** Please Note: For this project I was under an NDA so I am unable to share research deliverables.

Overview

Project Overview

From a young age, my fascination with colors and coatings sparked an interest that culminated in an exhilarating project with Sherwin Williams. This opportunity allowed me to explore the intricate and magical process of formulating paints and coatings—materials that coat the cars we drive, the Fender guitars we play, and the homes we color.

The paint and blending facilities Sherwin Williams operates face unique challenges in managing complex ordering processes, which involve multiple stakeholders and require strict quality control. Recognizing the need for optimization, Sherwin-Williams tasked our team with analyzing the existing workflow and identifying opportunities for improvement, all while ensuring the highest standards of efficiency, safety, and quality.

As one of the UX Researcher, my task was to identify these usability issues and work with the design and engineering teams to optimize the system, ensuring that it met user needs while maintaining Sherwin-Williams’ standards for high-quality, efficient solutions.

Research Approach:

Why This Approach?
To create an intuitive, user-friendly system, our team utilized a combination of usability testing, expert interviews, and iterative design recommendations. This approach captured a full range of user behaviors, uncover pain points, and prioritize solutions that would streamline workflows and improve system adoption.

1. Usability Testing:
   • Objective: Observe how users interacted with the existing system and identify barriers to efficiency.
   • Approach: Conducted task-based usability sessions with both experienced operators and newer users, simulating real-world workflows (e.g., creating, editing, and submitting orders).
   • Insights: Identified bottlenecks caused by inconsistent terminology, poor feature placement, and workflows that did not align with users’ mental models. Some workflows were highly site-specific, introducing variability in how users perceived the system.
2. Expert Interviews:
   • Objective: To gain deeper insights into user workflows and uncover challenges faced by different stakeholders.
   • Approach: Conducted semi-structured interviews with paint facility operators, managers, and technical experts, exploring their pain points, ideal solutions, and interactions with the system.
   • Insights: Learned that users frequently relied on workarounds due to inconsistent terminology, and that clear communication regarding system changes was critical for adoption. Stakeholders had competing priorities—some emphasized speed, while others prioritized accuracy and compliance with regulations.
3. Iterative Design Recommendations:
   • Objective: To create actionable, user-centered recommendations for improving the system.
   • Approach: Collaborated with designers to simplify the UI layout, standardize terminology, and ensure that key features were logically grouped and easy to locate. Worked with engineers to evaluate the feasibility of the changes and align the designs with technical requirements.
   • Insights: Iterative cycles were essential—early feedback highlighted the need for more flexibility in accommodating unique workflows, prompting revisions to our design assumptions.

---

Key Insights:

1. Inconsistent Naming and Feature Placement:
   • Inconsistent terminology across the platform led to confusion and inefficiencies in completing tasks. Users found it difficult to locate features or understand their purpose due to vague or non-standardized terms.
2. Workflow Inefficiencies:
   • Site-specific workflows led to inconsistencies in how users interacted with the system. These inconsistencies introduced complexity and reduced task efficiency. Users were forced to rely on workarounds to complete tasks, which further slowed down the process.
3. Competing Priorities:
   • Different stakeholders had competing priorities. Some focused on speed, while others emphasized accuracy and regulatory compliance. This created tension in decision-making and required a balance between flexibility and consistency.

Recommendations:

1. Standardized Terminology:
   • Implement a consistent naming system for features to reduce confusion and improve navigation. This will ensure that terminology aligns with user mental models, simplifying tasks and reducing cognitive load.
2. Streamlined UI Layout:
   • Simplify the layout by logically grouping related features together, ensuring that key functionalities are easy to find and logically placed within user workflows. This will improve task completion time and accuracy.
3. Modular Design for Flexibility:
   • Introduce modular elements that allow customization without compromising overall system consistency. This solution balances the need for flexibility in site-specific workflows with the overarching goal of a consistent, easy-to-use interface.
4. Clear Change Management:
   • Implement a phased rollout with clear communication, training sessions, and documentation to ensure smooth adoption. Address user concerns about sudden changes by providing detailed explanations and offering support during the transition.

Challenges and Adjustments:

1. User Pushback on Feature Placement:
   • Early iterations of the Proof of Concept (POC) faced resistance due to unexpected changes in feature placement.
   • Response: We revisited design assumptions and conducted additional usability tests to ensure that the revisions addressed user needs without sacrificing efficiency.
2. Balancing Consistency with Flexibility:
   • While standardizing the UI improved usability, some facilities required unique configurations to accommodate specific workflows.
   • Response: Considered modifying modular design elements that allowed for customization, ensuring that flexibility didn’t compromise the overall user experience.
3. Managing Change:
   • Users expressed frustration with sudden system changes, particularly around feature placement and terminology.
   • Response: Consider a phased rollout to manage the change more effectively, supplemented with training sessions and clear documentation to ease the transition.

Outcome:

The final recommendations aimed to significantly improve the Sherwin-Williams OEM paint ordering system:

• Consistent Terminology: Simplified navigation and reduced cognitive load, improving task efficiency.
• Streamlined UI Layout: Increased task completion efficiency and aligned the system with user workflows.
• Enhanced User Satisfaction: Post-testing metrics showed higher satisfaction scores, reduced errors, and improved user confidence.

---

Impact:

The recommended optimizations are expected to have a lasting positive impact on both Sherwin-Williams and its users:

• Improved Operational Efficiency: Streamlined workflows will save time and reduce errors, leading to higher productivity.
• Seamless Transition to the New System: Clear communication and phased implementation will ensure smooth adoption with minimal disruption.
• Increased User Confidence: A consistent, intuitive interface will build trust and reduce user frustration, fostering long-term engagement.

---

Key Learnings:

This project highlighted critical takeaways for designing in complex, regulated industries like manufacturing:

1. Continuous Improvement: Iterative design cycles and real-world testing are essential to addressing user needs effectively.
2. Cross-Functional Collaboration: Close collaboration between design, engineering, and product teams ensures alignment and minimizes errors.
3. Industry-Specific Considerations: Precision, speed, and regulatory compliance are essential. Designing with these priorities in mind ensures usability without sacrificing operational requirements.

---

Citations:

• Tullis, T. S., & Albert, W. (2020). Measuring the User Experience: Collecting, Analyzing, and Presenting Usability Metrics. Morgan Kaufmann.
• King, M. (2015). Chemical Engineering Process Design and Economics: A Practical Guide. CRC Press.
• Preece, J., Rogers, Y., & Sharp, H. (2015). Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction. John Wiley & Sons.
• Vredenburg, K., Isensee, S., & Righi, C. (2013). User-Centered Design: An Integrated Approach. Pearson.

---