User-Centric Enterprise Interfaces

🔬 How To Run UX Research In B2B and Enterprise. Practical techniques of what you can do in strict environments, often without access to users. 🚫 Things you typically can’t do 1. Stakeholder interviews ← unavailable 2. Competitor analysis ← not public 3. Data analysis ← no data collected yet 4. Usability sessions ← no users yet 5. Recruit users for testing ← expensive 6. Interview potential users ← IP concerns 7. Concept testing, prototypes ← NDA 8. Usability testing ← IP concerns 9. Sentiment analysis ← no media presence 10. Surveys ← no users to send to 11. Get support logs ← no security clearance 12. Study help desk tickets ← no clearance 13. Use research tools ← no procurement yet ✅ Things you typically can do 1. Focus on requirements + task analysis 2. Study existing workflows, processes 3. Study job postings to map roles/tasks 4. Scrap frequent pain points, challenges 5. Use Google Trends for related search queries 6. Scrap insights to build a service blueprint 7. Find and study people with similar tasks 8. Shadow people performing similar tasks 9. Interview colleagues closest to business 10. Test with customer success, domain experts 11. Build an internal UX testing lab 12. Build trust and confidence first In B2B, people buying a product are not always the same people who will use it. As B2B designers, we have to design at least 2 different types of experiences: the customer’s UX (of the supplier) and employee’s UX (of end users of the product). In customer’s UX, we typically work within a highly specialized domain, along with legacy-ridden systems and strict compliance and security regulations. You might not speak with the stakeholder, but rather company representatives — who regulate the flow of data they share to manage confidentiality, IP and risk. In employee’s UX, it isn’t much better. We can rarely speak with users, and if we do, often there is only a handful of them. Due to security clearance limitations, we don’t get access to help desk tickers or support logs — and there are rarely any similar public products we could study. As H Locke rightfully noted, if we shed the light strongly enough from many sources, we might end up getting a glimpse of the truth. Scout everything to see what you can find. Find people who are the closest to your customers and to your users. Map the domain and workflows in service blueprints and . Most importantly: start small and build strong relationships first. In B2B and Enterprise, most actors are incredibly protective and cautious, often carefully manoeuvring compliance regulations and layers of internal politics. No stones will be moved unless there is a strong mutual trust from both sides. It can be frustrating, but also very impactful rewarding. In B2B, people often can’t choose what they use and desperately need help to do their work better — and that’s exactly where designers step in, and can make a whole difference for people who rely on our work every day.

Most designers apply B2C UX to enterprise software. That’s a huge mistake. B2B UX Isn’t Just B2C with More Buttons. B2B UX needs efficiency, precision & integration—not just pretty screens. What makes B2B UX different? → Workflows are complex & multi-step → Data density is higher & more critical → Users are specialists, not casual consumers → Speed & automation matter more than aesthetics How I design for this: ✓ Talk to engineers, analysts, ops teams. ✓ Deep research into user workflows. ✓ I optimize for function, not fluff ✓ Usability > trends Also: I have technical expertise—I understand development, automation, and dev constraints. If your B2B UX isn’t working, it’s time for a rethink. Let’s talk.

The UX of Agentic Graph Systems: Beyond Chat Interfaces 🌓 Agentic graph systems represent a significant evolution in AI architecture, combining the structured knowledge representation of graphs with the generative capabilities of large language models to create systems capable of autonomous planning and execution. As AI systems evolve from simple pattern-matchers to agentic systems with continuous observe-think-act cycles, our user interfaces must evolve accordingly. Current chat-based interfaces, while familiar, prove fundamentally limiting for the complex workflows that true agentic systems enable. Traditional chat interfaces impose substantial constraints when working with AI agents on complex tasks. The sequential, text-based format creates a "linear conversation flow" that makes it difficult to represent non-linear workflows with dependencies, branches, or parallel processes. These interfaces struggle with visualization capabilities, making it challenging to display complex data structures or relationships. They also feature inefficient error correction mechanisms—when an AI makes a mistake, fixing it through chat creates verbose, confusing conversation histories that increase cognitive load for users. Vector-based RAG approaches, while prevalent, flatten complex relationships and lose crucial connections between entities. Graph-based systems address fundamental limitations by embedding structural knowledge representation within neural processing frameworks. This architecture enables the capture of complex relational networks that define enterprise knowledge—preserving not just what information exists, but how it connects across organizational boundaries. Visualizing these relationships becomes essential for human understanding and interaction with the system. Several compelling alternative UI paradigms that offer significant advantages over traditional chat: Agent Dashboards: Command centers showing AI reasoning and confidence levels, enabling "observable autonomy" where users can monitor and influence AI decision-making without constant micromanagement. Workflow Graphs: Visual, editable task maps that transform linear task lists into spatial, interactive mind maps where tasks, decisions, and actions are visually represented and modifiable. Editable AI Notebooks: Structured, persistent documents that both AI and humans can continuously update and reference, creating shared, actionable memory that preserves context. Multimodal UIs: Interaction beyond text, incorporating drag-and-drop interfaces, voice commands, and spatial representations that reduce friction in human-AI collaboration. Interactive visualization transforms abstract data relationships into intuitive visual mappings, enabling developers and users to clearly understand connections. Continuez en commentaire :

