From Spreadsheet Chaos to Streamlined UX: Minimizing Friction for Investors
Translating an excel workflow into a streamlined product experience
Identifying complexities with the existing tool
“Cashflow modeling and commitment pacing”
The analyst team surfaced this missing customer workflow on the PitchBook platform to me and my PM, along with their current process for handling what had become a growing number of customer requests for this analysis. The complexities of these workflows became evident from the excel modeling tool they provide to customers.
Cashflow modeling and commitment pacing tool
The excel tool generates a “forecast” based on a number of user inputs and includes multiple tabs and callouts, leaving room for user error. Because of this analysts must guide customers through the tool, making for a time-consuming process depending on customer familiarity with using such tools. With the UX issues noted, the design challenge became clear.
Design challenge
How might we reduce user friction in the input process with a platform tool?
__________________________________________________________________________
1. Customers wanted more context & flexibility in the input flow
Until now, we’d only reviewed our approaches with the analyst team, so my PM and I prioritized validating the designs with customers. These conversations revealed two key needs in the input flow: clearer context around the analysts’ methodology as well as the ability to override auto-populated fields—both of which we looked at incorporating into the designs.
Early design of the auto-populated fields
Pulled quotes from customer convo’s - takeaways revolved around overriding data and access to the analyst methodology
Breaking the input flow into steps to guide a variety of users
Using the existing Excel tool as a reference, I grouped related fields and mapped a step-by-step flow to validate with the analyst team, aiming to bring guidance compared to the previous process in excel. Users would follow this two step flow in order to reach an output of their forecasted data.
__________________________________________________________________________
Sketch of input steps
Navigating tradeoffs in automating the input flow
Steps weren’t enough though—it was clear automation was needed to handle the volume of inputs, so I proposed auto-populating fields for users looking to manually input data. While originally the preference was that all fields be auto-populated, to prevent inaccurate results from outdated data, we decided to limit auto-population to select fields. We felt this best balanced accuracy without making this process completely manual.
Sketch of input steps
Early design of the auto-populated fields
__________________________________________________________________________
Feedback revealed opportunities to improve…
2. Leadership asked for more continuity between input steps
After reviewing the designs with product leadership, concerns were raised about a lack of clarity in the input flow between steps. While leadership suggested merging the steps into a single screen, I believed this could overwhelm users. Instead, I proposed a solution that preserved continuity by keeping inputs from the previous step visible and enabling users to drill down as needed. This approach maintained context across steps and addressed feedback without introducing additional friction.
Users can view a count of their inputted criteria as well as drill down on expand to see input details
The feedback culminated in final designs to address the challenge at the start:
How might we reduce user friction in the input process?