A Tale of Two Entities
How a large internal cost turned into a user centric solution.
My Role
As the Lead of the Service Design team for the IBM contracting team to GSA (General Services Administration), I guided UX and product strategy based on internal priorities. This involved identifying areas of opportunity and creating timelines and deliverables for the client. Throughout this project, I guided the overall roadmap, outlined next steps, advocated for key initiatives to leadership, and mentored my team in executing research and design efforts.
Overview
The program identified a costly internal problem where users were creating duplicate Unique Entity IDs (UEIs) within the SAM.gov system. With over 4,200 total tickets identified in 2023 alone, this was costing the program over $500,000. A Unique Entity ID is meant to be just that, unique, and therefore to find and correct these duplicates was a costly effort on the part of the help desk and created burden for the users. After an initial analysis found that administrators themselves were creating the duplicates, we began an investigation to better understand why they were doing this, and how we could prevent it. Utilizing diverse research and design approaches, the team focused on identifying user pain points, understanding user journeys, and gathering direct customer feedback to inform actionable solutions.
The following steps were taken to go from discovery to design solution:
Secondary text analysis research.
Qualitative discovery research.
Concept creation targeting solutions to main identified root issues.
Concept testing to validate UX journeys and direction.
High fidelity mock ups and prototyping.
Usability testing to validate content and design.
Secondary Text Analysis
Research Approach
To uncover the underlying causes and user behaviors contributing to duplicate UEIs, we reviewed a sample of 600 Federal Service Desk (FSD) support tickets (out of 4,200 total) related to duplicate UEIs. Using a spreadsheet system of codes, we were able to identify some key themes and trends.
Top 3 common themes
Entity user did not understand registration process
Duplicate UEIs were mistakenly created when trying to renew / update entity
Entity user needed technical assistance during registration
Taking a deeper dive into why users created duplicate UEIs, we were able to glean a small amount of data from the tickets. Without the ability to ask further questions, we were left to make some leaps.
Based on the above data and the knowledge that 55% of duplicate UEIs were created by users with administrator roles, we began to paint a picture of what might be happening.
The original assumption was that users did not understand the gravity of a UEI and it's uniqueness in nature. With this initial analysis, it seemed that other factors where diverting users from our preferred pathway of requesting access to an existing entity.
Now we knew that there seemed to be an alignment of poor search results via the site and a lengthy administrative process for regaining access to an entity. The next step was to talk to some of these users to understand at what point in their journey they made the decision to go down the path of creating a new UEI.
Qualitative Discovery Research
After an initial analysis found that administrators themselves were creating the duplicates, we began an investigation to better understand why they were doing this, and how we could prevent it. Building on the previous work, the team focused on identifying user pain points, understanding user journeys, and gathering direct customer feedback to inform actionable solutions.
Methods
1 on 1 exploratory interviews
7 non-admin participants
2 admin participants*
Conducted remotely across the United States
*A note that PRA guidelines prevented us from doing research with more than 9 participants without a lengthy PRA approval process
Findings
The following themes were identified:
Confusing User Interfaces: Users found the SAM.gov dashboard unintuitive, leading to actions like attempting to create new registrations instead of renewing existing ones.
Lack of Clear Guidance: Misleading pathways and unclear system feedback caused users to struggle with tasks like entity renewal or updates.
Administrative Burden: Processes like obtaining administrator access were time-consuming and error-prone, often rejected for minor formatting issues.
Inadequate Support: Users experienced poor support from agents, with conflicting guidance, vague instructions, and insufficient email communication.
Duplications in the System: Actions like incorrect entity creation resulted in duplication, exacerbating user frustrations and increasing the time to resolution.
User journeys and stories like this helped bring our users’ pain points to light within the SAM.gov system.
Key Recommendations
Based on the findings, the following recommendations were presented to the client:
Redesign User Pathways: Introduce targeted user journeys in the “Getting Started” section to address specific user needs like renewals, updates, or new registrations.
Enhance System Feedback: Improve system messaging to clarify errors and guide users effectively.
Streamline Administrative Processes: Simplify and validate administrative requirements, reducing the likelihood of rejection for minor issues.
Improve Support Systems: Provide clear, consistent, and actionable guidance through trained agents and improved email communication.
Mitigate Duplication Issues: Enhance backend processes to prevent duplicate entries and streamline resolution mechanisms for existing duplicates.
For the next steps, leadership agreed that we could pursue a “recovery” pathway — attempting to catch users before UEI creation and giving them a pathway that fit their needs. Additionally, through a parallel project modernizing the registration process we were able to pass along the recommendations for enhanced system feedback and improved support through a new help slide out feature.
Special Note: Collaboration
During this phase of the project we worked closely with our Product Owner and Business Analyst. This allowed us to have a better look into the way the current process had been working from a technical perspective, along with what might be feasible in future solutions.
Concept Creation and Testing
Ideation and Mapping
To begin the process of concept creation, we worked closely with design and content to ideate possible solutions and map these out. We knew the following things:
Over half of users creating duplicate entities knew there was already an existing entity. They were either caught in some form of validation purgatory, or lost administrative access.
The best way to regain access is to request a role from an existing administrator. If the existing administrator is defunct, the user needs to go through a further validation process that involves submitting a notarized letter to the help desk.
