FACNAV
Case study: Redesigning complex workflows for clarity and usability in a live battlefield management system.
Due to confidentiality restrictions and non-disclosure agreements, detailed materials, visuals, and specific outcomes from this project cannot be publicly shared. This case study focuses on my role, approach, and design processes applied.
The image shown is a made-up mockup illustrating the overall UI and information architecture of the FACNAV BMS, without revealing any proprietary details.
Project information
My role
Senior UX Designer
Team
1 Product Owner
2 front-end developers
1 back-end developer
1 domain expert
Product
FACNAV, a Battlefield Management System
Project background
FACNAV supports complex operational workflows where users depend on accurate data, predictable interactions, and clear decision paths, often under significant time pressure.
The UX challenge was not about visual refinement. It was about improving clarity and efficiency without breaking established mental models for expert users.
Designing for high-stakes decision support shares fundamental challenges with AI product design: users must trust the system, understand what it is doing, and feel confident they are in control, especially under pressure. These principles guided every decision.
My role
I had ownership of specific modules within the platform, working in parallel with another designer who covered different areas. Before converting any workflow to the new design system, we sparred regularly to validate each other's proposals and challenge assumptions. This peer review process was built into how we worked, not an afterthought.
My focus was on mapping existing workflows, identifying where users were forced to navigate in and out of contexts to find information, and designing solutions that brought the right information into the same flow.
I facilitated workshops with domain experts throughout the process, using their operational knowledge to validate both problem definitions and proposed solutions before moving into detailed design.
❝ Evolution over revolution. Every change had to earn its place by improving clarity without introducing new cognitive load.
A concrete example
One workflow required users to navigate back and forth across multiple screens to gather the information needed to complete a single task. The cognitive cost was high, especially under time pressure.
We consolidated the relevant information and actions into a single, unified flow. Users no longer had to hold context in their heads while navigating. The task became something they could complete in sequence, with everything they needed visible at the right moment.
This sounds simple. In a safety-critical system with strict domain logic and legacy interaction patterns, it required careful negotiation between usability, accuracy, and operational constraints.
Research and constraints
The work required formal security clearance. Rather than traditional user research, we combined expert evaluation with continuous input from domain experts embedded in the team. This meant we could move quickly while staying grounded in real operational use.
A key insight from this process: expert users rely heavily on spatial memory and positional consistency. Moving a single element broke established operational patterns. This shaped our approach directly, evolution over revolution.
The design system challenge
This project was one of the first to fully adopt the new design system, replacing legacy components across real production workflows. It was not straightforward.
We needed to build custom content components that could slot into the design system's core components without breaking their integrity. This required close collaboration with the Design System Lead and a lot of iteration, testing components in the context of actual workflows rather than in isolation.
The work we did here improved the process for teams that came after us. We helped establish a clearer path from design system to production workflow, something that had not existed before.
What we changed
BEFORE / AFTER
Modal-heavy workflows with high visual noise → Progressive disclosure: default view shows only what is needed. Users expand steps on demand.
Text-heavy status labels scattered across the interface → Colour-based status indicators: less space, more visible, faster to scan.
Fragmented workflows requiring navigation in and out of contexts → Consolidated flows with all relevant information surfaced at the right moment.
Known interaction bugs causing user confusion → Continuous bug resolution integrated into the design process, improving predictability throughout.
Outcome
The work contributed to clearer, more predictable workflows across multiple core modules, supporting both new functionality and gradual modernisation of legacy interactions. By improving clarity without disrupting established workflows, the project helped strengthen user trust in a system where reliability is non-negotiable.
The design system adoption work created a reusable foundation that made subsequent development faster and more consistent across teams.
Learnings
Usability improvements only have value if users can trust the change. In mission-critical systems, that trust is earned slowly and lost quickly.
The most valuable contribution was not always the design itself. Establishing a repeatable process for how the design system connected to real product workflows had a lasting impact beyond this project.
Good process is not overhead. In complex, security-constrained environments, strong documentation and shared understanding across disciplines is what makes design work at all.