The user isn't an afterthought. They're the entire point! The project brief is complete. The budget is approved. The stakeholders have weighed in. You're ready to build. But are you building for them? For the people who approved the funding? For the senior leaders who outlined the vision? What about the person who will actually use what you're creating? Too often, their voice is the one we hear last, if at all. This common practice of putting internal opinions before external needs is a path to irrelevance. We get caught up in our own narratives and internal politics. We mistake what we *think* is a good idea for what *is* a good idea. We prioritize features that appease a stakeholder over those that solve a real-world problem. We design for the theoretical user who lives inside our marketing deck. Not for the messy, unpredictable human who will actually interact with our product. A user-centric approach forces us to step outside our bubble and into the lives of the people we serve. It means we stop guessing and start listening. We conduct research, observe behaviors, and analyze feedback. This becomes the very foundation for our decisions. We focus on solving a problem for a person, not just fulfilling a line item on a project plan. Building a case for this shift isn't about challenging authority. It's about presenting a more reliable path to success. → We show stakeholders the true return on investment comes from creating something people actually want to use. → We demonstrate that reducing friction for a user directly translates to increased adoption, loyalty, and revenue. It's about showing that the tangible benefit a user gains is the most reliable metric of success. Afterall, The most successful products aren't born from executive mandates. They're built on the back of genuine user needs. 💬 What's a product or feature you've seen fail because it ignored its users?

From HEART to CASTLE: Why Consumer UX Frameworks Fail for Workplace Platforms Here's the uncomfortable truth about UX frameworks in enterprise software: What works for consumer products often fails spectacularly in workplace environments. Here's why: 1. The Motivation Mismatch Consumer apps? Users choose to engage. Workplace platforms? Users have to engage. This fundamental difference makes frameworks like HEART (Happiness, Engagement, Adoption, Retention, Task success) miss the mark. 2. The Reality of Enterprise UX In workplace settings: - Retention isn't about choice - Engagement isn't optional  - Adoption follows mandates We need metrics that reflect actual workplace dynamics. 3. Enter the CASTLE Framework CASTLE addresses what really matters in workplace UX: C = Cognitive load (mental effort required) A = Advanced feature usage S = Satisfaction T = Task efficiency L = Learnability E = Errors This framework acknowledges a crucial truth: Success isn't about whether users stay - it's about how effectively they work. 4. Why CASTLE Works Better ✅ Measures actual workplace priorities ✅ Focuses on productivity metrics ✅ Accounts for mandatory usage ✅ Tracks learning curves ✅ Identifies friction points 5. Making the Switch Moving from HEART to CASTLE isn't just changing acronyms. It's about: - Reframing success metrics - Understanding different user motivations - Measuring what actually matters Remember: Great workplace UX isn't about making things engaging. It's about making things efficient. 🎯 The goal isn't to make users want to stay. The goal is to help them succeed at their jobs. #UXResearch #EnterpriseUX #UserExperience

"I know I want a more modern approach to PAM within the company, but what does that really look like?" That was the question posed to me by the head of Identity at a global retailer last week, and my answer surprised him. I think he thought I was going to talk about JIT, Cloud support or some tech-speak but I put it really simply: "A modern approach to PAM is user centric, not account centric" His environment was a great example of what happens when you use tools that are account centric. By the standards of his peers using similar tools, he was successful - he'd vaulted significant amounts of his privileged accounts within the business - but his teams spent a significant amount of time managing teams asking for exceptions as "the solution was impossible to use". Onboarding times were verging on unacceptable and audit was a constant headache. The session management solution from his provider made things a little easier, but it was mostly limited to RDP and SSH access, and infrastructure and resource costs - whether it was hardware, licenses or storage were prohibitive. Outside of his his onprem environments, cloud teams were doing their own thing, he had little visibility into their environments and he still had a little bit of trepidation when the CISO asked him if he felt he had Privilege covered. He knew it wasn't where he wanted to be - hence our meeting. So we talked about how our user-centric approach solved a lot of the problems he was experiencing. Because a solution that users WANT to use means little to no push back from teams, and exceptions really are the exception (and not the norm) Coverage of cloud and onprem environments mean that the vast majority of resources can be accessed via lightweight session management with native tooling - without exposing secrets. Integration with existing tools like Slack, Teams or JIRA means that users are far more open to having standing access removed as JIT access becomes easy to manage and easy to request. Suddenly we are in the situation where MORE resources are onboarded, MORE users are onboarded, Vault and Rotate is now the exception rather than the rule and risk is reduced throughout the company. A simple refocus on the user rather than the account makes all the difference.

