ENmon technology

Role: Senior UX & Product Designer
Industry: B2B SaaS · Energy Management · Enterprise
Scope: Product flows · Design system · Hardware management · Security flows · Product positioning · Testing
Collaboration: Product owners · Developers · Sales · Support · Business stakeholders
Focus: Turning a growing enterprise platform into a clearer, more scalable and easier-to-deliver product experience

Confidentiality note

Due to GDPR and contractual constraints, I cannot share production screens or detailed internal product visuals. This case study focuses on product logic, anonymised flows, design decisions, and outcomes. More detailed walkthroughs can be shared during interviews or under NDA.

Context

Enmon is a B2B SaaS platform for energy management, financial control, and regulatory compliance. It helps organisations such as utilities, hospitals, and public institutions monitor energy consumption, manage costs, and meet legal and ESG requirements.

The platform operated in a complex environment where data privacy, auditability, and reliability were essential. At the same time, the product was growing quickly and needed to become easier to understand, easier to maintain, and more consistent across teams.

My role

I worked as a Senior UX & Product Designer with end-to-end responsibility for the user experience across the platform.

My work covered core product flows, design system development, security-related journeys, hardware management, and product messaging. I worked closely with product owners, developers, sales, and support teams to turn business goals, technical constraints, and user needs into practical product decisions.

The challenge

Different parts of the platform had been built at different times, by different teams, and with different rules.

The product worked, but it was becoming harder to navigate, maintain, and scale. Users struggled with complex hardware logic, manual data entry, and workflows that often required support or developer involvement.

At the same time, the company needed to strengthen security, meet growing enterprise expectations, and better explain the business value of the platform to decision-makers.

DESIGN PROCESS

I worked in an iterative, discovery-driven process rather than a rigid linear one, the platform was live and evolving, so design had to move alongside real usage data and support feedback.

1. Discover - Audited existing flows, reviewed support tickets and usage patterns to identify friction points, ran interviews with internal stakeholders (support, sales, product owners) who had direct exposure to user pain points.

2. Define - Framed problems in structured workshops with product owners, prioritized by business impact (compliance risk, support load, scalability) versus effort.

3. Design - Built low-to-high fidelity flows and prototypes in Figma, validated component decisions against the emerging design system to avoid one-off patterns.

4. Validate - Tested flows with internal users (support and operations teams who interact with the product daily) and, where possible, with client-side administrators during scheduled check-ins.

5. Deliver - Handed off to developers with annotated specs and design tokens, stayed involved through implementation to catch edge cases (error states, permissions, empty states).

Target audience

• Primary users - Technical and facility administrators at utilities, hospitals and public institutions who configure hardware, monitor consumption data and manage day-to-day platform use. Generally comfortable with technical interfaces but not software specialists.

• Secondary users - Compliance and finance stakeholders who rely on the platform's reporting for ESG and regulatory obligations, plus internal support and sales teams who needed the product to be easier to explain and troubleshoot.

EXAMPLE OF User personas

• Marek
  - Technical Facility Manager Manages energy hardware across several buildings for a public institution.
  - Technically literate but not a software professional. Needs to configure and monitor devices quickly, without waiting on developer support.
  - Frustrated by legacy hardware logic that doesn't match how he thinks about his equipment (by manufacturer, model, location).

• Zuzana
  - Compliance & Reporting Officer
  - Responsible for ESG and regulatory reporting at a healthcare organisation.
  - Not technical so she relies on the platform's data being accurate and traceable.
  - Frustrated by manual entry errors and not being able to see who changed what.
  - Needs confidence in the numbers she reports upward.

User research

Because the platform was already live, research leaned heavily on behavioural and support data alongside direct conversations:

• Reviewed a sample of recurring support tickets to identify the most common points of confusion in hardware setup and manual data entry.

• Conducted semi-structured interviews with internal support and account management staff, who acted as a proxy for frequent user frustrations.

• Ran short moderated sessions with a handful of client-side administrators (facility/technical managers) during scheduled onboarding or renewal calls, focused on hardware configuration and reporting tasks.

• Competitive analysis

• We worked with a Value Proposition Canvas rather than an empathy map, since the priority was tying design decisions directly to concrete jobs, pains and gains for each user group.

What I worked on

Clarifying the product story

Problem: The website and early product touchpoints focused heavily on technical monitoring without explaining why the platform mattered for financial control, compliance, or business decision-making.

Solution: I reworked the information structure and messaging around the outcomes enterprise customers care about most: cost control, risk reduction, compliance, and accountability.

Result: The product became easier to explain to non-technical stakeholders and helped sales conversations focus on business value rather than technical features.

Building a shared design system

Problem: The interface had grown across multiple libraries and legacy components, creating visual inconsistency and slowing down collaboration between design and development.

Solution: I took ownership of the design system as shared product infrastructure, introducing design tokens, clarifying component rules, and creating a more consistent structure for reusable patterns.

Result: Consistency improved across the platform and it became easier for designers and developers to prototype, review, and deliver changes with fewer mismatches.

Simplifying hardware management

Problem: The existing hardware management setup was based on legacy concepts that were difficult for users to understand and often required developer support for basic configuration changes.

Solution: I redesigned the information architecture around a clearer model of manufacturer, model, and module — reflecting real hardware logic while supporting both simpler and more advanced workflows.

Result: Users got a more understandable experience and the product gained a stronger foundation for bulk actions and future expansion.

Improving manual data entry

Problem: Manual data entry produced errors and made it difficult to understand who changed what and when, reducing trust in reporting and creating additional correction work.

Solution: I redesigned the workflow with inline validation, clearer error states, and visible ownership of changes, and introduced basic data-quality insights to help teams understand patterns over time.

Result: Accountability improved, avoidable mistakes decreased, and users gained more confidence in the accuracy of their reports.

Designing clearer security flows

Problem: As security requirements increased, the platform needed to introduce two-factor authentication without creating unnecessary friction or support issues.

Solution: I designed the authentication experience around clarity and predictability, covering edge cases such as expired codes, resending, validation, and error recovery.

Result: The platform met higher security expectations while keeping the login experience understandable and stable for users.

Redesigning landing page

Problem: The original landing page was outdated, visually inconsistent with the design system, missing a mobile version, and lacking key content and messaging.

Solution: I applied the necessary visual and content updates to align with brand standards, including typography, colors, UI elements, responsiveness, and missing content.

Result: The redesign addressed all core issues identified in the audit. Due to time constraints, the page was not fully finalized and published.

Impact

• More consistent product experience across features and teams

• Faster design-to-development collaboration through a shared design system

• Clearer hardware management with less dependency on developer support

• Better validation and accountability in manual data entry workflows

• Stronger security without sacrificing usability

• Clearer product messaging for enterprise stakeholders and sales conversations

RESULTS

• Improved time-to-task for energy managers generating and exporting audit reports through redesigned dashboards and filtering.

• Reduced developer handoff friction through a structured Figma design system and shared component specs.

• More scalable multi-tenant navigation that better supports onboarding of complex corporate structures.

• Reduced drop-off during initial setup through simplified onboarding flows and contextual hints.

Validation Source:

Metrics evaluated through Hotjar session recordings, task-completion benchmark testing with energy managers, and engineering sprint velocity metrics.

What this project strengthened

This work strengthened my ability to shape complex B2B products where UX, product decisions, technical constraints, and business priorities are closely connected.

It also taught me how much impact good product structure can have. Clear systems, clear ownership, and clear flows make a platform easier to use, easier to sell, and easier to scale.