Ralston Fitler

Case Study: Ford Inventory Management - Parts Predictions Tool

Working on the Parts Predictions tool at Ford was a transformative experience that challenged the boundaries of user experience design. In the intricate world of inventory management, our goal was clear: dealerships needed a reliable system to predict not just what parts they would need, but how many, and even when. The tool we developed didn’t just rely on historical data; we brought in weather predictions to sharpen its accuracy, recognizing that environmental conditions had a direct impact on wear and tear.

The design process was deeply rooted in A/B testing from the start. I wanted to ensure that every iteration was guided by user feedback and data, not just intuition. For example, when we adjusted the way data was visualized on the dashboard—replacing traditional tables with dynamic graphs—I ran an A/B test to compare user engagement and task completion times. The results were illuminating. The visual approach boosted efficiency and accuracy by 40%, and the feedback indicated users found it more intuitive to understand the predictions.

Of course, designing an intuitive interface was only half the battle. To ensure the tool would be effective in the real world, I conducted extensive usability testing with dealership staff. I remember one session where a service manager explained how critical it was for the system to be quick and responsive during peak hours. The feedback drove us to refine certain elements—like minimizing the number of clicks required to access key reports. These insights were invaluable in making the interface as seamless as possible.

We also employed heat mapping tools to understand how users interacted with the interface in real-time. This helped us discover unexpected patterns. One of the most surprising findings was that users tended to hover over certain areas of the page, even when those areas weren’t interactive. This led us to refine our design, making key elements more prominent while removing distractions that didn’t serve a functional purpose.

Testing didn’t stop at usability and visual feedback. We analyzed how weather patterns affected part needs across various regions. A dealership in a snowy area would have very different part requirements compared to one in a warmer climate. With predictive analytics, we were able to fine-tune these forecasts, giving dealerships a more accurate, adaptable tool. This was particularly rewarding because the tool wasn’t just smart—it was proactive. Instead of reacting to part shortages, dealerships could anticipate them.

The success of the Parts Predictions tool wasn’t just in its design, but in the way it was tested, refined, and ultimately embraced by users. Each decision was driven by data and human insight, ensuring the tool made life easier for dealerships while keeping Ford’s promise of innovation at the forefront.

Case Study: Command Center Transitioning from Version 1.0 to Version 2.0

Introduction

This case study explores the transformation of a product from its 1.0 Version to it’s 2.0 Version. The aim was to enhance usability, streamline metrics tracking, and improve overall user experience. Version 1.0 had limitations in clarity and functionality, which I addressed in the new design.

Version 1.0 Overview

Version 1.0 of the product presented several challenges:

• Metrics Presentation:
  • Metrics were displayed in a cluttered format.
  • Difficult to distinguish between different metrics due to lack of visual separation and organization.
  • Status indicators and risk factors were not immediately clear.
• User Interface (UI):
  • The interface lacked intuitive navigation.
  • Important information was buried within a dense layout, making it hard for users to quickly find relevant data.
  • There were no clear indications of deadlines or remaining time for tasks.
• Functionality:
  • Limited interactivity with metrics and status updates.
  • Users struggled to effectively report and show updates for their tasks.

Version 2.0 Overview

Version 2.0 addressed the issues identified in the version 1.0 and introduced several improvements:

• Metrics Presentation:
  • Clear and organized display of metrics.
  • Each metric is visually separated and labeled, enhancing readability.
  • Introduction of visual indicators for status and deadlines, making it easier to track progress.
  • Dense information was hidden behind green or red buttons to allow users to explore more data.
• User Interface (UI):
  • Intuitive navigation with a clean layout.
  • Important information is easily accessible, with a clear hierarchy of data.
  • Users can quickly identify deadlines and remaining time for tasks, thanks to prominent display elements.
• Functionality:
  • Enhanced interactivity with metrics and status updates.
  • Users can filter and sort data to focus on specific aspects of their tasks.
  • Improved tracking and management capabilities, with real-time updates on task statuses.

Detailed Comparison

Metrics Presentation:

Version 1.0:

• Metrics were grouped without clear separation.
• Lack of visual cues to differentiate between different types of data.
• Status and risk indicators were not prominently displayed.

Version 2.0:

• Metrics are grouped logically with clear labels.
• Visual indicators (e.g., color coding) enhance the differentiation of data.
• Status and deadlines are prominently displayed, with visual cues such as progress bars and countdowns.

User Interface:

Version 1.0:

• Dense and cluttered layout.
• Difficulty in navigating to find specific information.
• No clear visual hierarchy, making it hard to prioritize tasks.

Version 2.0:

• Clean and intuitive layout with a clear visual hierarchy.
• Easy navigation, with important information prominently displayed.
• Tasks and deadlines are clearly prioritized and easy to manage.

Functionality:

Version 1.0:

• Limited interactivity and data management capabilities.
• Users faced challenges in monitoring and updating task statuses.
• No real-time updates, leading to potential delays in task management.

Version 2.0:

• Enhanced interactivity, allowing users to filter and sort data.
• Real-time updates on task statuses and deadlines.
• Improved task management with clear indicators of progress and remaining time.

Conclusion

The transition from the version 1.0 to the version 2.0 significantly improved the product's usability and functionality. By addressing the limitations of the Old Design, the New Design offers a more intuitive and efficient user experience. The clear presentation of metrics, intuitive UI, and enhanced functionality contribute to better task management and user satisfaction.

This case study highlights the importance of user-centered design and continuous improvement in product development. The successful implementation of the New Design demonstrates how thoughtful changes can lead to significant enhancements in usability and performance.