Role
Lead UX Designer
A Action
One shell, three lenses on the same pipeline, and a table that does the math.
I designed a persistent reporting shell — report picker, timeframe control, view switcher, share and save — so every report feels like the same tool. Inside it, three visualization modes answer the manager's questions at different altitudes. Each one keeps the same three-band anatomy: summary rail, visualization, trend strip, with the comparable deal table anchoring the bottom.
A
Where: revenue by region
- Territory as the entry point. A choropleth of nine sales regions makes territory performance the first read; selecting a region drills into its deals — geography becomes a filter, not a label.
- Summary rail. Total pipeline decomposed into wins, losses, and remaining deals — color-coded consistently across every report mode.
- Trend strip. Per-region movement with sparklines and up/down deltas — the “positive/negative movement” requirement satisfied in a single scan line.
Fig. 1 Revenue by region map, with view switcher to pivot the same data into donut or bar form.
B
Who & when: pipeline by stage
- Stacked by salesperson. Stage totals segment per salesperson, so one chart answers both “where is the pipeline stuck?” and “whose deals are stuck there?” — the quantitative team assessment the persona asked for.
- Time slider. A scrubber from account start to today replays the pipeline's shape over time — comparison as a direct manipulation, not a form field.
- People-level trends. The trend strip pivots with the view: close rates per rep, revenue per salesperson, value per deal.
Fig. 2 Pipeline deals per stage, segmented per salesperson, with the time slider for replaying history.
C
Versus: compare deal closings
- Side-by-side periods. Q1 2014 next to Q1 2015 as twin donuts — won / lost / pipeline share readable in the ring, exact percentages in the center. Slices drag out for drill-down.
- Story points. The chart explains its own delta: 34 new deals, +12% revenue, 10 fewer days to close, 7 sales staff — the narrative a manager would otherwise write by hand.
- Shown with its brief. This artifact carries the persona requirements at the top; the design and its evidence were presented together to stakeholders.
Fig. 3 Compare deal closings, Q1 2014 vs Q1 2015, annotated with the sales-manager requirements it answers.
D
The floor: a table built for comparison
Under every visualization sits the same deal table — the qualitative half of the assessment. I designed it to be compared, not just read: checkbox selection per row, a “Compare selected” action, an inline sparkline of each deal's status trend, and a totals band that live-sums whatever is selected. Nine columns cover deal, owner, revenue, account size, and service tier, so the drill-down from any chart lands somewhere that can carry the full weight of the question. I spec’d the interaction model for D3 / Angular and documented a future track: predictive analysis with Monte Carlo simulation charts, and a report builder that recommends the right visualization for the comparison a user designs.