OrchidB: customer management for a B2B back office platform
Leading a team of five through a client engagement to design the customer management experience for a growing SaaS platform.
Role
Team Lead, UX/UI Design
Industry
B2B SaaS
Timeline
4 weeks
Team
5 UX/UI designers (including myself, as lead)
This was a contract engagement. I don't have access to post-launch usage data, the outcome below reflects what was verifiable at handoff.
Challenge
A client needed a customer management screen that felt native to their existing product, not bolted on, and I was leading four other designers through the process end to end.
Approach
Applied the principle that an informed choice needs real alternatives, not one polished idea sold well, the team explored independently, then I brought the client three genuinely different directions instead of a single recommendation.
Result
The client approved a full direction and moved into development with a complete design system and handoff package.
Context
- OrchidB is a back-office platform for freelancers and small businesses, invoicing, project tracking, and customer relationships in one place
- The client needed a customer management page designed against six user stories, and it had to feel native to an already-established, premium visual identity, not like a generic CRM screen bolted on
- Before designing anything, I had the team research how competitors (Monday.com, Smartsheet) handled similar experiences, to understand what “good” looked like in this space first
Decision 1: Three Directions, One Clear Rationale
Direction A, consistent
Direction B, formal
Direction C, customizable
Explored
Each teammate designed their own version independently, then I facilitated sessions to compare approaches and pull the strongest ideas forward.
Shipped
Three genuinely distinct directions presented to the client, one consistent with existing screens, one more formal with darker headers, one modern with color customization.
Why
Giving the client three real options, instead of one polished idea, meant their choice was informed by trade-offs they could actually see, not a single idea sold well.
Decision 2: A Component Library Before Final Screens
Before
Each teammate's early wireframes used slightly different patterns for buttons, menus, and layout, workable individually, inconsistent together.
After
A shared style guide and component library, built before finalizing hi-fi screens.
Why
Five people designing in parallel without a shared system means reconciling five sets of choices at the end, costlier than building the system upfront. Consistency was designed in, not cleaned up after.
Outcome
- Client approved the final direction and moved into development with a complete design system and developer handoff package, sizing, padding, and technical annotations built for their dev team
- I don't have post-launch usage data since this was a contract engagement, what's verifiable is that five designers went from independent exploration to one coherent, client-approved system in four weeks
Want the full research, the component library, and the reasoning behind every smaller decision? Email me, I'd love to walk you through it.