Humana | Investigating Advocate Workflow Friction
Research-informed improvements to navigation, information accessibility, and internal workflow efficiency.
Project Snapshot
Company: Humana
Industry: Healthcare / Health Insurance
Project: DEBUT — Advocate Workflow Consolidation & SharePoint Enablement
Role: UX Designer — Research-Informed Enterprise Experience Design
Users: Humana Advocates supporting Medicare, Medicaid, and dual-eligible members
Collaborators: Product Owners, Developers, Content Teams, Stakeholders, Legal/Compliance
Research Methods: Advocate Feedback Sessions, Workflow Analysis, Journey Mapping, Task Flows, Prototype Evaluation
Delivery: Two-Week Agile Sprints, Monthly UX Demonstrations
Project Contribution: Helped consolidate fragmented benefit-related workflows into a more unified interface while designing a SharePoint training and communication hub to support internal adoption.
Confidentiality: Some details and visuals have been generalized to respect organizational confidentiality.
Research Snapshot
3-5
DIsconnected Screens
Existing Workflow
2
Weeks per sprint
Agile Cadence
1
Training hub
Sharepoint deliverable
Project context and deliverable counts, not measured usability improvements.
Research Overview
Understanding how fragmented systems affect advocate workflows
Humana Advocates support members seeking information about health coverage, benefits, and eligibility. During these interactions, advocates must interpret information from multiple internal systems while maintaining accurate, consistent communication.
The existing experience required advocates to navigate approximately three to five separate screens when responding to certain benefit inquiries.
This fragmented workflow introduced potential usability challenges, including repeated navigation, greater cognitive demands, and difficulty locating relevant information during active member calls.
The DEBUT initiative provided an opportunity to examine these workflow challenges and design a more centralized experience.
The Research Problem
How might we reduce the navigation and information-retrieval burden on Humana Advocates while maintaining the accuracy and clarity needed to resolve member inquiries?
The investigation focused on:
-
Workflow complexity: How multiple systems influence task progression.
-
Information accessibility: How quickly advocates can locate relevant benefit information.
-
Cognitive load: How fragmented interfaces increase demands on attention and working memory.
-
Adoption: How training and communication can support a transition to a new platform.
The goal was to translate these findings into practical improvements for DEBUT's information architecture, interface layout, and internal support resources.
Users & Audience
Primary Users - Humana Advocates
Employees interacting directly with the DEBUT system while responding to member inquiries.
Secondary Users - Internal Teams
Product, engineering, training, compliance, and content stakeholders responsible for developing and supporting the tool.
Service beneficiaries - Humana members
Medicare, Medicaid, and dual-eligible members whose service experiences depend on advocates accessing and interpreting accurate information.
Research Questions & Evaluation Criteria
The investigation aimed to understand how advocates interacted with multiple systems and identify opportunities to improve information access, navigation, and task completion.
Research Questions
-
Where do advocates experience the most navigation friction during benefit inquiries?
-
Which categories of information are most important during active member calls?
-
How does switching between multiple screens affect task progression?
-
Which navigation and layout patterns help advocates recognize the information they need?
-
What resources would support adoption of a consolidated platform?
Proposed Quantitative Evaluation Metrics
Screens Accessed Per Inquiry
Number of screens required to complete a representative member-benefit task.
Task Completion Time
Time needed to locate information and complete a benefit inquiry.
Navigation Actions
Number of clicks, page changes, and transitions required during a task.
Task Success Rate
Percentage of representative tasks completed correctly without assistance.
Usability Issue Frequency
Number of observed navigation errors, hesitations, or information-retrieval problems.
Training Resource Discoverability
Percentage of participants who can locate a required guide, support contact, or training resource.
These measures provide a framework for evaluating the DEBUT experience. Historical task-level numerical results were not available for this retrospective.
Research Methods & Contributions
-
Created advocate scenarios, journey maps, task flows, wireframes, and interactive prototypes
-
Collaborated daily with developers, product owners, and content partners in agile sprints
-
Applied accessibility and cross-platform usability best practices across designs
-
Participated in advocate feedback sessions and iterated designs based on findings
-
Designed SharePoint information architecture and layouts for DEBUT enablement
-
Documented design decisions, patterns, and handoff materials for implementation
Research Methods & Contributions
1
Advocate Feedback Sessions
Participated in sessions where advocates reviewed workflow concepts and provided feedback on usability, navigation, and information clarity.
Purpose: Identify concerns from people who regularly used the tools and incorporate their feedback into iterative design improvements.
2
Workflow and Task Analysis
Mapped advocate scenarios, task flows, and interaction sequences associated with benefit inquiries.
Purpose: Understand where repeated navigation and disconnected information introduced friction.
3
User Journey Mapping
Developed journey maps to represent the steps advocates followed while seeking information and supporting members.
Purpose: Identify opportunities to improve continuity between tasks, systems, and information categories.
4
Prototype Evaluation
Created and reviewed low- to high-fidelity prototypes with project stakeholders and available advocate participants.
Purpose: Evaluate proposed layouts, labeling, hierarchy, and interaction patterns before implementation.
5
Stakeholder Collaboration
Collaborated with Product, Engineering, Content, and Compliance partners through agile reviews and monthly demonstrations.
Purpose: Align user needs with operational requirements, technical constraints, and delivery priorities.
6
Knowledge and Training Architecture
Organized SharePoint resources around training, support contacts, frequently used tools, and communication needs.
Purpose: Make information easier to discover and support employees transitioning to DEBUT.
Project Highlights
Workflow Analysis - Existing Advocate Experience
Baseline: Fragmented Information Retrieval
The original experience required advocates to move among approximately three to five disconnected screens to complete certain benefit inquiries.
