Stakeholder alignment
Clarify business goals, governance rules, user roles, asset lifecycle states, technical constraints and what success means to the product team.
UX case study 02 / Enterprise SaaS · DAM
Bringing clarity to the digital asset journey.
ZONZA 5 is an enterprise digital asset management experience for teams working with large, complex content libraries. The design goal was to connect discovery, asset context, review, approval, controlled sharing and distribution in a more understandable workflow.
Asset discoveryMetadata & versionsReview & approvalPermissions & sharingReusable patterns
← Back to all work
01 / Context
One asset passes through many hands before it is ready to use.
Enterprise digital asset management is more than storing files. Teams need to find the right content, understand whether it is current and approved, check usage context, collaborate with reviewers, and distribute it to the right people with the right access.
ZONZA 5 brought these tasks into one connected experience. The UX opportunity was to make a large asset library easier to navigate while helping users understand the context, lifecycle and permitted actions for each asset.
Design objective
Help users move from finding an asset to confidently evaluating, reviewing, approving and distributing it—with fewer points of uncertainty along the way.
Add the project timeframe, team composition, your exact role, platform scope and constraints. These details were not included in the source notes and should not be guessed.
02 / UX challenge
Reduce uncertainty across a complex asset lifecycle.
The design challenge was to connect several related needs without overwhelming users with information or actions:
Discovery
Find the right asset
Support browsing and narrowing large collections with search, filters, sorting, view controls and previews.
Evaluation
Understand the context
Make metadata, versions, usage rights, comments and lifecycle status available where users inspect an asset.
Collaboration
Know what happens next
Communicate draft, review, approval and rejection states with actions appropriate to each stage.
Distribution
Share with confidence
Help users understand recipients and access levels before sharing or distributing content.
The key UX question was: How might we make the status, context and next action of every asset clear without adding unnecessary complexity to everyday tasks?
03 / Research & user analysis
Understand the people behind the asset workflow.
The research plan below is designed to validate where users experience friction across asset discovery, evaluation, approval and sharing. It is a proposed research approach—not a claim that these interviews or tests have already taken place.
Evidence label: The user groups and pain points below are research hypotheses based on the product workflow supplied for this case study. Replace or validate them with real interviews, support themes, analytics, usability observations or stakeholder research before describing them as findings.
Contextual interviews
Ask users to walk through real asset tasks: finding a file, checking whether it is approved, reviewing versions and sharing it with a colleague.
Workflow & artifact review
Map the current journey and inspect existing navigation, metadata fields, approval rules, permissions, support tickets and analytics where available.
Working user-role analysis
| Role to investigate | Primary job | Hypothesis to validate | Evidence to collect |
|---|---|---|---|
| Designer / content creator | Upload, organise and update assets. | May need clearer metadata guidance, version visibility and feedback when an asset is rejected. | Upload observations, field errors, revision loops, interview examples. |
| Marketing / brand user | Find and use approved content. | May need stronger filters and an at-a-glance signal for market, campaign, usage rights and current version. | Search tasks, time to locate assets, filter choices, mis-selection rate. |
| Reviewer / approver | Review content and make a decision. | May need clearer review context, outstanding actions, comments and decision history. | Approval walkthroughs, missed steps, rework and decision confidence. |
| External partner / recipient | Access shared content within defined permissions. | May be uncertain about what can be viewed, downloaded or edited. | Permission comprehension tasks, access errors, clarification requests. |
| Library administrator | Maintain metadata, access rules and library quality. | May need consistent metadata standards, bulk operations and visibility into restricted or outdated assets. | Administration tasks, exception handling, recurring support themes. |
Research questions
- How do users currently search for an asset when they do not know its exact name?
- What information do they need before deciding whether an asset is safe and appropriate to use?
- How do users interpret lifecycle labels such as “under review”, “awaiting approval” and “approved”?
- Where do version confusion, usage rights or permission uncertainty lead to extra work?
- Which actions are frequent enough to deserve stronger prominence or bulk support?
Proposed research outputs
Current-state journey mapRole / needs matrixPain-point evidence logOpportunity prioritisationValidated design requirements
When adding actual research, include the number and type of participants, recruitment criteria, dates, methods, consent and any limitations. Do not add participant counts until you know them.
03 / End-to-end journey
Connect discovery, decision-making and distribution.
The final experience was structured around the complete asset journey rather than treating the library, detail page, approval process and sharing tools as isolated features.
