The Enterprise Asset Manager supported voucher and digital-asset programs for Microsoft, Amazon, and Apple. I led product design from discovery and workflow architecture through prioritization, prototype, usability refinement, delivery, and implementation quality. The role-tiered redesign reduced administrator task time by approximately 50%.
A voucher is bought by an enterprise, distributed through a partner channel, allocated by an org admin, assigned by a site admin, and finally redeemed by a candidate. The same asset appears differently to each tier. The same screen needs to make sense to all five.
Vouchers and assets flow downward through the tier hierarchy. Requests, redemptions, and recovery actions flow back up. The action-led dashboard surfaces the next thing each tier should do.
The hierarchy is not a permissions tree, it is a coordination model. Every tier needs to see what's happening one tier down (to know what to do next) and one tier up (to know what was allocated). The action-led dashboard sidebar surfaces "your next move" for each tier, calibrated to that tier's authority.
Microsoft, Amazon, and Apple all ran large enterprise exam programs. Each program had different procurement workflows, role names, and success metrics. The platform had to serve all three without becoming a stack of bespoke surfaces. The hard tradeoff was tailoring enough to be valuable while generalizing enough to remain maintainable.
The largest operational pain points appeared across all three programs: voucher waste, opaque pass/fail visibility, two-way request flow friction, admin visibility into candidate progress, insufficient localization in site-admin workflows, and a strong stakeholder ask for an action-led dashboard per role.
I ran seven stakeholder interviews spanning product management, customer success, professional services, account management, and the three client programs themselves. Synthesis surfaced 16 opportunity areas, split across three discipline buckets: 6 CX (cross-team coordination, ops, success metrics), 8 UX (workflow, IA, surfaces), 2 UI (design system, accessibility).
Recurring themes emerged that cut across all 16 items: voucher waste, pass / fail visibility, admin visibility into candidate progress, two-way request workflow, action-led dashboard, IA, localized help, and a shared design system. These were the pressure points all three programs felt.
"We need to see, at a glance, which vouchers have moved and which haven't. Not a report I run on Thursday. A number I see when I log in Monday." Stakeholder interview, distributor program
Sixteen opportunities were too many to ship at once and too many to debate without structure. The rubric, business value × user value × effort, let me plot them onto a 2×2 matrix that gave product, engineering, and client success a shared picture to argue from. Below is the matrix as it stood at the end of research.
Color-coded by discipline. The upper-left quadrant marks the highest-value, lower-effort priorities. Bubbles are sized by stakeholder demand.
Seven opportunities emerged as high value and lower effort. Five belonged in the do-next group, three were quick wins alongside larger work, and one pair was deferred. The matrix did not make the decision; it made the cross-functional conversation possible.
Each role sees a personalized "your next move" sidebar grounded in that tier's authority. Distributors see voucher allocation, and site admins see candidate assignment. The component is shared, but the UI is calibrated to each tier.
Allocated-but-not-redeemed vouchers show on the dashboard as a single number with a one-click recovery path. The number drops as you act.
Requests up the hierarchy and allocations down are reflected on both ends in real time. The distributor sees the org admin's request as it arrives.
Admins see aggregate progress + flagged exceptions, not individual candidate detail. Privacy by default.
Eight languages launched. Help copy, button labels, error states, and date / number formatting all anchored to the site admin's declared locale.
One token system, three brand themes layered on top. Microsoft, Amazon, Apple programs each look like themselves; engineering ships one component library.
| Tier | Sees | Owns | Hands off |
|---|---|---|---|
| Channel sales | Pipeline · revenue · entitlement | Deal closure · entitlement amount | Provisioning → distributor |
| Distributor | Inventory · org pool · waste alerts | Allocation to org accounts | Pool → org admin |
| Org admin | Site tree · cost centers · usage | Per-site allocation · rules | Allocation → site admin |
| Site admin | Roster · per-candidate state | Voucher assignment · recovery | Voucher → candidate |
| Candidate | Voucher · schedule · prep | Redemption · exam sitting | Result → reporting chain |
The redesigned role-tiered workflows reduced administrator task time by approximately 50%. The work also gave the team a reusable vocabulary for five role tiers, the asset lifecycle, sixteen opportunities, and phased delivery. The matrix structured the conversation; the shared product direction structured delivery; and the action-led dashboard made the model visible.
Enterprise software wins when the next action is one click from the dashboard. Everything else is reporting.
Five tiers and four flows provide the model I use when an asset moves through an organization.
The matrix became a shared artifact across product, engineering, and client success.
Each role gets a "your next move" prompt, so the next click is visible without searching.
One component library supported three brand layers, which gave engineering a shared system and clients a distinct experience.