Omkar Sarode

Enterprise SaaS · Product Design Case Study

Enterprise SaaS ·

Product Design Case Study

Data Quality Center

Data Quality Center

Data Quality Center

Unifying fragmented data-quality workflows into one platform for a Fortune 500 manufacturer.

Unifying fragmented data-quality workflows into one platform for a Fortune 500 manufacturer.

The Data Quality Center is an enterprise SaaS platform for monitoring, managing, and improving data quality across an organization’s data ecosystem. I led end-to-end UX/UI design alongside one other designer and a five-person engineering team.

The Data Quality Center is an enterprise SaaS platform for monitoring, managing, and improving data quality across an organization’s data ecosystem. I led end-to-end UX/UI design alongside one other designer and a five-person engineering team.

Role

Lead UX/UI Designer

Scope

Research, UX strategy, interaction design, UI design, design system

Platform

Enterprise internal process monitoring web application

Team

1 designer, 4 engineers, enterprise client stakeholders

Data Quality Center dashboard showing data quality metrics

5 fragmented tools

→ 1 unified platform

65%

faster issue resolution

$1.8M

annual operational savings

A Fortune 500 manufacturer was flying blind

A Fortune 500 manufacturer was flying blind

Data quality was managed across more than 200 sources with fragmented, engineering-first tools. Site managers and executives lacked a clear way to understand issues, assign ownership, or act before problems affected operations.

40%

of business decisions delayed due to unreliable data

$2.5M

annual cost from manual data quality checks

14 days

average time to identify and fix an issue

5

disconnected tools required for a full picture

Lack of visibility

A recurring blocker surfaced across roles and locations.

Complex workflows

A recurring blocker surfaced across roles and locations.

Poor collaboration

A recurring blocker surfaced across roles and locations.

Limited executive insight

A recurring blocker surfaced across roles and locations.

Understanding the people behind the data

Understanding the people behind the data

Five weeks of mixed-method research across three roles and twelve manufacturing sites grounded the product in real operational needs.

18

user interviews

87

survey responses

8

contextual inquiries

6

competitor platforms reviewed

Key insights

01

Users spent roughly 40% of their time manually checking data across disconnected systems.

02

85% of participants found existing tools too complex to use confidently.

03

The recurring workflow was: identify issue → assign team → track resolution → verify fix.

04

Executives needed trend-level visibility, while stewards needed technical depth.

05

Real-time alerts were essential to prevent issues from cascading unnoticed.

Sarah Chen — Data Steward

“I need to see which data issue is mine, what broke, and what changed since yesterday.” Goals: resolve data issues quickly; maintain rule accuracy; trust alerts. Pain points: noisy dashboards, manual checks, unclear ownership.

Mike Rodriguez — Site Manager

“I don’t need the SQL. I need to know whether production reports can be trusted today.” Goals: understand operational risk; assign issues; prevent delays. Pain points: technical tooling, email chains, weak visibility.

Jennifer Park — VP of Operations

“I need the trend, the business impact, and whether the teams are getting better.” Goals: track quality trends; prioritize investment; report progress. Pain points: no executive view, inconsistent definitions, late escalation.

One shared data model, tailored to each role

One shared data model, tailored to each role

How might we give technical and non-technical stakeholders one trustworthy view of data quality—letting stewards act fast and executives read trends at a glance—without forcing either into the other’s workflow?

How might we give technical and non-technical stakeholders one trustworthy view of data quality—letting stewards act fast and executives read trends at a glance—without forcing either into the other’s workflow?

Goal 1

Consolidate five fragmented tools into one platform

Goal 2

Make data quality legible to non-technical stakeholders

Goal 3

Shift teams from reactive to proactive detection

Goal 4

Replace email-thread tracking with a shared workflow

A non-linear process shaped by evidence

A non-linear process shaped by evidence

Discover

Interviews, contextual inquiry, competitive scan, stakeholder workshops

Define

Personas, journey maps, problem framing, success metrics

Ideate

Design studio, sketching, Crazy 8s, concept validation

Design

Wireframes, high-fidelity mockups, prototypes, design system

Test

Usability testing and iteration

Measure

Post-launch analytics and satisfaction survey

Key decisions

1

Dashboard and Task Tracker were prioritized first because they addressed the $2.5M manual-cost baseline.

2

Testing showed that one shared dashboard did not suit every role; the solution became role-based views on one data model.

3

Two rounds of usability testing improved the heatmap’s legend and drill-down behavior.

4

Post-launch analytics and surveys measured success against initial research goals.

Sketches

Early wireframes

User flows

Design-system components

One platform. Four connected experiences.

One platform. Four connected experiences.

Unified Dashboard interface

Unified Dashboard

One view, not five tabs

Problem

Getting a full picture meant switching between five tools.

Decision

Card-based layout, color-coded quality scores, and alerts above the fold.

Benefit

Stewards can understand status and act without leaving the page.

Metric

85% reduction in time spent gathering quality information.

Task Tracker interface

Task Tracker

From email threads to a shared board

Problem

Issue context was trapped in email threads.

Decision

Kanban board with automated tasks created from rule violations.

Benefit

Every issue has one owner and one visible resolution thread.

Metric

92% of tasks resolved within SLA, up from 45%.

Quality Heatmap interface

Quality Heatmap

Trends, readable in one glance

Problem

Executives could not identify which data domains needed attention.

Decision

Hierarchical drill-down, hover details, and temporal slider.

Benefit

A high-level summary with technical depth available one click away.

Metric

60% reduction in incident rate through proactive management.

Pipeline Monitor interface

Pipeline Monitor

Catching failures before the report does

Problem

Pipeline failures were noticed only after downstream effects.

Decision

Node-based flow visualization, color-coded status, and history charts.

Benefit

Teams see breaks the moment they happen.

Metric

15-minute mean time to detection, down from 6 hours.

Designing for measurable operational change

Designing for measurable operational change

Issue resolution time

14 days

5 days (65% faster)

Manual quality checks

Baseline

80% reduction

Tools needed for a full picture

5

1

Missed issues from alerting gaps

Baseline

85% decrease

Post-launch satisfaction

—

92% (n=45)

Annual operational savings

—

$1.8M

From feedback to confidence

1

Tested moderated mid-fidelity prototypes with 8 data stewards and 3 site managers.

2

Users did not trust heatmap colors without a clear legend and struggled to find trend data.

3

Added a legend and temporal slider, then retested; time-to-insight was roughly halved.

Before mockup placeholder

After mockup placeholder

What I’d carry forward

What I’d carry forward

What I learned

Progressive disclosure has to be structural, not cosmetic. A larger font does not make a metric executive-friendly if the underlying data model cannot support drill-down.

What I’d test next

I would instrument persona-level product analytics from day one, rather than relying on aggregate satisfaction data.

A trade-off I’d own

Role-based dashboards resolved a core user tension, but I would surface that fork earlier—before high-fidelity design.