To support this migration, Global Sales Ops sought to create a centralized support center for Dynamics and their suite of home-grown sales tools. Some tools were well-established, others were being built and customized.
This project affected the entire global salesforce. Each line of business, role and region had their own nuanced needs, requirements and rollout schedule.
Every design decision was mine.
Cross-functional Partnerships. With such a large undertaking, we needed to ensure all teams were aligned and heard. User Research, Internal Tools, content authors, multimedia designers; Dynamics tools team; Microsoft Sharepoint teams, instructional designers; Sales Ops; sales readiness.
Technology Advocate. As the UX & UI lead, I needed to ensure that our authoring platform was feasible, scaleable, and long lasting. I interviewed multiple teams, tested multiple platforms and worked with external vendors to develop a recommendation
Creative Direction. Once launched the site would be expanded and updated by a variety of content authors, multimedia designers, technical writers and vendors. A strong creative vision needed to be established.
I collaborated with User Research to conduct several rounds of user testing. We ensured each group consisted of a diverse cross-section of roles, region, segment, and seniority. We used these sessions to understand their preferred learning methods and to test out different designs.
Actionable Insights
I researched, tested and vetted a variety of homegrown and off the shelf platforms to create my recommendation.
Actionable Insights
No single platform solved every requirement. The solution was a combination.
Role definitions, product readiness, leadership goals and roll out strategy were consistently shifting and evolving.
As the owner of the GTM sites, it was essential that I stay on top of each aspect, understand the changes, weigh their implications, then adjust my strategy.
Actionable Insights
With a thorough understanding of the users, the technological landscape, and a grasp of the business plan, I presented my recommendation to Senior LT. We landed on a multi-platform approach that consisted of a Sharepoint Hub for onboarding and help guide, WalkMe for help tickets, and MindTickle for testing.
Though it was not perfect, this solution checked enough of our boxes:
To ensure consistency of experience and that we achieved our business goals, we needed to apply a System Design methodology to our approach.
With so many roles, so much content, and so many cross-functional dependencies, we needed to ensure the foundational structure was sound. We iterated through this process several times until final launch.
Sharepoint’s design limitations defined how we structured and parsed the content. Instead of trying to push the platform into behaving in a way it wasn’t intended, we played to its strengths. I negotiated a rare hub structure with Microsoft which unlocked more advanced features. A lack of traditional CMS functionality created additional challenges. I designed a highly-structured labeling and naming to make it easy for content creators to navigate, designers to build, and strategists to plan.
The platform's remaining limitations drove the design rather than blocking it.
The User Guide provided support for our two core users:
To ensure minimal versioning issues and consistency, we architected the User Guide and Learning Center to intersect seamlessly. With roles and features changing constantly, there was a heavy concern about versioning. We designed a solution that was flexible yet stable.
The strength of the program was its consistency across multiple platforms. Wherever possible we injected design, illustration, and visual breadcrumbs that the user would experience whenever they were within the suite of sites.
Ask the 'why' beneath the why. Sales Ops asked for a support center. The real ask underneath was fewer help tickets and faster ramp, not more content. That distinction is what shaped the three flows instead of a generic knowledge base.
Push but Respect the Limits. Sharepoint's lack of native CMS tooling could have blocked the project outright. Understanding exactly where that limit sat is what made the Microsoft negotiation possible. I wasn't asking for everything, just the specific structure the constraint allowed.
Soft Hands. Roles, tools, and rollout dates kept changing throughout the project. Grounding the IA in behavior (Onboarding / Role Transfer / Tenured) instead of specific tools meant the structure absorbed those changes without needing a redesign each time something shifted.
Reduced Support Tickets by 40%. No CRM migration at this scale had been attempted before, so there was no baseline. The number was built on projections. We beat them.
Exceptional Traffic. This hub was the second-most trafficked and utilized internal site for over two years.
Growth and Consistency. As new lines of businesses adopted the platform, new roles created and new features released, the site continued to grow and evolve. The structure held.