Your organisation thinks it's user-centric but stakeholders keep overriding research findings. You're not alone - here's how to identify UX Theatre before it wastes your time building the wrong thing: UX Theatre is the corporate performance of user-centricity without the substance. It's the difference between doing user research and actually being user-centric. One is optics, the other is transformation The signs are everywhere once you know what to look for: 1️⃣ Research Reports That Gather Digital Dust Your team produces beautiful, comprehensive research reports that no one reads. They sit in shared drives like expensive tombstones, marking where good intentions went to die. Real user research doesn't need 40-page documents - it needs user needs and pain points that designers can act on immediately. If your insights aren't being consumed within a sprint, you're doing market research theatre, not user research 2️⃣ Personas That Live in Perpetual Limbo Those carefully crafted personas from 18 months ago? Still hanging on the wall, still completely disconnected from product decisions. Real personas are living, breathing repositories of user needs that get updated constantly through the Research-Design-Test loop. If your personas aren't evolving with every sprint, they're decorative fiction, not decision-making tools 3️⃣ 'User Testing' That's Really Stakeholder Validation You're running sessions where users are shown nearly-finished features and asked if they like them. That's not user testing - that's seeking permission to ship what you've already decided to build. Real evaluative research happens during design iteration, not after development is complete. If you're not testing prototypes and wireframes, you're performing validation theatre 4️⃣ The Research-Free Roadmap Product decisions get made in boardrooms based on competitor analysis and executive opinions, then research gets commissioned to support those decisions. This is backwards. User needs should be the currency of product decisions, not an afterthought. If research isn't informing your roadmap, it's just expensive decoration 5️⃣ Continuous Discovery Without Design Integration You're doing endless generative research - interviews, surveys, journey mapping - but none of it connects to what designers are actually building. Real user research is predominantly a design support function. If your researchers aren't working hand-in-glove with designers to iterate solutions, you've got research theatre, not user-centric product development The fix is simpler than you think, but it requires killing the performance and embracing the practice UX Theatre feels productive because it looks like progress - but it's just expensive performance art that wastes budgets and builds the wrong things with confidence, and now at speed with AI Happy Wednesday! It's time to audit your own practice and separate the signal from the noise 🔥

People assume enterprise software needs to be complex. As a founder, I've carried this assumption-challenging burden throughout my career. I've been in countless meetings where stakeholders push for more features, more fields, more complexity. 'That's what enterprise users expect', they say. What most don't know is that our highest-performing customers are the ones using our simplest interfaces. The ones designed for healthcare workers between rounds, for field teams between sites. This reality shaped how we build at Boon. Every feature, every field, every step gets questioned: 'Would someone use this if they only had 30 seconds?' To every product leader fighting for simplicity in enterprise tech: I see you. Keep pushing back against complexity. Your busiest users will thank you.

Debating the idea💡with a startup team - Diverse user needs can complicate the UX We did voting people —> Supporting the Idea - Diversity complicates UX -1- Increased Complexity in Design: Varied Requirements: addressing a wide range of user needs means incorporating multiple features and functionalities, which can make the interface hard to use Conflicting Preferences: Different user groups may have conflicting preferences, making it challenging to create a one-size-fits-all solution -2- Time and Budget Issuesn: Designing for diverse users often requires more time and resources for research, testing, and implementation, which might not be feasible. Maintenance Challenges: Supporting multiple user personas can complicate ongoing maintenance and updates, as changes benefiting one group might negatively impact another. -3- Learning Curve: A complex interface designed to meet diverse needs can increase the learning curve, making it harder for users to navigate and utilize the product effectively. Other 1/2 of the group challenged the Idea: Diversity Enhances UX -1- Inclusive Design Benefits Broader Reach: Designing for diverse users ensures that the product is accessible to a wider audience, potentially increasing market reach and user base (an important business goal 🎯) Enhanced Usability: Considering diverse needs can lead to more flexible designs that accommodate different user behaviors and preferences. -2- Innovation and Creativity: Diverse Perspectives: Incorporating diverse user needs can inspire innovative solutions and creative 🧠 problem-solving, leading to a feature-rich product. Adaptability: A product designed with diversity in mind is often more adaptable to future changes and evolving user requirements -3- User Satisfaction: Meeting the varied needs of users can lead to higher satisfaction (hard) and loyalty, giving the product a competitive edge in the market. Reputation: Demonstrating a commitment to inclusivity and user-centric design can enhance the brand’s reputation and trustworthiness. Came to a hybrid approach👇 Finding the Balance While diverse user needs can introduce complexity, they also offer opportunities for creating more inclusive and versatile product. 🔑 1 Prioritizing + Segment User Personas: Focus on primary user groups to streamline design efforts while keeping secondary needs in mind 🔑 2 Modular Design + define master pages/elements: Implement flexible and modular design elements that can be customized based on user preferences without cluttering the interface 🔑 3 Continuous Feedback + Iteration: conduct ongoing user research and test new ideas to understand and address the most critical needs effectively