Project Background

DLR Group prides itself on its integrated design process. They also pride themselves on an app called INDEPRO that was created to standardize this process and make it scalable and accessible to the entire firm. However, when you ask around different offices if people use INDEPRO or even if they know what it is, the answers do not produce a lot of confidence.

The Client

With offices around the globe housing specialized design expertise, DLR Group’s integrated design teams are backed by more than 1,700 design professionals and the resources of the entire firm. Mostly Architect or Engineer led, these teams consist of design professionals across many disciplines all working together to execute built projects for high profile clients like Google, Boeing, and Marriott, and etc.

The Problem

The core of the challenge was to first understand why employees weren’t using INDEPRO in the majority of their projects. This would help DLR Group determine whether to continue investing in INDEPRO or make the difficult decision to cut funding and sunset the app. If leadership decided to move forward with INDEPRO, it was my job to then use these learnings to suggest possible solutions to improve utilization and make INDEPRO the tool it was dreamed to be.

The Approach

After a few key meetings with leadership, I mapped out a plan that would first help me understand INDEPRO’s current shortcomings, then use my findings to design the best possible solution.

Interface Redlining

As I started recruiting people to interview about why no one was using INDEPRO, I took some time to do my own redlining to get a feel for the decisions that had been made up to this point.

Project Dashboard

Project Overview / Tasks

Initialize Project

Summary

The interface suffers from poor hierarchy, low discoverability, and non-functioning features, creating unnecessary clicks and confusion. Core tasks like finding projects and progressing through phases feel hidden or unintuitive, making the overall experience inefficient and frustrating.

Initial Discovery

Before getting too deep into design, my team decided to take a step back and do some research to understand two things. The first being that we have a piece of software that no one was using and we need to investigate why. The second piece was that in order to understand how INDEPRO can fit into people’s daily lives, we also needed to take a step back and understand who our users are, and how they do their work.​

Research Goals:

1. Understand the typical structure and skillsets of a project team and where each interviewee falls within this structure if people.
2. Get a picture of how different team members collaborate, communicate and contribute to the overall success of the project throughout each phase.
3. Identify who is keeping track of the overall progress of a project in terms of ownership, responsibility, accountability, and reporting. Also, how do team members understand the status of a project.
4. Understand any challenges or confusions in task management, project workflow, and team utilization.
5. Take an inventory on all the different tools teams use throughout the project and identify gaps or overlaps.
6. Understand people’s relationship with the integrated design process and the reasons why people aren’t using INDEPRO as it exists today.

Key Learnings

Within the research, these six points emerged as areas to explore for INDEPRO 2.0. There are overlaps between some of these areas. They’re not 6 distinct findings, but rather interrelated areas for exploration. The presentation we gave to leadership focused in on these 6 findings.

Competitive Analysis

The last part of research we did was a competitive analysis across different task management tools, some being architecture specific. This was included in the research presentation given to leadership to help make the decision on whether to keep INDEPRO or sunset it and go with a competitor.

Persona Identification

In talking stakeholders and other key people in DLR Group that had a high understanding of INDEPRO and who should use it, two key personas surfaced as the main user groups – Team Leads (PMs, Client Leads, Design Leads) and Individual Integrated Team Members.

Reframing the Problem

Marking a Task Complete in the Current Tool

Mapping out the user journey for marking a task complete helped me to identify some key pain points and also improvement opportunities for a future solution.

Potential New Features

Site Map

After leadership had a chance to digest all of my research findings, we collaborated on a loose site help to help us determine the overall vision for INDEPRO 2.0.

Task Userflow

As a project manager, I want to view all the tasks for a project, see who’s assigned to them and where they fall on the overall timeline and also be able to view more info for each one and edit specific details such as date, assignee, and discipline.

Sketches

My initial sketches focused heavily on the Gantt view of the task section and how a user would view and interact with a task.

Mid Fi Flow

At this point in the process, the stakeholders requested a rough picture of how the task flow would go within a project before we dialed further into the details.