Discover→Evaluate→Collaborate→Approve→Share / distribute
- Discover: narrow the library using search, filters and sorting; compare assets through scannable cards and previews.
- Evaluate: inspect metadata, usage rights, version history, comments and current status from the asset detail view.
- Collaborate: review feedback and understand whether the asset is awaiting action, under review or ready for the next stage.
- Approve: make workflow state and relevant approval actions visible, including rejected or restricted states.
- Share / distribute: choose recipients and access permissions with clearer expectations of what recipients can do.
This journey reflects the supplied description of the final solution. If you have the original user flow or process map, include it here and annotate key decision points, alternate paths and error states.
04 / Product visuals
Show the interface—not just the design claims.
Use this gallery to show the actual ZONZA 5 interface and annotate the design decisions. Replace each placeholder with a screenshot you are authorised to share. If the original interface is confidential, use an approved redacted screenshot or a clearly labelled reconstruction with synthetic data.
Asset library & discoveryInsert screenshot: search, filters, sorting, grid/list controls and preview cards.
Asset detail viewInsert screenshot: preview, metadata, usage rights, versions, comments and status.
Review & approvalInsert screenshot: lifecycle state, reviewer feedback and contextual next actions.
Sharing & permissionsInsert screenshot: recipients and view, download or edit permissions.
Wireframes & flowInsert early wireframes, user flow or information architecture diagram.
Component patternsInsert component sheet: status, metadata form, bulk actions, empty and error states.
Recommended annotation format: User need → design decision → why this helps → evidence or limitation. Keep each annotation focused on one meaningful UX decision.
04 / Design solution
Bring the information and action users need closer together.
01 / Asset discovery
Make large libraries scannable
Clearer search and filters, sorting, view controls and asset previews help users narrow results and identify relevant content.
02 / Asset cards
Surface the essentials
Cards bring together preview, asset name, file type, lifecycle status, brand or campaign, market, version and available actions—so users can compare before opening.
03 / Asset details
Keep context in one place
The detail view brings the asset, metadata, usage rights, versions, comments and workflow status together for a more informed decision.
04 / Workflow states
Make status actionable
Draft, under review, awaiting approval, approved, rejected, archived and restricted states clarify where an asset sits in its lifecycle.
05 / Contextual actions
Put the next step within reach
Download, share, edit, submit for approval and approve actions appear close to the asset and its current state, where relevant.
06 / Controlled sharing
Make access understandable
The sharing experience clarifies recipients and whether they can view, download or edit, supporting more deliberate access decisions.
For the visual case study, pair each solution with an actual product screenshot or approved reconstruction. Add short annotations that explain the user need, the design decision and the trade-off—not just the UI feature.
07 / Usability testing
Test whether users can complete the task—not whether they like the screen.
The following is a proposed moderated usability-test plan for validating the redesigned workflows. It is not a record of tests already conducted.
Suggested setup: recruit representative participants from the roles above, use realistic but synthetic assets, and ask participants to think aloud. Pilot the tasks first. Record completion, time, errors, hesitation, help needed and the participant’s explanation—not just subjective preference.
Task 01 — Find an approved asset
“Find the current approved campaign asset for a specified market and confirm it is suitable to use.” Observe search terms, filter strategy, status interpretation and wrong-version selections.
Task 02 — Check asset context
“Before downloading this asset, confirm its version, usage rights and any relevant review comments.” Observe whether users find and interpret the required information without assistance.
Task 03 — Complete a review decision
“Review an asset that is awaiting approval and explain what action you would take next.” Observe whether status, responsibility, comments and available actions are clear.
Task 04 — Share with appropriate access
“Share the selected asset with a specified recipient who should be able to view and download it, but not edit it.” Observe permission comprehension, recipient selection and confirmation before sharing.
Task 05 — Recover from a no-results search
“Find an asset using an incorrect or overly narrow filter, then recover and locate the correct one.” Observe whether empty states and filter controls support recovery.
What to capture during testing
Behavioral evidence
What users actually do
Task success, time on task, navigation path, errors, backtracking, requests for help and unintended selections.
Qualitative evidence
Why friction happens
Confusing labels, mismatched mental models, overlooked controls, missing context and misunderstandings of status or access.
