Driving Hardware Redesign with Research

How UX research influenced a hardware redesign in a low-UX maturity organization

Overview

Methods: desk research, contextual inquiry, usability testing, and interviews

Role: UX Researcher

Timeline: 3 months 

Tools used: Zoom, Figjam, Internal client software

Team: 1 UX Researcher, 2 UX Designers

Client Stakeholders: Junior UX Designer, Hardware Team

Problem Statement

The new warehouse processing station was visually impressive and featured advanced technology, but it lacked proper user feedback and learnability, leading to delays and inefficiencies.

Project Goals

  • Assess the effectiveness of station feedback mechanisms

  • Identify pain points for workers and engineers

  • Provide design recommendations to inform station UI improvements

Project Summary

One of the largest shipping and logistics companies was looking to improve their new package processing stations. These stations were meant to speed up processing times and help the company send out more packages to customers faster.  

I was hired as a contract UX researcher to help inform design changes on the station’s UI display. However, early user feedback suggested much larger UX-issues that had to do with the hardware design of the station. 

Through active collaboration and trust-building with the hardware team, I expanded the scope of my work to address these deeper issues. My research uncovered critical user pain points and informed a hardware redesign effort set to begin in 2025. This redesign aims to resolve user frustrations while also enhancing package processing speed and overall station performance.

“How would you bring research impact in an organization with a low UX maturity?”

This was the challenge I faced as a UX researcher hired by a large shipping and logistics company. Tasked with improving the user experience of a cutting-edge workstation, I quickly realized that success meant more than just delivering insights—it required trust and collaboration to drive meaningful change.

Note: This project is under an NDA. I can’t disclose the name of the client that I worked with or show deliverables and screens that tie back to the client in any way. The images used here are purely for illustrative purposes

User Research - Phase 1

Understanding station scanning behaviour

The client’s UX team first wanted to understand what kind of scan behaviours “expert” station workers exhibit in their day-to-day work. They thought that expert users had a more efficient method of scanning their packages, which could be taught to novice workers.

I began by understanding how this station works and how it provides feedback to the workers. Given the limitations around conducting remote research, I decided to fly out to a warehouse location and gather feedback in-person via a contextual inquiry study. I observed workers as they completed their work and asked follow-up questions around station performance and why workers performed certain actions. A camera was also attached to the side of a test station to record how both expert and novice users processed their items. These recordings allowed me to analyze the various scanning behaviours that took place at the station in more detail (ex. package flipping, sliding, tilting, and rotating).

Approach

  • Read through station documentation and mapped out station feedback mechanisms (light, sound, UI)

  • Conducted a contextual inquiry study by observing station workers do their work and asking follow-up questions.

  • Recorded workers at their stations using a GoPro camera and analyzed various scanning behaviours that took place.

Main Findings

  • No clear differences were observed in the scanning bahviours of expert versus novice station workers.

  • Workers encountered "scan delays" due to poor camera performance that slowed down workflows

  • Sound feedback was unreliable in noisy environments

  • Station lights were often blocked by medium and large packages

There were no clear differences in scanning behaviour between expert and novice workers. However, I observed that the hardware design of the station was problematic and needed to be revisited. Unfortunately, this wasn’t an easy issue to address…

Unexpected Turn

Limited stakeholder buy-in for making important UX changes

After presenting my findings to the client, I learned that the client’s UX team had very little control over the physical design of the station. They were limited to making minor improvements to the station UI screen. The hardware team had the final say over the hardware design, and they weren’t convinced that any larger changes had to be made. They just launched the new hardware version and didn’t want to revisit it shortly after.

This was frustrating, as our research uncovered larger usability issues with the station’s hardware design. We had to find a way to address these issues…

Response

Building rapport and answering the team’s biggest questions

I realized that I needed to shift focus to building a good working relationship with the hardware team and build their trust in my work. This would allow me to propose more meaningful product changes that would have a larger positive impact on the station’s UX.

Actions:

  • Took the time to understand the hardware team’s business goals, which were around improving processing efficiency and reducing station downtime.

  • Positioned myself as a partner to the hardware team, offering to help address their most pressing questions around their new station and how it was being used.

User Research - Phase 2

Testing a new station flow with engineers

The hardware team was mainly interested in testing a new camera validation flow within the station. They needed to understand the level of expertise that was needed to go through the flow and what pain points engineers would experience during validation.

I travelled to a warehouse again and recruited five engineer participants to run through this flow. Participants went through the validation process for the first time so that I could better understand its ease of use and learnability. I also wanted to conduct some follow-up interviews to gather feedback from engineers about general station usage and maintenance. These interviews helped me uncover larger station maintenance issues.

Approach

  • 5 usability tests with warehouse engineers.

  • Follow-up interviews.

Main Findings

  • Not a single participant was able to successfully validate the station cameras using the new setup flow.

  • Engineers had limited understanding of how the station worked, making it difficult for them to fix issues.

  • No training was provided to engineers to service the stations. 

  • Some issues need remote support, resulting in more station downtime.

This phase of research helped me gather evidence that the station’s hardware was causing delays and station downtime for both station workers and engineers. It was time to present back to the team…

Recommendations

Presenting findings to inform a large design effort

It was clear from the two rounds of research that various hardware UX problems were causing frustration to its users while also conflicting with the hardware team’s goals.

The station feedback issues along with the poor station camera performance caused processing time delays. The lack of station maintenance training and debugging capabilities meant that many simple issues had to be escalated to a remote team, which caused stations to be out of operation for hours.

Based on these findings, I presented the hardware team with the following recommendations:

Improve Feedback Systems

Move physical lights above the scanning area for better visibility.

Reserve sound notifications for infrequent but critical feedback (e.g., scan errors).

Enhance Scanning Technology

Upgrade cameras to reduce scan delays.

Create a new, lightweight tool for engineers to verify camera functionality.

Support Engineers

Develop hands-on training to help engineers troubleshoot effectively.

Redesign station UI for better guidance and clarity during troubleshooting.

Results

New working relationship and redesign effort

By partnering with the hardware team and tackling their most pressing questions, I was able to build rapport with them. I kept the team in the loop about research findings throughout the project while informing smaller design changes on the station UI. The team knew I was there to help them, and this in turn built trust around my team’s work and recommendations.

My final report and presentation helped inform a larger hardware redesign effort for 2025. The hardware team is now focusing their efforts on improving the station’s feedback mechanisms and camera performance. They’re also looking into creating a training module for engineers to help reduce maintenance time.

The new hardware redesign effort will help improve station processing time and reduce downtime, which means more packages will be delivered to customers faster. 

Reflections

This project helped me understand the importance of relationship-building with stakeholders, especially in low UX-maturity organizations. It was important for me to balance immediate client needs with long-term station improvements.

By spending the time to get to know the hardware team and deliver small wins for them, I was able to build trust with them and have more influence over larger design and development efforts.