Knowing these two things, the team initially sketched out the following pathway in low fidelity wireframes.
Once we reached consensus, they worked to add more to the experience to prepare it for testing. See the below walk through of the prototype that was tested with users.
Concept Test Results
The concept test overall validated the direction of this solution. Most things identified were small UI or content fixes. This research allowed the design team to invest more time in high fidelity mockups for the next stage of the process. Some of the key findings were:
Users Struggle to Find the Right Path
Despite efforts to direct users to the “Gain Access to Entity” feature, participants often clicked on other sections like “Get Started” or “Renew Entity.”
This indicates a need for clearer navigation and more intuitive signposting.
Word Choice Impacts User Understanding
Terms like "Claim Entity" were confusing, as users felt it implied taking ownership of something they didn’t already have.
“Recover Entity” was seen as too technical, while "Gain Access to Entity" was well understood.
Step-by-Step Guidance is Helpful, But Needs Refinement
Users appreciated the structured recovery process, but they wanted:
More details on administrator roles and permissions.
A downloadable checklist for required documents.
Visual aids like flowcharts or progress trackers to clarify next steps.
View the whole research report here.
Additionally, this helped to inform the user flow. We collaborated with design, content, and the product owner to build a flow that would inform the next step for design.
Based on this research and new mapping, the next steps were to create high fidelity mockups and prototypes for testing.
Special Note: Collaboration
As the process progresses there is more and more collaboration that becomes embedded in the process. In addition to previous teams involved, now work like this is brought to more technical teams to check for it's feasibility and find any user dead ends. Furthermore, the concepts and their subsequent evolutions are brought to design review with the whole team of service designers and visual designers for peer feedback.
Usability Testing
The final step before product launch was for the team to usability test. Thanks to feedback from the concept test, the designers felt comfortable going forward investing time in creating clickable prototypes.
Goals
Effectiveness and ease of use
Can users easily follow the “happy path”?
Are users satisfied with the resolution at the end of their journeys?
Content and Instruction
Are the instructions clear?
Is the help content complete and timely?
Prevention of duplicate UEIs
Will this stop users from creating a duplicate UEI?
Methods
Given the limited access to user testing platforms, this was a moderated test performed via Google Meets. In 30 minutes, a researcher let the user through a test scenario with prompts.
Recruitment was done through existing users targeting those who experienced the pain points that led them to create a duplicate entity.
The new Entity Search allowed users to input known current or former information to more effectively find their entity.
Results
The following themes were discovered through this research:
Entity Search Functionality
Users found the enhanced search functionality helpful but may need clearer guidance on what information can be used for searching (e.g., former entity names, registration numbers)
Some users might struggle with partial matches or similar entity names
Search results display could benefit from highlighting matching terms
Recovery Process Navigation
The step-by-step recovery process is generally well-received but users may need clearer progress indicators
Users still found the notarized letter process archaic and opaque
Help and Support Integration
The new help slide-out feature provided timely support
Users did not like that links took them outside of the data entry experience
Error Prevention
System needs clearer warnings before critical actions that might lead to duplicate entities
These results were presented to a group of cross-functional stakeholders and leadership.
Impact
The new SAM.gov “Recovery Pathway” project entered the production phase, with active efforts to bring the solution to life:
Development in Progress: The recovery pathway tool is in the production phase, with the development team actively building it in the lower environment. This tool is designed to address key pain points, streamline processes, and guide users more effectively through entity retrieval.
Google Analytics Strategy: A robust analytics plan has been created to track user behavior, measure success, and inform ongoing optimizations.
Help Slider Implementation: A new help slider feature is being introduced to offer real-time support and reduce user confusion during critical tasks.
These initiatives mark a significant step toward resolving user challenges and improving the overall SAM.gov experience.
Reflections on My Impact
Strategic Roadmap Development
One of our initial challenges was transforming a technical problem (duplicate UEIs) into a user-centered research initiative. I developed our roadmap by starting with secondary research to build a foundation of understanding. This was a low-lift way of gaining insights and better directing the next phase of research allowed each phase to build upon each other systematically.
Cross-functional Collaboration
I worked with the researchers, designers, and content creators to build flexible timelines that allowed for deeper investigation when needed. When our initial findings revealed that administrators were creating duplicates, we pivoted our research and design focus while keeping our ultimate goal in sight. Furthermore, we brought evolving concepts and designs to peer design reviews for feedback. In addition, we attended regular working group meetings to build bridges between research insights and technical implementation. The early involvement of technical teams helped ensure our solutions were both user-friendly and feasible.
Research Team Mentorship
Mentoring researchers through this complex project required careful balance. I guided junior researchers in analyzing Federal Service Desk tickets effectively. Creating a code book based in Grounded Theory analysis techniques. Additionally, I coached team members on conducting interviews within PRA constraints and recommended the most efficient but effective methodologies. Through weekly touchpoints, I was able to review analyses regularly, and provide feedback on evolving narratives — ensuring a complete and compelling story was presented to our stakeholders.
Leadership Communication
As a leader, I was able to not only champion this research through relevant stakeholders, but evangelize it cross functionally. I had the privilege to sit in meetings across the product, allowing me to identify places where this research would prove relevant. This meant that when leadership was looking at revising the notarized letter process entirely, I was able to step in with timely insights and influence the direction of the roadmap and strategy.