Dialing in the Design Details

After presenting the initial project task flow design, the product manager and I collaborated with stakeholders to prioritize the Gantt view, Kanban view, and task card, as these could be integrated into the current INDEPRO platform. I was then tasked with refining these screens and preparing them for user testing.

Gantt View

Projects are organized in a clear hierarchy with a Gantt view to visualize timelines and dependencies, while the task list streamlines workflow through quick edits to assignees and statuses.

Task Card

The task modal enables in-context editing, and assignee photos enhance recognition and connection.

Kanban View

The Kanban view displays tasks as movable cards with containers indicating nesting levels.

Usability Study

It was time to gather user feedback beyond our primary stakeholders and internal team. At the suggestion of our primary stakeholder, we took an approach slightly different from our usual process. I conducted four traditional usability tests with employee owners across various career levels, alongside feedback sessions with four discipline leaders. These sessions allowed leadership to not only interact with the tool but also provide design input. The usability tests yielded valuable insights into overall functionality, while the leadership sessions helped them understand the tool, contribute early feedback, and feel invested in the design process.

Research Goals:

1. Observe how easily a user can navigate the task section, switch between gantt and kanban views, and interact with all items on screen. 
2. Get a picture of how well a user is able to understand their place in the overall project as well as the relationship between the task levels.
3. Observe and understand a user’s ability to manage tasks/milestones/deliverables (view, add, edit)
4. Understand the accuracy of information surfaced on the gantt bars/ kanban cards and if any additions or subtractions are needed.
5. Test the clarity and relevance of the language and instructions used throughout managing tasks.
6. Observe any challenges users experience and how easily they can recover from them.

KPI’s:

• Time on Task
• Task Success Rate
• User Error Rates
• User Satisfaction Score
• Net Promoter Score

Overall Impression

1. Users were excited about the direction of INDEPRO and feel like it’s a big improvement.​
2. Users saw the value of having both the Gantt and Kanban views as different ways to see their tasks and the overall project.​
3. Leadership supports this direction.​

Metrics

Key Findings

After synthesizing and analyzing all of the user feedback, a few key findings surfaced.

Iterations Based On Feedback + New Features

After presenting the findings from the usability tests, I collaborated closely with stakeholders and the product manager to prioritize insights, determine which recommendations would have the greatest impact, and define the features to implement in the final solution.

Gantt View: Task Management

Updates include a ‘Create New’ button, enhanced quick filters, collapsible task lists, expanded quick edit options, and consistent hover effects for all clickable elements.

Add a Task

The new task card is designed to appear clean and unpopulated, ready for user input.

Task Card

Primary content is scannable and editable above the fold, with dependencies listed clearly and an activity/comments section included.

Kanban View: Task Management

Columns can now be grouped by criteria, with tasks sortable, scrollable, and editable; cards support quick edits and opening the full task modal. Additional visual hierarchies have been removed.

Table View: Task Management

A new table view allows rows to be grouped by specific criteria with sticky headers for context, supporting task creation, sorting, quick edits, and full access to task details.

Reflection

The INDEPRO project highlighted that adoption challenges aren’t always about the design itself—sometimes the value lies in aligning the tool with users’ actual workflows. While the interface needed improvement, the bigger opportunity was embedding project management practices into the platform in a way that felt natural and immediately useful to employees. Conducting research across offices revealed where real pain points existed, from low awareness to misaligned processes, and guided design decisions that made the app both intuitive and relevant. By engaging users and leadership throughout, we didn’t just update the UI; we redefined the tool’s value proposition so it would genuinely support the work people were already doing, creating excitement and increasing anticipated adoption.

Key Takeaway

INDEPRO reinforced that design alone cannot drive adoption—tools succeed when they solve real user problems. By embedding project management processes into an intuitive, user-centered interface, I learned that the most impactful solutions combine usability with meaningful, workflow-aligned value, making the tool indispensable rather than optional.