Work

About

Contact

Work

About

Contact

Work

About

Contact

Case study

Proposal Tool Redesign

A redesigned entry point that helped advisors choose the right proposal path with less confusion.

Senior UX designer · Edward Jones

Role

Senior UX designer

Timeline

6 months

Scope

Research, flows, UI, prototyping, testing

Outcome

Cleared the bottleneck, pattern reused

Role

Senior UX designer

Scope

Research, flows, UI, prototyping, testing

Timeline

6 months

Outcome

Cleared the bottleneck, pattern reused

The challenge

Advisors reached proposal creation two different ways: the funnel page, or an older route that let them start a proposal outside a planning group entirely. On the funnel page, the daily complaint was the same: they couldn't tell which option to pick. Internal jargon and accessibility gaps made a small, critical screen hard to use, and the confusion cost time and risked missed opportunities. On top of that, the system was getting more complex. A single client relationship could now hold several planning groups, each with its own status and rules. The work was to make the funnel the single way in, keep every proposal inside a planning group, and do it without breaking the legacy logic or compliance behind it.

Advisors reached proposal creation two different ways: the funnel page, or an older route that let them start a proposal outside a planning group entirely. On the funnel page, the daily complaint was the same: they couldn't tell which option to pick. Internal jargon and accessibility gaps made a small, critical screen hard to use, and the confusion cost time and risked missed opportunities. On top of that, the system was getting more complex. A single client relationship could now hold several planning groups, each with its own status and rules. The work was to make the funnel the single way in, keep every proposal inside a planning group, and do it without breaking the legacy logic or compliance behind it.

What I inherited

A small, critical screen that had quietly become a bottleneck. Two competing entry models sat side by side, the language was internal jargon users didn't recognize, and accessibility had been an afterthought. Departments disagreed on what success even meant, and the legacy backend ruled some of the cleaner solutions out before we started. Then a new capability landed mid-stream: multiple planning groups per relationship, each with its own status and eligibility, which added exactly the kind of complexity the page was already failing to handle.

The original funnel page, built around goals and account types rather than planning groups. It was only one of two ways in, and proposals could still be created outside a planning group entirely, which is the fragmentation the redesign set out to close.

My role

I led the redesign of the funnel's entry point. I partnered with a researcher to watch how advisors actually moved through it, mapped where the confusion lived, and worked the problem from low-fidelity flows up to tested prototypes. I shaped the structure, brought accessibility in from the start through Axiom components, and designed how planning-group status and eligibility would appear before advisors committed to a path. I worked across design, engineering, business analysis, and QA to keep the redesign buildable inside real constraints.

I led the redesign of the funnel's entry point. I partnered with a researcher to watch how advisors actually moved through it, mapped where the confusion lived, and worked the problem from low-fidelity flows up to tested prototypes. I shaped the structure, brought accessibility in from the start through Axiom components, and designed how planning-group status and eligibility would appear before advisors committed to a path. I worked across design, engineering, business analysis, and QA to keep the redesign buildable inside real constraints.

Key decisions

Decision

Reframe the entry around what the advisor wants to do, not how the tool is built.

Reframe the entry around what the advisor wants to do, not how the tool is built.

Reasoning

The confusion came from asking people to navigate internal structure before they could start. A single plain question, what do you want to do, matched how advisors actually think and let the structure fall away behind it.

The confusion came from asking people to navigate internal structure before they could start. A single plain question, what do you want to do, matched how advisors actually think and let the structure fall away behind it.

Tradeoff

It meant mapping that simple intent onto the legacy backend's real options underneath, more work hidden from the user to keep the surface clean.

It meant mapping that simple intent onto the legacy backend's real options underneath, more work hidden from the user to keep the surface clean.

Decision

Choose a tabbed model over a single consolidated list.

Choose a tabbed model over a single consolidated list.

Reasoning

One universal view put everything in front of users at once and overwhelmed them. Tabs let them focus on one context at a time and gave the design room to grow as planning groups and proposal types multiplied.

One universal view put everything in front of users at once and overwhelmed them. Tabs let them focus on one context at a time and gave the design room to grow as planning groups and proposal types multiplied.

Tradeoff

Tabs add a layer of navigation and put some options a click away, a bet that focus would serve advisors better than seeing everything at once.

Tabs add a layer of navigation and put some options a click away, a bet that focus would serve advisors better than seeing everything at once.

Decision

Build on accessible Axiom components from the start and surface each planning group's status and eligibility upfront.

Build on accessible Axiom components from the start and surface each planning group's status and eligibility upfront.

Reasoning

Accessibility gaps were part of why the old page failed, so making the system's accessible components the default fixed that at the root. Showing status and eligibility before entry stopped advisors from picking the wrong group.

Accessibility gaps were part of why the old page failed, so making the system's accessible components the default fixed that at the root. Showing status and eligibility before entry stopped advisors from picking the wrong group.

Tradeoff

Committing to the component library early gave up some custom visual freedom, and surfacing status added information that had to be paced so it informed rather than crowded.

Committing to the component library early gave up some custom visual freedom, and surfacing status added information that had to be paced so it informed rather than crowded.

Selected artifacts

A few stages of the redesign, from the messy start to the model that won.

Early conceptualization and research from the first sprints. Mapping how advisors actually moved through the page came before any visual design.

Funnel Page Variations

“Universal” Page Variation

The universal variation: one consolidated view of every entry point. It tested as too much at once, which is what pointed to the alternative.

“Tabbed” Funnel Page Variation

The tabbed variation that won. One context at a time, planning-group status surfaced upfront, and room to scale as the system grew.

Outcome

The redesign cleared the bottleneck. Consolidating the two entry points into one funnel, and requiring every proposal to start inside a planning group, gave advisors a clearer way in, and testing showed smoother task completion with less confusion at the entry point. Surfacing planning-group status and eligibility helped advisors see what they could act on before committing, reducing the wrong-group errors the old page invited. The intent-based model was strong enough that other teams began modeling theirs on it, and because it was built on accessible components, it gave the firm a pattern to reuse rather than a one-off fix.

The redesign cleared the bottleneck. Consolidating the two entry points into one funnel, and requiring every proposal to start inside a planning group, gave advisors a clearer way in, and testing showed smoother task completion with less confusion at the entry point. Surfacing planning-group status and eligibility helped advisors see what they could act on before committing, reducing the wrong-group errors the old page invited. The intent-based model was strong enough that other teams began modeling theirs on it, and because it was built on accessible components, it gave the firm a pattern to reuse rather than a one-off fix.

The fix wasn't a prettier screen. It was asking advisors the one question they actually came to answer, and letting the tool's complexity sit behind that instead of in front of it.

← Back to work

© 2026 Arman Musaji

Email:

armanmusaji@gmail.com