This structure created potential challenges for information retrieval and task continuity, especially when an advocate needed to interpret and communicate information during a live member interaction.
Key Usability Opportunities
1. Reduce Navigation Fragmentation
Minimize unnecessary transitions among systems and organize related information within a common workspace.
2. Prioritize Frequently Used Information
Place information used during common benefit inquiries where advocates can recognize and access it more readily.
3. Improve Information Hierarchy
Use consistent labels, headings, and grouping patterns to support scanning and reduce unnecessary searching.
4. Support Workflow Continuity
Develop reusable layouts that accommodate different types of inquiries without forcing advocates to relearn navigation patterns.
Design Response: The DEBUT Advocate Experience
The proposed interface consolidated essential information into a more unified workspace, with dashboard-style layouts and modular components organized around common advocate tasks.
These improvements were intended to make navigation more predictable, support information discovery, and reduce the demands associated with switching between disconnected tools.
Research Insights & Design Decisions
Research observation
-
Advocates navigate multiple disconnected screens.
-
Important data can be difficult to find during live calls.
-
Complex benefit inquiries require sustained attention.
-
Employees need guidance when transitioning to DEBUT.
Design decision
-
Consolidate related information into a unified workspace.
-
Prioritize commonly accessed information in the layout.
-
Introduce clearer visual hierarchy and consistent patterns.
-
Provide centralized training and support resources.
Supporting Adoption Beyond the Primary Interface
Introducing a new internal platform involves more than improving its navigation and visual layout. Employees also need accessible training, support channels, and reliable information about product changes.
In parallel with the DEBUT advocate interface, I designed a SharePoint-based communication and training hub.
The Information Problem
Relevant resources were distributed across training materials, team contacts, feedback channels, and operational communications.
The SharePoint initiative focused on making these resources easier to locate through a centralized information architecture.
Information Architecture & User Enablement
Information Architecture Decisions
1. Training & Onboarding
Organized links to training modules, instructional materials, and getting-started resources.
2. Support & Feedback
Provided access to support contacts, issue-reporting resources, and feedback forms.
3. Frequently Used Tools
Grouped commonly accessed resources and dashboards to support routine tasks.
4. Product Communication
Created space for updates, project information, educational content, and DEBUT announcements.
Research-Informed Design Rationale
The hub was structured around common employee information needs rather than presenting resources as an undifferentiated collection of links.
This approach aimed to improve discoverability, support learning, and provide a consistent communication destination during platform adoption.
Research & Delivery Constraints
Limited Participant Availability
Advocates had limited availability for evaluation activities due to their ongoing responsibilities. Research and feedback opportunities therefore needed to accommodate operational schedules.
Agile Delivery
The project was delivered through two-week development sprints, requiring research observations and feedback to inform design decisions within short iteration cycles.
Stakeholder Prioritization
Multiple departments contributed feedback, requiring careful consideration of user needs, technical feasibility, and regulatory requirements.
MVP Scope
Strict delivery timelines required the team to prioritize essential workflows and defer lower-priority enhancements.
These constraints shaped a pragmatic approach that combined available advocate feedback, iterative prototype evaluation, task-flow analysis, and regular stakeholder reviews.
Evaluation & Iteration
The DEBUT project followed an iterative research-informed design process.
Evaluate
Reviewed advocate workflows, gathered available feedback, and identified navigation and information-retrieval concerns.
Explore
Developed journey maps, task flows, wireframes, and prototype concepts to explore ways of consolidating the experience.
Review
Presented designs during feedback sessions and recurring UX demonstrations. Considered input from advocates, product partners, technical teams, and other stakeholders.
Refine
Updated information hierarchy, layout patterns, navigation, and training resources in response to evaluation and implementation considerations.
Support Delivery
Documented interaction patterns, edge cases, and design decisions to support development and future platform expansion.
Evaluation Findings & Project Outcomes
Qualitative Evaluation
Advocate feedback gathered during reviews and evaluation sessions informed revisions to the DEBUT experience. The available project documentation reports that advocates found the more centralized information experience easier to navigate.
Project Deliverables
Unified Advocate Workspace
Designed interface patterns that brought related information into a more centralized experience.
Improved Information Organization
Developed clearer visual hierarchy, labeling, and dashboard-style layouts aligned with common tasks.
Reusable Design Patterns
Created modular components intended to support additional internal workflows.
SharePoint Training Hub
Designed a centralized destination for product updates, frequently used resources, training materials, and feedback.
Evidence & Measurement Limitations
The portfolio documents the original three-to-five-screen workflow, advocate feedback activities, prototype iterations, and final design deliverables.
Historical participant-level measurements and operational analytics are not available for this retrospective. Therefore, changes in call-handling time, navigation actions, task completion, and member satisfaction cannot be quantified.
Recommended Future Validation
A future comparative usability study could measure task success, time on task, navigation actions, and error frequency across representative benefit-inquiry scenarios.
This would establish whether the redesigned experience measurably improves workflow efficiency.
Research Reflections & Key Takeaways
1. Internal workflows deserve the same research attention as customer-facing products.
The usability of an employee's tools can influence how effectively they support customers and complete complex tasks.
2. Information hierarchy is critical in high-pressure environments.
Providing more information does not necessarily improve usability. Content must be organized around users' tasks, priorities, and information needs.
3. Adoption is part of the overall user experience.
Training resources, documentation, and product communications should be considered alongside interface usability.
4. Iterative feedback can support decisions under delivery constraints.
Even with limited participant availability, structured feedback and regular evaluations can help identify issues before implementation.
5. Research impact requires measurement.
Future studies should establish baseline task metrics and compare them with results from the revised DEBUT experience to determine whether the changes improved performance.