Understanding Shipment Lifecycle & Stakeholders

Fynd TMS coordinates shipments across warehouses, hubs, and last-mile riders. Before redesigning anything, I mapped the ecosystem, who uses it, how data flows, and where design debt was compounding fastest.

Meet the Users

Operations Manager

Plans routes, manages trips, and resolves escalations across hubs. Owns the dashboard, needs clarity and control at a glance.

Rider

Executes last-mile delivery on the field, often with unreliable connectivity. Needs exception handling without calling support.

Warehouse Worker

Scans, sorts, bags, and loads shipments in a fast-paced physical environment. Needs low-friction mobile workflows under time pressure.

Qualitative Research and Evaluative Research

A structured process made it possible to prioritize across multiple workstreams without losing sight of the bigger platform story.

01

Field Research

Observed ops managers and warehouse staff in real conditions, hub floors, loading bays, dispatch windows. Watched rider vlogs, conducted PKSM interviews, and documented where the system broke down vs. where people worked around it.

User InterviewsField ResearchCompetitor StudyBehavioral Study

02

System Audit

Analysed 30 user sessions (646 mins) via Zipy recordings across TMS segments. Mapped every screen, form, and handoff point, identifying forced sequencing, missing feedback, and design inconsistencies compounding into support tickets.

Impact AssessmentBehavioural AnalysisSolution Framework

03

Industry Updates

Mapped the macro shifts reshaping logistics: e-commerce acceleration, last-mile pressure, rising field automation demands, and the growing gap between enterprise TMS platforms and what frontline teams actually need day-to-day.

Market ResearchTrend AnalysisLogistics Context

04

Competitive Analysis

Mapped end-to-end flows across Onfleet, FarEye, and similar platforms: task creation, driver onboarding, tracking UX, and rider app architecture. Identified interaction patterns worth learning from and friction points Fynd TMS could improve on.

Competitor StudyFlow MappingUX Benchmarking

What I designed, in what order and why

Two bets that changed how the platform scaled

These weren't surface-level redesigns. Each one addressed a structural failure in how the platform served its users, and both compounded into measurable business outcomes.

Unifying Shipment Form

Completion Rate improved by +3.9% after going from 5–6 step form with ~42 inputs to a unified form with 3* inputs

Form Simplification CSAT improved by 21%

Responsive Mid-Mile Enablement

Upgraded all the flows while adding new mid-mile modules to mobile responsive. 3x Shipments per hub post-PWA enablement

Form Simplification CSAT improved by 21%

The execution layer the most crucial leg of logistics

Every delivery instruction, route assignment, pickup confirmation, and real-time status update flows through the Rider's App. While the TMS backend orchestrates trips and the ops team monitors from the web, the rider is the one physically closing the loop. Getting this interface right wasn't a polish exercise, it was the difference between shipments landing on time or falling apart in the last mile. The app had to work under poor network, under time pressure, and across a fleet with varying levels of digital fluency.

Five smaller bets that shaped the platform

Beyond the two flagship case studies, these projects expanded what TMS could do, and who it could serve.

What shipped, and what it moved

Metrics reflect 12 months from initial launch to platform maturity. X and Y to be filled with actual client counts.

Three things I'd tell every designer on an enterprise product