Skip to main content

Supporting case study

From thirteen systems to one service task

United Airlines

At IBM iX, I researched how United customer care representatives in Chicago and Houston resolved complaints across thirteen legacy systems. I helped turn that fragmented work into one task-centered dashboard. During the pilot, average throughput rose from two to seven complaint resolutions per hour, and United followed with a rebooking assignment.

United customer care dashboard with persistent customer and itinerary panels beside complaint work
The complaint is the page title. Customer and itinerary panels remain visible beside case status, compensation, notes, and correspondence, documenting how the workspace brought the service task into one view.Original design artifact, privacy-cleared derivative
Role
UX Designer
Client
United Airlines
Employer
IBM iX
Role
UX Designer
Dates
February to December 2018
Research
Interviews and ethnographic observation in Chicago and Houston
Scope
Thirteen legacy systems used in customer care work
Sequence
Customer care dashboard, followed by a rebooking assignment

Watch the complaint come together

Reconstruct the case before redesigning it

Customer care representatives handled one complaint by piecing together information from thirteen legacy systems. I interviewed and observed representatives in Chicago and Houston, then helped turn those sessions into a current-state assessment. Customer history, itinerary details, complaint status, compensation, notes, and correspondence were split across the work. Agents had to rebuild the case before they could resolve it.

I documented dashboard component behavior in Flinto and worked with United and IBM partners to translate the research into a new information architecture. An agent needed to understand the customer, the trip, the complaint, and the available action without reconstructing that picture in separate tools.

Contribution

My work covered field research, the current-state assessment, information architecture, interaction design, and component behavior.

From scattered context to a working case

Thirteen legacy systems lead to a complaint-centered workspace, with customer and itinerary context kept visible and supporting details opened as needed.
Retrospective design exploration. This diagram explains the information architecture described above. It is not an original screen or a map of backend integrations.Newly authored portfolio diagram based on the published case-study narrative

See the working state

United customer care workspace with persistent customer and itinerary cards beside compensation, coding, notes, and correspondence panels
This privacy-cleared working state documents how customer and itinerary context stayed in view while the agent opened compensation, coding, notes, and correspondence beside it.Original design artifact, privacy-cleared derivative

Make the complaint the organizing unit

I organized the workspace around the complaint an agent needed to resolve rather than the legacy systems that stored each piece of information.

Organize the screen around the task

Keep context visible and let supporting detail wait

Putting every field on one page would have preserved the same problem in a denser form. I kept the customer and itinerary visible, then gave the active case, its status, and the next action priority. Compensation, coding, notes, attachments, and correspondence opened as supporting detail instead of competing for the first glance.

The placement rule was simple. Put information where the agent needs it in the task, not where a legacy system happens to store it. That rule shaped the cards, their expanded states, and the reading order across the workspace.

Preserve the itinerary reading order

Side-by-side comparison of an early United itinerary card and United's later visual update
Doug Henry's public project archive compares an early itinerary card with United's update. The route selector changes visually, while status, flight number, departure, and arrival remain in the same reading order.Doug Henry public project archive

Place information at its point of use

Customer and itinerary context stayed visible. Supporting controls opened where the complaint required them, giving product, design, and engineering partners one rule for reviewing each screen.

Measure completed work

Count resolved complaints

The pilot measured completed complaint resolutions per hour, not preference for a mockup or a forecast about future use. Average throughput moved from two to seven complaint resolutions per hour with the consolidated dashboard in the pilot.

Keep the result at the workflow level

I report the pilot result for the consolidated workflow rather than assigning it to an individual card or interaction.

Carry the rule into rebooking

Change the controls, not the organizing rule

After the dashboard pilot, United gave IBM a follow-on rebooking assignment. The workflow asked a different question. Which itinerary should the agent change, and what option could replace it?

I helped the IBM team keep passenger and trip context together and design controls for comparing flights and adjusting the itinerary. The task-centered rule carried into a related service workflow without forcing the complaint dashboard into a different job.

Follow the rebooking flow

United Compass rebooking flow with passenger and itinerary context beside flight comparison and change steps
Doug Henry's public Compass archive documents the follow-on rebooking flow. Passenger and trip context remain in view while the agent compares flight options and changes the itinerary.Doug Henry public Compass archive

Reuse the information model, not the dashboard

The rebooking work kept context and actions together while using controls suited to flight comparison and itinerary changes.

Results

  • During the pilot, average complaint throughput rose from two to seven complaint resolutions per hour.
  • United then gave IBM a follow-on assignment to apply a similar approach to rebooking.

Evidence limit

Surviving sources do not establish long-term production performance or feature-level causation.