Infor — Enterprise UX Audit

Infor's HCM suite had grown by acquisition. Hundreds of workflows, no shared map. I built the UX audit framework that gave product, engineering, and design a common language for what existed, what was broken, and what to fix first.

Customers were churning on workflows that nobody owned end-to-end. The product spanned scheduling, time off, task management, and approvals — each built by a different team, each with its own patterns. Leadership needed a defensible map of what was actually shipping before it could prioritize what to fix.

I led a six-week discovery: stakeholder interviews across four product lines, observational sessions with admins and managers, and a teardown of every customer-facing surface in the suite.

1. 01

   The pain wasn't features — it was friction between them

   Individually, most workflows worked. The breakage lived in the seams: an approval that lived in three places, a task model that meant something different in scheduling than in time off.

2. 02

   Teams couldn't see their own product

   Nobody had a complete inventory. Decisions were being made on assumed coverage. The audit framework's first job was to make the invisible legible.

3. 03

   Consistency had to be earned, not mandated

   A design system existed but adoption was uneven because teams couldn't justify the rework. Tying inconsistency to specific support tickets and churn signals made the case land.

Process led this engagement. I built the framework, ran it across four product lines, and used the output to align leadership on scope.

• A reusable audit framework, not a one-time deck

  Five lenses — clarity, consistency, accessibility, data integrity, and workflow integrity — scored against a 1–5 rubric. Teams could re-run it quarterly without me in the room.

• Anonymized workflow diagrams as the shared artifact

  I redrew every critical workflow in a neutral notation so PMs, engineers, and designers could argue about the system instead of about their own screens.

• Before-and-after the scheduling flow

  Used scheduling as the pilot — the most painful workflow with the clearest data. The before-and-after became the artifact leadership used to fund the rest of the program.

• Scope as a deliverable

  Output wasn't a redesign — it was a prioritized, costed scope of what to fix, in what order, by whom. That's what got committed to in the next planning cycle.

The visuals here are representative — redrawn with generic, fake data so the structure and decisions read clearly without exposing the real product. A private walkthrough of the actual surfaces is available below.

Flow 01

Task Manager — representative mockup

How a manager triages their queue across product lines from a single surface. Redrawn with generic data; the information architecture and decision logic match the real workflow.

Representative — redrawn with generic, fake data for confidentiality.

Flow 02

Approve Time Off — representative mockup

The unified approval pattern — one component, applied across scheduling, time off, and task management — that replaced three divergent flows.

Representative — redrawn with generic, fake data for confidentiality.

An enterprise engagement of this size doesn't surface clean public metrics — the outcomes were qualitative, but they were what leadership asked for.

The audit framework became the team's shared scoping language and was adopted across four product lines. Leadership used the scheduling before-and-after to fund a multi-quarter consistency program. The unified approval pattern replaced three divergent flows with one component, retired in the next release cycle.

Enterprise work taught me that the deliverable is rarely the screen — it's the artifact that lets a 200-person product org agree on what to do next. I'd push harder, earlier, to put the framework in the teams' hands instead of mine.