we both agreed that this approach was the best despite it requiring more build time.

(1) Keep Group and Teams Separate

(2) Tab Experience

Modal & Filter Design

Final Dashboard Design

03: Design and Build Process

From the usability test findings, I began to explore redesigning the table experience.

To enhance the experience, the PM and I addressed the next feature on our roadmap: the table redesign. Due to time constraints, I took the initiative to create a "low-hanging fruit" solution without introducing new data points. I aimed to design a table that is both legible and flexible.

Outcome

Before I left Compass, the feature was launched to 30 internal staff. There were all unique clicks, only utilizing the tool once (One and Done). Deal completion increased by 20%, and no deals were escalated because they were not processed in time.  Before leaving Compass, the engineering lead and I propose to move forward and build the column-setting feature first before redesigning the table.

Lessons Learned

  • Research-Led Designs

    Without the research, we would have not solve the foundational problem. UX is a business-critical role; it guides features and a product’s unique value.

  • Collaborating with Content Team

    Working with a content strategist, I ensured the key information was delivered in a way that was relational, discoverable, and digestible for the user. 

  • Building A Roadmap

    Understanding the data, I was able to recommend strategically the next steps to the roadmap, unlike the prior team, which made reactive requests.