Poor hierarchy.
Users could not understand the relationship between indicators, drivers, and determinants. The architecture was flat and unnavigable.
01 / Hero
Case Study · Leading on Opportunity · Charlotte, NC
The Opportunity Compass.
Transforming complex economic data into a clear, actionable platform for funders and nonprofits in Charlotte, NC.
02
Overview
How can data become a tool for action, not just a report?
The result: an entry-point overview that carries an 82-indicator dataset without overwhelming anyone - every chart type chosen against real Power BI constraints, and the core layout settled by an A/B test instead of opinion.
Getting there meant turning that dataset - 82 indicators rolled up into 22 drivers and 5 determinants - into something funders and nonprofits could act on, built entirely inside Power BI. As UI owner and prototyping lead on a 2-designer team, I owned the visual system, end-to-end prototyping, chart-type research, the A/B test, and developer handoff.
03
The Core Problem
Compass 1.0 left users confused and discouraged.
Missing context.
Users wanted to know how data was scored, where it came from, and what it meant. No methodology section existed.
No paths to action.
After reading the data, users had nowhere to go. No collaboration tools, no next steps, no NPO directory.
Power BI constraint.
The full solution had to live inside Power BI - limited UI freedom, little native support for custom interactions, strict layout rules.
"Opportunity Compass 1.0 gave the sense that everything is bad and nothing is moving." - Participant on Compass 1.0, usability read-out
04
Who we designed for
Two users, one platform - very different mental models.
F
Funder.
Foundation directors · Quarterly visits
Context
Strategic planning, funding cycles, board presentations
What they needed
- Summary view + visual clarity at a glance
- Data they can take directly into board meetings
- Track progress across investment areas
Data literacy: Varies - executive summary first, details on demand
N
NPO Leader.
On-the-ground organizations · Weekly use
Context
Grant reporting, program design, coalition-building
What they needed
- Raw data access to verify and trust scores
- Filter by region, driver and impact area
- Identify gaps + potential NPO partnerships
Data literacy: High - needs granular access
Key insight that shaped our direction
Some users were landing directly in the tool without prior context - confused from the start. This led us to propose a dedicated landing page as an onboarding entry point, giving each user type a guided path into what mattered most to them.
05
The reframe
From flat confusion to navigable hierarchy.
Before · Compass 1.0
- No hierarchy between Determinant, Drivers and Indicators
- No methodology section - users could not verify score logic
- No landing page - users dropped in with zero context
- No collaboration tools or NPO discovery
After · Compass 2.0
- Tabbed navigation: one tab per determinant
- Methodology section added - full scoring transparency
- Dedicated landing page for user onboarding
- NPO Directory added - filter by region and impact area
06
Key decisions
The decisions I made and why.
Landing page as onboarding.
Users were dropping into the tool cold, with no context. I proposed a dedicated landing page to explain the platform's purpose, structure, and data sources - and route each user type to what mattered most.
Why: Without onboarding, new users were immediately overwhelmed. The landing page reduced cognitive load before they ever saw a chart.
A/B tested radar vs. tabs.
Two ways to compare determinants and drivers were prototyped head-to-head: a radar chart with click-to-expand axes, and a custom-built tabbed navigation component. Tested with 9 users across funders and NPO leaders.
Why: We needed evidence, not preference. The tabs won - users found the radar more disruptive and harder to read - and the tabbed component shipped as the production way to compare determinants and drivers.
Chart selection framework.
Every chart type was evaluated against 4 criteria: cognitive load, data integrity, Power BI feasibility, and shareability. Three types survived untouched, the bubble chart was refined from user feedback, and the radar view lost a head-to-head A/B test.
Why: Designing inside Power BI meant some chart types were technically impossible or would break in production. I had to think like a developer, not just a designer.
A methodology page for the skeptics.
Data-centric users would not act on a score they couldn't interrogate. I added a content-only methodology page explaining how indicators roll up into drivers and determinants, and how the overall score is built.
Why: Trust was a precondition, not a nice-to-have - "I trust your top-level data because I trust your bottom-level data."
Put the score in context.
Shown an overall progress score with no framing, 100% of users asked "58% of what?" I added definition and context around the score at the overall, determinant, and driver level.
Why: A number without a denominator reads as arbitrary. Context turned the score from a verdict into a starting point.
NPO Directory - the unexpected win.
During testing, NPO leaders expressed a need to find and connect with other organizations in their area. We proposed an NPO Directory - filterable by region and impact area.
Why: This feature was not in the original brief. It emerged from listening. It became one of the most praised features in validation sessions.
Chart evaluation matrix · 5 types, 5 verdicts
| Chart type | Use in product | Decision | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bar / column | Overall funding by determinant | Kept | No usability issues - only a copy fix (sector label + numeric dates). |
| Line | Yearly progress per determinant (2020–2024) | Kept | No negative usability findings reported. |
| Bubble | Community priorities (% by determinant) | Revised | Users found it distracting and hard to compare sections. Simplified and given context - a low-effort fix rather than a cut. |
| Radar | Determinant detail, click-to-expand per indicator | Discarded | Lost a head-to-head A/B test against a custom-built tabbed nav component - more disruptive and harder to use. |
| Vertical gauge / track | Overall score + per-determinant entry point (landing) | Kept | No usability issues reported - used as the landing entry point, separate from the radar/tabs test. |
Three survived untouched, one was refined from direct user feedback, one was tested head-to-head and lost. No heat map was ever part of the study.
07
Validation
9 users. Real feedback. Clear signal.
Task-based moderated usability tests + A/B comparative analysis. 5 funders, 3 NPO leaders, 1 undefined. Mix of new, infrequent, and current users.
"After exploring the indicators, the narrative around drivers and determinants started to make more sense."
- Participant · on the hierarchy
"I trust your top-level data because I trust your bottom-level data."
- Data-focused participant
"Love the summary… easy to see exactly what is working and what is not."
- Summary-focused participant
Key wins from testing
100%
of users found the summary of positive & negative outcomes very useful
100%
also asked "58% of what?" - the overall score needed context to be trusted
Top
NPO Directory emerged as the highest-value surprise feature for partnership building
