Ernst & Young · Case study
Workforce tools, compliance made coherent.
- Enterprise UX
- Workflow Design
- Data-dense Interfaces
- Internal Tooling
- Design Systems
- Mobile Activation
- Role
- Lead Product Designer
- Timeline
- Jun 2017 — Mar 2018
- Platform
- Web · Internal
IOWP hours-mix demand modal: scope staffing changes by month, SMU, city, and competency before save.
Overview
Two tools, one engagement.
Compliance-sensitive, multi-role, and used at global scale: EY’s internal workforce tooling required design that could carry policy logic without putting the burden on individual users. The engagement covered two domain-distinct products — the Integrated Workforce Planning Tool (IOWP), used by partners and engagement leads to forecast and reconcile staffing, and the International Mobility tool (IML), used to coordinate cross-border talent and visa programs.
The mandate was to help teams get through complex staffing and mobility work faster, with cases that still held up when compliance asked what had changed.
Strategy
Consistent patterns, distinct surfaces.
- 01
Aligned patterns, distinct surfaces
Tables, modals, filters, and form patterns appeared in both tools. Interaction conventions were aligned where it reduced switching cost, without treating the products as one system. Visual identity stayed distinct enough to signal context.
- 02
Modal-driven data editing
Editing in place was unreliable at this data density. Modal flows let partners reconcile staffing or visa templates without losing dashboard context.
- 03
Template-first workflows
Templates let compliance configure once and coordinators run cases without needing to know policy by memory. Repeatable task templates carried the operational logic so individual users worked from configured defaults rather than from scratch.
- 04
Checked against enterprise patterns
Modal containment, preview-before-commit, role-separated approvals, and template-first task centers are common in workforce and case-management tools. Product research mapped those patterns to each EY surface so improvements rested on known constraints, not invented user drama.
Design
Rigid structures that can adapt.
Staffing scenarios, edited in context
Engagement leads model supply and demand for each staffing scenario. The modal pattern brought edits inside the dashboard, so reconciliation happened next to the data rather than away from it. Inline editing was considered but unreliable at this data density; the modal kept dashboard state intact while isolating the edit target.
Start from a template, not scratch
New assignments did not need a custom workflow built step by step. Coordinators applied a pre-configured template to a live case so tasks, defaults, and compliance steps arrived together instead of being reassembled for every engagement. A preview-before-commit screen showed what would change before apply, saving setup time while keeping the action auditable.
Structured case archive
Coordinators closed cases through a structured archive flow: explicit states, clear handoff points, and a record suitable for downstream review.
Role-separated approval chain
Review steps stayed role-separated: submitters, approvers, and coordinators each had a distinct surface, matching how enterprise HR and compliance tools keep sign-off explicit before a case advances.
Assign, tag, approve, and track
The task center gave coordinators a linear path through each mobility case: assign work from a template, tag steps for review, route them for approval, and track status in one queue. Each task showed an owner and its place in the sequence, so handoffs stayed visible. The process stayed auditable without rebuilding policy from scratch on every assignment.
Outcome
Faster work, auditable by design.
2
IOWP and IML redesigned for consistent, auditable internal workflows
5
Flows for in-context edits, template apply, archive, approvals, and task tracking
3
Systematic controls: preview-before-commit, templates, role-separated sign-off
Reflection
Operational value in planning and mobility
In IOWP, engagement leads adjusted hours-mix and staffing scenarios inside the dashboard instead of re-keying plans across spreadsheets. In IML, mobility coordinators applied configured templates, routed approvals, and tracked tasks with preview-before-commit at each step. Both workflows kept owners, status, and the record of change visible in the product, so partners and coordinators spent less time reconstructing who did what after the fact.
For the business, that shows up as lower-cost workforce planning and cleaner compliance evidence. Tighter staffing reconciliation reduces rework when demand shifts across months, SMUs, and cities; archived mobility records and role-separated sign-off cut the hours teams spend assembling relocation adjustments for audit. This meant fewer planning errors, fewer surprises during audits, and less time spent rebuilding cases from scattered notes.