top of page
Workflow Design
DELOITTE USI X KROGER
Before produce
reaches the shelf.
Designing mobile inspection workflows that help warehouse teams record produce quality and document what happens next.
Enterprise UX
Systems Thinking
My role
UX Designer at Deloitte USI
Who I designed for
Warehouse quality inspectors
New workflows in an existing tool
Scope
Design foundation
Kroger Design System
IMPACT AT A GLANCE
100+ workflows.
Three weeks ahead.
Across the Kroger engagement, I delivered more than 100 workflows three weeks before the deadline and collaborated on a system map that helped the team and leadership understand the product.
Documented design delivery impact. The inspection screens below reconstruct a representative journey; these figures do not measure user or business performance.
Introduction/ Context & Challenge
A pallet arrives.
The inspection begins.
Physical checks.
Digital records.
One connected workflow
WHO
Quality
inspectors.
WHAT
A detailed
inspection.
WHERE I CAME IN
New flows.
Existing tool.
Checking incoming produce in a warehouse or distribution centre.
Temperature, size, ripeness, defects, and applicable instrument readings.
Translating inspection requirements using Kroger’s design system.
ON THE WAREHOUSE FLOOR
ON THE HANDHELD
SAMPLE
MEASURE
EXAMINE
RECORD
REVIEW
SUBMIT
THE DESIGN CHALLENGE
Support consistent quality decisions at receiving, helping protect produce freshness, reduce avoidable losses, and inform supplier decisions.
Key stage 01/ My contribution
Understand the connected product.
Client calls
Client calls
Requirements to workflows. A shared system map.
Helping the team and leadership understand how the product connected.
Mapping the Inspection Journey
From arrival to disposition.
The workflow connects physical inspection work with a recorded decision.
Identify the shipment
Scan case · Confirm commodity and variety
Inspect the sample
Count · Size · Ripeness · Defects
Reconstructed task map. Instrument testing applies only where required by the commodity.
Check the environment
Trailer and pulp readings · Reefer log
Review and record disposition
Accept, capture evidence for reject / hold
KEY STAGE 02 / SYNTHESIS
Connecting the dots.
Different requirements.
A consistent way through.
01
TASK FLOW
DESIGN IMPLICATION
The checks change.
Different commodities require different inspection criteria.
Keep the structure familiar.
Identify → inspect → review → record disposition.
02
Screen reference
DESIGN IMPLICATION
A measurement needs context.
Put the rule beside the field.
Size specifications appear beside sample entry fields.
Show the relevant criteria where observations are recorded.
03
Recalled interface
DESIGN IMPLICATION
Four or five inputs at a time.
Short stages and radio buttons for choices.
Give each screen a clear job.
Group related checks. Keep response options visible.
Key stage 03 / designing the interaction
One screen.
One clear task.
MANAGEABLE STEPS
Keep related checks together.
Roughly four or five inputs at a time, grouped around the inspector’s current task.
CONTEXT AT THE POINT OF ENTRY
Show what the measurement means.
The surviving screen reference places size guidance beside the sample and off-size inputs.
CONSISTENCY
Build within the existing system.
We used Kroger’s design system for the new workflows. These reconstructed interfaces approximate that visual foundation.
Key stage 04 / Handling exceptions
Accept. Reject. Hold.
Make the next step clear
Acceptance and exceptions need clear next steps. Explore the reconstructed disposition paths.
RECORD ACCEPTANCE
Review the sample information before recording release.
A passing sample is shown here. Actual acceptance standards require confirmation.
OUTCOME
What the work delivered.
DELIVERY
100+
workflows.
Documented workflow delivery across the Kroger engagement.
TIMING
T
Three weeks
ahead.
Delivery completed ahead of the recorded deadline.
TEAM UNDERSTANDING
A shared
system view.
A collaborative map that helped the team and leadership understand the product.
Learnings and next steps / Reflection
What stays with me.
The work behind a field
is often
a system of decisions.
01
Map the connections first
The system map helped make the product understandable across the team. I would use it earlier to discuss dependencies and ownership.
02
Make room for variation.
A shared structure can accommodate commodity-specific checks. Consistency does not require identical content.
03
Give exceptions a next step.
Reject and hold paths need evidence, a recorded decision, and clarity about who acts next.
04
Agree on success before rollout.
Next time, I would define completion, correction, and exception-resolution measures alongside the feature scope.
WHAT I WOULD VALIDATE NEXT
Complete the checks.
Recover from interruptions.
Understand what happens next.
Next steps / Evaluating the feature
Measure the next release.
To evaluate the feature today, I would look at completion and data quality together. These are proposed measures, not reported project results.
Complete the task
Inspection completion rate and the steps where interrupted tasks stop.
Record it correctly
Corrections, missing entries, and re-inspections after submission.
Resolve exceptions
Time from a hold decision to a recorded resolution.
bottom of page