MILLIMAN
Modernizing XLogic 2.0: Elevating Usability, Workflow Efficiency, and Decision-Making
XLogic is an actuarial modeling and risk analysis tool that enables Milliman’s clients to streamline complex calculations and make informed, data-driven decisions with confidence.
ROLE
Lead UX & Product Designer
0 - 1 Redesign
TIMELINE
7 Months (May to November)
TEAM
Tanishka Jain (UX Design Intern)
Tijana Turner (QA Engineer)
Matthew Foust (Business Analyst)
Robert Swartz (Software Engineer)
MY CONTRIBUTION
As Milliman's first-ever UX Design intern, I was tasked with modernizing the interface and improving usability for XLogic 2.0 software. The outdated design and inefficient workflows were causing frustration and cognitive overload among insurance analysts. Following an in-depth competitive analysis, stakeholder interviews, and workflow evaluation, we identified key pain points and opportunities for improvement. We studied user needs, developed user flows, and iterated on potential solutions before refining high-fidelity prototypes that streamlined the experience while maintaining the software’s complex functionality.
IMPACT
Reduced Design and Engineering Costs by
$110K+
Developed Core Reusable Components for
30+ UI elements
Increased Workflow Efficiency by
40% faster execution
Shaved Off Development Time by
120+ hours
NEW EXPERIENCE
.png)
Hover over the screens to pause the carousel and view the designs
The Problem:
Outdated Design & Inefficient Workflows
XLogic 2.0 featured a cluttered interface with complex workflows and redundant steps. Users struggled with vague error messages and a lack of clear guidance, leading to cognitive overload. The outdated design made the software feel unintuitive and misaligned with modern usability standards.
Research & Insights
UNCOVERING THE CORE ISSUES
Initially, when I joined the project, there was one big challenge—I had no direct access to users. To gain insights, I started by speaking with key stakeholders.
PRODUCT OWNER
"The software is in dire need of modernization. It’s outdated, and we’re losing ground in keeping up with user expectations."
DEVELOPER
The code is all set, but it’s rigid. There are
no reusable components, so any change is a slow and costly process.
Despite these valuable perspectives, I soon realized that this wasn’t just about aesthetics or technical constraints. The real challenge lay in the users themselves—the actuaries who were using this software daily. So, I made it a priority to hear directly from them.
I spoke to a couple of actuaries, and their feedback was eye-opening.
USER 1
"There are so many redundant steps. Without confirmation pop-ups, it’s easy to make mistakes. We end up committing actions without realizing it."
USER 2
"Sometimes, just finding a button feels like a challenge. I spend more time searching than actually completing the task."
CURRENT EXPERIENCE
Click on the screens to expand and view the designs.
CURRENT EXPERIENCE: PAIN POINTS IN THE SOFTWARE
To fully understand the user struggles, I examined the existing XLogic 2.0 interface and workflows. The problems became even clearer:
#1 CLUTTERED INTERFACE
Excessive content and text made it difficult for users to focus on key tasks.
old version
old version
#2 INEFFICIENT WORKFLOWS
Basic actions required multiple redundant steps, creating unnecessary friction.
The current workflow requires users to execute each step sequentially—selecting a process, completing it, then returning to the list to manually start the next.
old version
#3 LACK OF SYSTEM FEEDBACK
No error messages or confirmation pop-ups when performing actions like delete or copy, leading to unintended mistakes.
#4 OUTDATED DESIGN
The interface lacked hierarchy and modern UI patterns, forcing users to work harder to find what they needed.
old version
OPPORTUNITY: WITH KEY INSIGHTS AND PAIN POINTS UNCOVERED, THE OBJECTIVE BECAME CLEAR
How might we refine workflows, minimize cognitive overload, and create a more intuitive experience for users?
Additionally, how might we modernize the outdated software while maintaining its advanced functionality?
COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS
I carried out a detailed analysis of four leading insurance rating software solutions—BriteCore, Zywave TurboRater, ExLynx, and Better Agency—to understand current industry standards and find areas where XLogic 2.0 could improve. The findings revealed both strengths to build on and gaps to address in our design approach.
Competitors had efficient workflows but could benefit from reducing unnecessary steps. XLogic can focus on making tasks quicker and smoother.
