I helped build a shared language, prioritization model, ownership process, and advisory mechanism so UX and product teams could focus on the workflows that mattered most.
A broad product portfolio created more possible UX work than a specialist team could address project by project. I authored Target Workflow and ownership artifacts and contributed to the collaborative lexicon, Top-N model, and advisory work; the resulting operating model connected priorities, owners, evidence, roadmap actions, and review.
Workflow knowledge was scattered across product teams, studies, release plans, quality signals, support evidence, and institutional memory. Teams also used different language for journeys, stages, tasks, steps, and variants.
Senior stakeholders needed a clear view of important current workflows and strategic future workflows. Product teams needed owners, evidence, and follow-through. UX leaders needed a defensible way to focus limited specialist capacity.
Make workflows comparable across products and teams.
Separate high-frequency work from strategic future opportunities.
Move from one-time studies to maintained cross-functional work.
Focus expert UX where complexity and strategic value were highest.
I authored Target Workflow and workflow-ownership artifacts, contributed to Top-N selection criteria, shaped UX advisory workflow materials, and connected the method to portfolio priorities and scalable UX support.
The lexicon, selection model, and department advisory work were collaborative. Cross-functional workflow teams included product management, development, quality, documentation, marketing, and UX. My direct contribution was the Target Workflow and ownership work, alongside leadership contribution to the shared department program.
The method separated a user's role and goal from the workflow, its stages, tasks, steps, and variants. That structure was detailed enough to expose pain points without tying the definition to one interface or release.
It also made evidence attachable. Research, quality signals, customer requests, and benchmark data could remain tied to a specific part of a workflow.
The Top-N model separated high-frequency current workflows from strategic future workflows that could close a meaningful gap or create a new opportunity.
The criteria asked whether a workflow represented a real user goal, had enough public or internal reference material to inspect, aligned with product strategy, and justified coordinated attention.
A workflow owner and core team could map the current state, add evidence layers, identify pain points, benchmark the experience, define roadmap actions, and revisit progress across releases.
The same structure improved advisory communication. Leaders could discuss customer work, evidence, ownership, and resource needs through one common frame that connected previously separate project updates.
The operating model connected method, prioritization, delivery, and learning.
Collect candidate workflows across product areas using one shared definition.
Prioritize important current workflows and strategic future workflows.
Name a workflow owner and a cross-functional core team.
Describe stages, tasks, steps, variants, pain points, and evidence.
Translate the evidence into roadmap and release decisions.
Communicate progress, revisit priorities, and refresh the inventory.
The clearest outcome was decision infrastructure: shared language, ownership, and a sharper way to direct specialist UX capacity.
Teams could discuss customer value through workflows that connected screens, features, and product areas.
Workflow teams had a structure for mapping, benchmarking, roadmap action, and follow-through.
The portfolio frame helped distinguish complex strategic work from activities that could use lighter guidance.
Attribution: dated internal artifacts establish the operating model and my role. MathWorks' public UX page supplies organizational context; the local artifacts document this program.
It connects a customer goal to cross-product decisions without collapsing the experience into one screen or inflating it into an abstract journey.
I would now build measurement into the operating model from the start: track maintained workflows, changes across releases, and the decisions influenced by the evidence.
The case is grounded primarily in dated local working artifacts. The official public source provides organizational context, not proof of this internal program.
The diagrams abstract the internal work; confidential product, staffing, and strategy details are not reproduced.