Conectivity kanban

Kanban Enablement for Global Engineering Teams

UI UX
2017 – 2019
introduction

Connectivity Kanban

Cloud-connected turbomachinery powers a large ecosystem of reporting and performance tools. But getting equipment online requires coordination across many engineering teams, geographies, and workflows — and the tools supporting that work hadn’t kept up.

If this project worked, it would not only streamline collaboration — it would help the organization move faster, reduce risk, and create a scalable foundation for future field-to-cloud initiatives.

2017 – 2019      PRODUCT DESIGNER (solo)
overview

What is the workflow challenge here?

Field, regional, and core engineering teams all contribute to cloud enablement. Their work crosses time zones, systems, approvals, and dependencies — but there was no single place where progress, blockers, and ownership could be reliably seen or tracked.

A new tool would need to replace the current workflow and expand in functionality to accommodate current and future team needs.

problem

The legacy system looked structured — but its architecture prevented meaningful tracking. Work lived in spreadsheets, emails, and side conversations, making collaboration fragmented and slow.

THE ASK

“

How might we create a shared workflow that reflects reality, supports collaboration across regions, and scales with evolving engineering needs — while still remaining lightweight to adopt?

HYPOTHESIS

If we replaced the legacy tool with a Kanban-based workflow that maps to real engineering processes — including ownership, dependencies, and reporting needs — teams would gain visibility, reduce duplicate effort, and move work through the pipeline more predictably.

I also believed that clarity would matter more than complexity. If the system matched the mental models of the teams using it, adoption would follow.

Research

We focused on understanding how connectivity projects actually moved — across teams, time zones, and tools.

  • Interviewed engineers, coordinators, and program leads to uncover friction points in Switzerland and San Diego, California.

  • Sat in on standups and planning sessions to see decision-making in motion.

  • Identified what leadership needed to track, and why current tools fell short. Spoke with engineers, enablement leads, and program owners to understand friction points and expectations.

Insights

Patterns quickly emerged. The problem wasn’t effort — it was structure. What teams needed wasn’t more process. They needed a clearer way to see work — and trust what they were seeing.

♔

“We track progress, but it never matches what’s actually happening.”

♔

“Each region solves the same problems differently — and we can’t learn from each other.”

♔

“The tool forces steps that don’t exist anymore.”

♔

“Planning feels like guesswork because the data isn’t dependable.”

Principles

Model the real workflow — not the ideal one. If the system matches reality, adoption follows.

Visibility first. Blockers, ownership, and progress should be obvious without digging.

Lightweight, but structured. Enough fields for accuracy — never so many that work slows down.

Scalable by design. What works for one team should extend across regions without reinvention.

Shared boards across regions

A single board structure supported collaboration across geographies. Teams worked from the same model, making progress, ownership, and status easier to understand at a glance.

Bill of materials embedded in tasks

Technical details lived directly with the work they supported. This removed the need for side documents and reduced context switching during execution.

Early visibility into dependencies and blockers

Dependencies and risks surfaced as soon as they appeared. Teams could respond early instead of reacting after timelines were already impacted.

OUTCOMES

The change shifted how teams collaborated—and who could participate—across the connectivity enablement process. What had been confined to a narrow set of roles opened up to include operations, program leads, and engineering partners, all working from the same shared workflow.

With clearer ownership and shared visibility, teams aligned faster across time zones. Duplicate effort dropped, risks surfaced earlier, and delivery timelines became more predictable. Leadership gained reliable insight into progress and capacity without manual reconciliation.

Most importantly, the new system created a workflow foundation that could evolve as connectivity work grew more complex. Instead of limiting participation, it enabled broader involvement—supporting turbomachinery-to-cloud initiatives at scale rather than holding them back.