Finding log template
| Observation | Evidence | Severity | Design response | Retest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [What the participant struggled with] | [Quote, behavior or task evidence] | [Low / medium / high] | [Design change proposed or made] | [Pass / needs more work] |
| [Second observed issue] | [Quote, behavior or task evidence] | [Low / medium / high] | [Design change proposed or made] | [Pass / needs more work] |
Do not write “users found it easier” or “testing confirmed” until you have actual participant evidence. After testing, replace this plan with your method, participant profile, key findings, iterations and retest results.
08 / System thinking
Build consistency through reusable interaction patterns.
Reusable components help users transfer what they learn from one area of an enterprise product to another. The ZONZA 5 solution applied consistent patterns across core asset-management tasks.
| Pattern | UX purpose | States / considerations |
|---|---|---|
| Search & filters | Help users narrow large collections and understand active criteria. | Default, filtered, no results, clear filters. |
| Asset cards & lists | Support quick scanning and comparison. | Preview unavailable, selected, restricted, version/status visible. |
| Metadata forms | Make asset context structured and editable. | Required fields, validation, saved state, permission restrictions. |
| Status indicators | Communicate lifecycle stage consistently. | Draft, review, awaiting approval, approved, rejected, archived/restricted. |
| Bulk actions | Support repetitive work across multiple assets. | Selection count, eligible/ineligible items, confirmation and feedback. |
| Review & approval | Make responsibility and next steps clear. | Comments, pending action, approval, rejection and resubmission where supported. |
| Notifications & feedback | Confirm outcomes and help users recover. | Success, loading, empty, error and retry states. |
Consistency should not mean every component behaves identically regardless of context. Actions still need to respect the user’s role, asset status, permissions and business rules.
09 / Impact & outcome
A more connected experience across the asset lifecycle.
The final solution created a clearer structure for users to discover content, evaluate asset context, complete review and approval tasks, and distribute content with more control.
Discovery
Less hunting for content
Search, filtering, sorting and more informative cards support faster scanning of large asset collections.
Decision-making
More context at the point of use
Metadata, versions, usage rights and status help users evaluate whether an asset is appropriate to use.
Workflow confidence
Clearer next steps
Visible lifecycle states and contextual actions reduce ambiguity around review and approval.
Governance
More deliberate sharing
Clearer recipient and permission choices help users understand the access they are granting.
Across the product, reusable patterns provided a stronger foundation for consistency and future expansion, while allowing different roles to work within the same connected experience.
These are qualitative design outcomes based on the supplied project summary. Do not present them as measured improvements or proven user behavior without supporting research, stakeholder feedback or post-launch data.
10 / Measurement
Separate design intent from measured impact.
If formal post-launch analytics were not available, say so clearly. The case study can still be credible by explaining the design changes and the evidence available from design reviews or stakeholder feedback.
FindabilityMeasure time to locate a specified asset, search success and filter usage.
Workflow completionMeasure task completion, approval cycle time and errors in common asset tasks.
Sharing confidenceTest whether users correctly understand recipients, permissions and asset status.
Metrics to add only when verified
Task completion improved by [verified percentage]. Time to find assets decreased by [verified percentage]. Usability issues reduced from [number] to [number]. [Number] reusable components were created. The experience supported [number] teams, markets or user groups.
If no measured results exist, an honest qualitative statement is appropriate: “Although post-launch metrics were not available, stakeholder feedback and design reviews indicated that the new experience provided clearer navigation, stronger workflow visibility and more consistent interaction patterns across ZONZA 5.” Use this wording only if those reviews and feedback actually occurred.
11 / Reflection
Enterprise UX is not about removing complexity. It is about organising it.
ZONZA 5 reinforced a central lesson: users should see the information and actions they need at the moment they need them, while the product still supports the underlying complexity of enterprise content operations.
- Design for multiple roles within one connected product rather than creating disconnected experiences.
- Treat search, metadata, permissions and workflow states as interdependent parts of the journey.
- Use progressive disclosure to make dense information manageable.
- Make status, responsibility and next steps visible.
- Balance user needs with business rules, governance and technical constraints.
- Build reusable patterns that improve consistency without ignoring contextual differences.
If continuing the work, I would validate the experience with a wider range of users, including people with different levels of digital confidence and teams working across different regional workflows. I would also test advanced search, bulk actions, role-based dashboards and asset-usage reporting against real user needs before prioritising them.
Portfolio publishing checklist
Add your exact role and contribution, research methods actually used, wireframes or flows, before-and-after screenshots, key design iterations, team context and any verified outcomes. Keep confidential client assets and internal data out of the public portfolio unless approved for release.
More selected work