Case study
Annual Client Acct. Fee Review
Designed a scalable request lifecycle system for annual fee review across financial advisors and home office teams.
Project overview
Modernizing an annual fee review workflow into a scalable operational lifecycle system
Northwestern Mutual needed to modernize a high-volume annual fee review workflow previously handled through PowerBI and manual coordination. During fee season, financial advisors process large volumes of client accounts while home office reviewers evaluate waiver requests that require clear rationale and operational traceability. At the same time, as the business continued to scale, the limitations of the existing platform became increasingly difficult to manage during fee season.
As the sole Product Designer, I designed a lifecycle-driven workflow system inside NM Connect that supported grouped requests, bulk processing, review coordination, editable request states, and operational safeguards across advisors and Home Office.
01
Business context
A seasonal operational workflow supporting rapidly growing advisor and client volume.
Each year during annual fee season, Northwestern Mutual financial advisors review a large volume of client accounts and submit requests related to annual maintenance fees. Depending on account status, household relationships, or advisor discretion, requests could involve either waiving the fee or paying the fee on behalf of the client.
The existing workflow relied heavily on PowerBI. While functional, the experience had become increasingly difficult to maintain operationally as business scale and workflow complexity continued to grow. Users struggled with limited advanced capabilities, fragmented coordination, and missing workflow support for many real lifecycle scenarios. At the same time, Northwestern Mutual was consolidating all tools into NM Connect, creating the opportunity to redesign the workflow as a scalable operational experience integrated into the organization’s broader workflow ecosystem.
Legacy PowerBI
The prior workflow was report-centered, which left request handling, ownership, and exception tracking outside the core experience.
New NM Connect workspace
The rebuilt workflow moved the review process into a role-aware operational workspace with submission, lifecycle, and review in one place.
Legacy PowerBI
- table-heavy report
- limited request handling
- manual edge-case handling
- difficult collaboration and tracking
New NM Connect
- role-based workspaces
- request lifecycle management
- Home Office review ownership
- audit trail and status visibility
02
Early proposal
Translating operational requirements into an initial workflow structure.
After reviewing the existing PowerBI workflow with the Business Analyst and understanding the operational rules behind annual fee requests, I began by quickly proposing a rough workflow structure and foundational interaction model.
At this stage, I focused on creating an operationally workable system that could be validated directly with advisors and Home Office reviewers.
One major early exploration was using a persistent side panel and modal-based workflows, to be tested with users later.
01
organizing large account tables
02
initiating requests efficiently
03
preserving operational context during review
04
reducing unnecessary navigation during high-volume workflows
Homepage structure
The first pass organized the workflow around account review, submission access, and the operational actions advisors needed during fee season.
Side panel
The side panel direction kept the account table visible while users reviewed selected accounts and request details.
Modal comparison
The modal direction was useful for exploring containment but introduced more context switching during review.
Interaction model
Designing around operational throughput.
Because advisors processed large volumes of accounts, the workflow needed to support rapid scanning, bulk actions, and minimal context switching. Early exploration focused heavily on the relationship between table workflows and request interactions.
Initial grouped request concept
Grouped request exploration helped test how related accounts could move through submission and review without forcing users into one-off request handling.
Rather than waiting until hi-fi prototypes were complete, I used these early workflow concepts directly during user interviews and validation sessions. The rough flows became discussion tools that helped uncover needs and operational pain points that were not immediately visible from the original requirements alone.
03
User validation
Understanding how requests actually move through the organization.
After creating an early proposal, I conducted 8 user interviews to validate assumptions and understand how requests were actually managed across advisors, field teams, and Home Office reviewers.
Rather than focusing only on screens, the goal was to understand how users processed large volumes of accounts, how review coordination worked operationally, and where existing workflows consistently broke down.
This phase helped transform the project from an initial workflow concept into a much more complete operational system.
Financial advisors
5
Home Office reviewers
3
Interview guide
The script kept sessions structured and focused.
Synthesis notes
Interview notes were grouped to find thems.
Research findings
Several patterns emerged consistently across interviews and workflow reviews. One important insight was that users were not processing requests individually. Advisors, field teams, and reviewers were often managing large batches of accounts simultaneously, requiring workflows optimized for bulk coordination rather than isolated submissions.