Streamlined Workflows
BriteCore and Better Agency lacked clear feedback for users. XLogic can improve system guidance to reduce confusion.
User Feedback
ExLynx and Zywave TurboRater had outdated designs and unclear instructions. XLogic can refresh its interface and provide clearer directions.
Modernization and Clarity
Some platforms were cluttered, making it hard for users to focus on important tasks. XLogic can declutter the dashboard, prioritizing essential tasks for quicker decision-making.
Simplified Dashboard
GOAL
Drawing from market insights, our focus was on four key areas to enhance XLogic 2.0.
Restructure workflows to reduce redundant steps and make processes more efficient.
Improve system feedback with better error messages and confirmations.
Refresh the interface to align with contemporary usability standards.
Declutter the dashboard to prioritize essential tasks and improve focus.
Design Strategy & Ideation
OPTIMIZING USER FLOW FOR EFFICIENCY
With clear goals in place, I began by mapping out the user flow to streamline key interactions. The focus was on reducing unnecessary steps, improving task efficiency, and ensuring a logical sequence of actions.
By visualizing the flow, I identified pain points and areas where users faced friction, guiding the redesign towards a more seamless experience.
DESIGN DECISIONS FOR KEY CHALLENGES
After analyzing the pain points, I focused on tackling the four core challenges with specific design solutions that addressed each goal. Below are the key design decisions made to improve the overall user experience in XLogic 2.0:
SIMPLIFIED DASHBOARD
To improve usability and minimize cognitive load, I optimized key dashboard interactions:
Button Clarity: Moved action buttons outside the table and clearly labeled them for better discoverability and user intent.
Information Density: Replaced excessive text with intuitive icons, minimizing visual clutter and improving scannability.
Sorting Indicators: Added up/down icons for clear visual cues on column sorting order.
STREAMLINED WORKFLOW
The old workflow forced users to complete each step separately, return, and manually trigger the next—adding unnecessary friction.
Sequential Flow: Introduced a step-by-step process to eliminate redundant navigation.
Reduced Clicks: Direct transitions between steps, minimizing back-and-forth interactions.
Progress Visibility: Users can see completed and upcoming steps at a glance, reducing confusion.
CLEAN ACTION CONFIRMATIONS
To prevent unintended mistakes and improve user confidence, I introduced confirmation pop-ups for critical actions:
Action Confirmation: Users receive a prompt before performing irreversible actions like deleting or closing a process.
Clarity & Control: The pop-ups clearly state the consequences of the action and provide distinct options to proceed or cancel.
Error Prevention: This reduces accidental deletions and unintended modifications, enhancing the overall reliability of the system.
SCALABLE AND COHESIVE COMPONENT SYSTEM
As part of the redesign, I built 30+ core components using Milliman’s existing design system, making sure they seamlessly fit into the new XLogic interface. Instead of designing from scratch, I focused on extending the system—creating the right 80–100 component variants to support different use cases, interaction states, and accessibility needs.
Less rework, more efficiency: Standardized components meant fewer custom designs and faster implementation.
Future-proofing the UI: A structured system makes updates and iterations much smoother down the line.
Unified Styling: Established a consistent design language with aligned typography, spacing, and color schemes, reducing cognitive load and enhancing scannability.
Refining the Design Process
ITERATIVE REFINEMENT WITH STAKEHOLDERS & DEVELOPERS
The design process was highly collaborative, focusing on aligning user needs with technical feasibility. Key steps included:
Weekly check-ins helped us address business goals and technical limitations early, keeping the design on track.
Regular Stakeholder Reviews
Close collaboration with developers ensured the design remained both creative and technically achievable.
Ensuring Feasibility
KEY LEARNINGS
This project went beyond just refining the UI—it was about optimizing workflows, aligning technical feasibility, and designing for real user needs.
Uncovering deeper challenges: Identified core usability issues beyond the initial scope and secured stakeholder buy-in for a meaningful pivot.
Bridging UX & engineering: Established seamless collaboration to align design goals with technical constraints.
Power of a design system: Standardized UI components to accelerate development, ensure consistency, and scale efficiently.
Learning for impact: Navigated insurance rating complexities without a fintech background to drive informed design decisions.