Case Study: Strategic Discovery in Action – Turning Ambiguity into a Product Vision
Overview
A compelling but ambiguous concept emerged from senior leadership: a new digital platform to transform how institutional clients engage in debt sourcing. While the opportunity was real, alignment was not. Different stakeholders envisioned different products, timelines, and use cases. The idea had momentum but no shared definition.
As the lead UX researcher, I partnered with product and design colleagues to bring clarity to the problem space, align cross-functional leaders, and define a phased approach to delivery. This work not only launched a net-new product from zero, but also created a reusable blueprint that continues to shape platform strategy.
- My Role: Lead UX Researcher driving discovery and validation
- Scope: Stakeholder interviews, Workshop facilitation, Process mapping, Concept validation, Usability testing
- Impact: Aligned stakeholders, launched validated product, created reusable organizational blueprint
The Challenge
The initial concept was inspiring but undefined. Teams across the business had deep domain expertise, but it was fragmented, undocumented, and often contradictory. The core challenge was twofold:
- Internal ambiguity No two stakeholders shared the same definition of the opportunity.
- Strategic risk Without alignment or validation, the business risked investing heavily in a product that might not address the right problems.
Before we could build a product, we needed to build shared understanding.
My Approach
1. Stakeholder Discovery
To surface assumptions and uncover unknowns, I conducted a series of interviews with senior leaders and domain experts. These conversations revealed conflicting priorities, gaps in terminology, and differing ideas about target users, timelines, and value propositions.
I synthesized these findings into a clear articulation of the opportunity and a set of knowledge gaps we needed to close.
But I didn't stop there. I brought the insights back to the same stakeholders for review and feedback, turning synthesis into an iterative alignment loop. This gave leaders the opportunity to reflect, correct, and build on what they'd previously shared, and more importantly, it created a sense of shared ownership. By involving them in shaping the output, we increased trust in the process and surfaced even deeper context than the first round revealed.
2. Process Mapping Workshop
Next, I designed and facilitated a week-long workshop that brought executives and SMEs together to collaboratively map the end-to-end debt procurement journey from a client perspective.
We captured:
- Key actors and roles
- Process steps and data flows
- Motivations and pain points
We had the right people in the room: senior executives, department leads, and a handful of deep subject-matter experts who lived the process every day. This was not a theoretical exercise. It was an attempt to surface and align real-world, hard-earned knowledge.
On the first day, the CEO made a point to say he would only be able to stay for that session, maybe one more. His schedule was packed, and he had only carved out enough time to show support at the kickoff.
But then he came back the next day. And the day after that. He stayed for the full workshop.
Why? Because the space we created turned out to be rare. He heard other leaders share perspectives he had not encountered before. He was given time and structure to articulate his own vision, and he saw me capturing it live in front of the group. It was not just talk. It was active synthesis, and he saw momentum building. That experience made it worth his time. And his continued presence sent a clear message to everyone else in the room: this work mattered.
The result was a blueprint: a structured view of a complex, largely undocumented process. This artifact became a reference tool across teams and continues to be used in other initiatives.
3. Opportunity Identification
With the blueprint in hand, we were able to identify the leverage points: the moments where digital tools could add the most client value and create scalable business opportunities.
We mapped multiple possible interventions, but focused on one foundational pain point to start: clients lacked a structured way to compare financing offers and make confident decisions.
One of the most valuable outcomes of the process mapping was aligning on where to begin. The full vision was ambitious, but we needed a starting point that would deliver meaningful value without introducing overwhelming complexity.
Rather than make that decision in isolation, we brought in voices from across the organization. Product helped evaluate feasibility and phasing. Engineering assessed technical complexity. Commercial leads weighed in on what would resonate with clients. Even Marketing contributed early thinking about how this solution could fit into our broader positioning. Together, we converged on a common pain point: the deal comparison process.
It was a known source of frustration for clients, a clear opportunity to capture structured data, and a workflow that could be tackled within our current capabilities. That convergence across disciplines gave us the confidence to move forward. It wasn't just a good idea; it was a shared one.
4. Concept Validation
I worked with the product and design team to define an initial product that digitized the deal comparison process giving clients the ability to organize offers, analyze tradeoffs, and make more confident choices.
Before building anything, I facilitated validation sessions with high-profile clients. We:
- Tested our assumptions about their workflows
- Refined our process map based on real-world variation
- Uncovered surprising insights including that many clients relied on spreadsheets or back-of-the-envelope math for multi-million-dollar financing decisions
During validation sessions, I was surprised to discover how many sophisticated institutional clients were still managing multi-million-dollar financing decisions using basic spreadsheets or even handwritten notes. One client showed me their "system": a complex Excel file with multiple tabs, color coding, and manual calculations that they used to compare offers from different lenders.
This wasn't a failure of their process; it was a gap in available tools. They were doing the best they could with what they had, but the manual nature of their approach introduced risk and limited their ability to consider more complex scenarios. This insight reinforced that we weren't just building a nice-to-have feature we were addressing a real, costly problem.
These sessions confirmed both the need and the opportunity.
5. Prototyping & Iteration
As design took the lead on early concepts, I continued to support refinement by leading usability and concept validation sessions. We tested prototypes with both clients and internal advisors, using feedback to iterate on features, flows, and presentation.
Each round of feedback helped us fine-tune the product — not just for usability, but for credibility and adoption within client workflows.
As we moved into prototyping, one challenge surfaced repeatedly: language. Different stakeholders, across teams and even within the same domain, used different terms for the same data points. In some cases, the same terms were used to mean entirely different things.
This was more than a minor annoyance. In a financial product, inconsistent terminology can lead to serious misinterpretation, flawed comparisons, or even incorrect decisions. What seemed like a simple label choice often revealed deeper differences in how teams understood the product and the data it presented.
Resolving these inconsistencies required effort across functions. Product, design, engineering, and domain experts worked together to define a shared set of terms. We made sure that the language used in the interface was both technically accurate and clear to users. In situations where a single label was not enough, we added supporting content such as tooltips, inline explanations, and contextual guidance to improve clarity.
This alignment process was difficult but worthwhile. It reduced confusion, minimized the risk of user error, and helped reinforce trust in the product.
Results & Impact
- Aligned senior stakeholders around a phased approach to a complex product vision
- Created a blueprint that is still in use today as a learning and reference tool
- Launched a validated first product that helps clients evaluate financing offers with more confidence
- Uncovered new data opportunities that opened additional business value
- Established trust with both internal teams and external clients through transparency and iteration
- Set the stage for a larger platform vision by delivering a high-impact, low-risk first step
- DiscoveryStakeholder interviews and process mapping to build shared understanding
- ValidationClient validation sessions to confirm assumptions and refine approach
- PrototypingIterative design and testing to refine the product concept
- LaunchDeliver validated first product while maintaining strategic vision
Reflections
This project is a case study in what research leadership looks like before a product exists.
The ambiguity was real, and costly. But by applying structured discovery, shared facilitation, and continuous validation, I helped the organization move from abstract ambition to aligned action.
This experience reinforced that great products aren't just built: they're understood, mapped, and validated first. When research leads early, it not only de-risks development it accelerates clarity and multiplies impact.
The process blueprint we created became more valuable than I initially anticipated. It wasn't just a documentation exercise; it became a living reference that teams across the organization used to understand client needs, align on terminology, and make decisions about other initiatives. This reinforced the importance of creating artifacts that outlast individual projects and contribute to organizational learning.