The research also revealed that request workflows extended far beyond initial submission. Requests were frequently edited, reopened, resubmitted, canceled, or coordinated across multiple reviewers — scenarios that the existing PowerBI workflow handled poorly through manual workarounds.
01
Volume
Bulk processing was the norm
Advisors often reviewed 100-500+ accounts in a session, making efficient selection, submission, and tracking central to the workflow.
02
Request clarity
Context shaped review quality
Reviewers relied heavily on advisor comments. Missing context led to returned requests, delays, and slower approvals.
03
Coordination
Review collisions happened
Multiple reviewers could enter the same request at the same time, creating confusion, overwriting risk, and a need for ownership indicators.
04
State changes
Lifecycle went beyond submission
Requests could be returned, updated, reopened, resubmitted, or canceled, but the legacy workflow did not support the full lifecycle cleanly.
05
Operational gaps
Manual workarounds remained common
Teams still relied on spreadsheets, emails, and phone calls to coordinate scenarios that were difficult to track inside the system.
Key design implications
01
Bulk Operations Became Core
Users regularly managed hundreds of accounts during fee review season, making bulk selection, grouped requests, and scalable review flows essential to usability.
02
Lifecycle Management Was Critical
The workflow needed to support edits, cancellations, reopening, resubmissions, and audit visibility — not just one-time submission flows.
03
Visibility Needed to Scale Across Roles
Because requests moved across advisors, AFR/staff users, and Home Office reviewers, the system needed clear ownership, request history, and operational transparency.
04
Workflow system
Designing for high-volume operational coordination.
The research findings significantly changed the direction of the product. What initially appeared to be a relatively simple request-submission workflow became a much broader operational coordination system.
The system needed to support large-scale account management, multi-role review processes, request lifecycle management, and operational visibility across teams.
The challenge was no longer just helping users submit requests — it was helping multiple teams coordinate decisions efficiently at scale.
Placeholder artifact
System architecture
workflow-system-architecture.png
To support these operational requirements, I redesigned the workflow around three connected layers: request creation, operational review management, and lifecycle tracking. This structure allowed requests to move consistently across advisors, AFR/staff users, and Home Office reviewers while maintaining clear ownership and visibility throughout the process.
Bulk request management
Designing for bulk operations instead of individual requests.
One of the biggest workflow shifts was recognizing that users rarely processed accounts individually.
During high-volume review periods, advisors and AFR/staff users often managed hundreds of accounts simultaneously. This required workflows optimized for bulk selection, grouped request submission, scalable review handling, and operational efficiency under heavy workload conditions.
Rather than forcing users through repetitive one-by-one interactions, the system allowed related accounts to move through workflows together while still preserving request-level visibility.
Bulk workflows significantly reduced repetitive operational effort during fee review cycles.
Placeholder artifact
Bulk request management
bulk-request-management-screen.png
Request lifecycle
Placeholder artifact
Request lifecycle management
request-lifecycle-management.png
The workflow also needed to support far more than initial submission. Requests frequently moved through multiple operational states: submitted, under review, edited, reopened, canceled, resubmitted, or approved with conditions.
To reduce confusion and manual follow-up, the interface introduced clearer lifecycle visibility, request history, and operational status tracking throughout the workflow.
01
Advisor Experience
Focused on efficient request creation, bulk account handling, and visibility into request progress without requiring constant manual follow-up.
02
AFR / Staff Coordination
Needed operational visibility across large request volumes, including status monitoring, escalation awareness, and coordination between multiple advisors and reviewers.
03
Home Office Review
Required structured review workflows, clear ownership boundaries, audit visibility, and efficient processing across high request volume periods.
Design principles
01
Operational clarity over visual complexity
Interfaces prioritized visibility, hierarchy, and workflow comprehension over unnecessary UI density.
02
Scalable coordination over isolated interactions
The system was designed around high-volume operational workflows rather than idealized one-off submissions.
03
Lifecycle visibility over static status tracking
Users needed to understand not only current status, but also how requests evolved over time.
04
Shared visibility across roles
Because requests moved across multiple operational teams, visibility and ownership needed to remain consistent throughout the workflow.