Pivoting to Save a Doomed UX

CASE STUDY

2025   •   B2E Enterprise  •   Mobile Expenses
Man standing at a fork in the road, one way leading to ruin, the other to a perfect form

How I redirected a failing UX toward clarity, alignment, and delivery

When a product experience starts to collapse, more design isn’t the answer—better decisions are. I stepped into a project where complexity had overtaken purpose, reset the direction, and led the team away from a doomed path toward a simplified, goal-driven experience that engineering could actually ship.

The Challenge

A visionary “invisible assistant” concept collided with enterprise reality

Touchless Expenses was designed as a concierge-like mobile experience that quietly resolved issues through nudges and confirmations—minimal, elegant, and largely unseen.

The original concept relied on:

  • a chatbot-style interface

  • custom GUI cards and illustrations

  • discovery through subtle prompts

The vision was strong.

The dependencies were fragile.

The First Pivot

The core interaction model was removed just before launch.

Executive leadership withdrew support for extending the design system into the proprietary chat UI, citing insufficient ROI for parallel platform evolution.

New constraints appeared immediately:

  • no chat-based GUI

  • no custom components

  • no system extensions

Drawing on prior experience shipping within rigid enterprise systems, I proposed a compromise:

  • recreate the feel of the concierge using existing components

  • preserve visual intent while changing interaction mechanics

  • favor shippability over theoretical purity

The product shipped on time—but the cracks were already forming.

Why the First Pivot Failed

Design compromises accumulated into systemic friction.

Once in users’ hands, the experience struggled because:

  • authentication required too many steps

  • the app lived inside a platform shell we didn’t control

  • the guided flow was hidden behind a low-priority banner

  • users couldn’t skip unresolved items

  • design system tensions increased

Early stakeholder users tolerated this context.

Real users did not.

Diagnosis

The concierge wasn’t rejected—it was never truly experienced.

Using interviews, walkthroughs, and telemetry, the pattern was clear:

  • users abandoned flows after notifications

  • most never discovered guided resolution

  • others bypassed it entirely

The core insight:

  • invisibility only works when friction is near zero

  • authentication resets momentum

  • hidden intelligence feels absent, not helpful

This wasn’t a UI problem.

It was a model problem.

The Second Pivot

Incremental fixes couldn’t save the concept; it had to evolve.

I pushed for a strategic reframing:

  • shift from invisible automation to visible, conversational guidance

  • align with emerging generative and agentic AI capabilities

  • build on an assistant foundation already in progress elsewhere

At the same time, I drove:

  • a reassessment of mobile strategy

  • access to native APIs for biometric authentication

  • removal of the biggest adoption blocker

This pivot was informed by experience—recognizing when persistence becomes sunk cost.

Reframing the Vision

The assistant needed to be seen, understood, and trusted.

The evolved direction emphasized:

  • transparency over invisibility

  • conversation over silent state changes

  • discoverability over subtlety

The goal didn’t change:

  • reduce manual effort

  • simplify resolution

  • respect user context

The execution model did.

Outcome

The product shifted from idealized minimalism to viable intelligence.

The team gained hard-earned clarity:

  • invisible UX has limits in enterprise environments

  • automation must be understandable to earn trust

  • stakeholder familiarity masks real usability risk

  • platform and authentication constraints must shape design early

The product moved forward with a stronger foundation.

What I Learned

Experience matters most when the answer isn’t “iterate,” but “change course.”

Key lessons reinforced:

  • visibility beats invisibility when complexity is high

  • constraints are design inputs, not afterthoughts

  • timing and technology readiness shape what’s possible

Leadership here wasn’t about shipping faster.

It was about knowing when the original answer was no longer the right one.