Bias and Backlash: A Decade of Stalled Progress on Gender Equality

View Case Study

Next Up

SUBMITTABLE INC

Empowering Grant Makers to Speed Up Reviews and Reduce $910K Churn Risk by Enabling Quick Edits to Submitted Applications.

ROLE

Lead Designer
Concepting

User Research
UX Copy

STATUS

Shipped

TEAM

Product
Engineering
Marketing

TIMELINE

15 Design Days

PLATFORM

Web + Mobile

YEAR

2023

CUSTOMER IMPACT

Grant-makers often handle thousands of applications across multiple programs each quarter or annually. On an average, our solution saves customers 75-80 hours (3-4 days) per application review. Government and foundation clients reported a faster, easier, and more streamlined review process.

BEFORE

Grant-makers had to reopen a submission for applicants to edit their response, causing delays and prolonging the review process by days.

AFTER

Grant-makers can now make quick field edits directly in the admin experience and notify the applicant, resulting in a faster and more efficient review process.

CUSTOMER IMPACT

Grant-makers often handle thousands of applications across multiple programs each quarter or annually. On an average, our solution saves customers 75-80 hours (3-4 days) per application review. Government and foundation clients reported a faster, easier, and more streamlined review process.

CUSTOMER IMPACT

Grant-makers often handle thousands of applications across multiple programs each quarter or annually. On an average, our solution saves customers 75-80 hours (3-4 days) per application review. Government and foundation clients reported a faster, easier, and more streamlined review process.

ROLE

Lead Designer
Concepting
User Research
UX Copy

TEAM

Product
Engineering
Marketing

STATUS

Shipped

2023

YEAR

PLATFORM

Web + Mobile

TIMELINE

15 Design Days

Insights & Findings

Competition and Business Risk: Competitors offer this feature, posing a $910K churn risk; consistent feedback since early 2022 ranked it as the top pain point.

Slow and Delayed Editing Process: Missing timely edits can disqualify applicants, so grantors prefer making minor fixes themselves (e.g., typos, EINs, email) to speed up the review process.

Technology and Accessibility: Tech-challenged applicants often need grantor help to avoid bottlenecks.

Communication and Follow-ups: Re-engaging applicants for edits is difficult, making the process complex and time-consuming.

Background

Submittable works with over 3,500 federal, state, local, and tribal government agencies and departments. The grants management software is used by foundations and governments, to launch, manage and measure their programs of all sizes in a single secure platform.

Research Methodology

I started by analyzing customer feedback from the Product Board and listening to 10+ recorded calls from sales and support teams. I conducted six stakeholder interviews (Engineering, Implementation, Accounts) and collaborated with our UX researcher to gather additional insights for improving the user experience.

Customer Interview Quotes

SO critical. It is a burden on applicants and a bit of a time suck on both applicants and team members when we have to open things for editing that could be easily fixed internally (things even as simple as a typo in the org name, EIN, email, etc)” Omaha Community Foundation, Nebraska

“If an application needs editing in order for an applicant to be funded, sometimes technology is a barrier and it's difficult to get the applicant to make a simple edit. If a team member could make the edit, it would help streamline the process. It would be fine if there was some distinction to show that it was not the applicant who made the edit" The Network

"Bring the edit submission option back! With a changes tracked record for all changes made to the submission to ensure forms aren't being tampered with. Bring the edit submission option back! Bring the edit submission option back! Bring the edit submission option back! University of Florida, Center for Latin American Studies

Insights & Findings

Competition and Business Risk: Competitors offer this feature, posing a $910K churn risk; consistent feedback since early 2022 ranked it as the top pain point.

The availability of this functionality in competitor products posed a potential churn risk of $910K. Consistent customer feedback since early 2022 identified this as the top pain point on the customer product board.

2.
Slow and Delayed Editing Process: Missing timely edits can disqualify applicants, so grantors prefer making minor fixes themselves (e.g., typos, EINs, email) to speed up the review process.

Technology and Accessibility: Tech-challenged applicants often need grantor help to avoid bottlenecks.

4.
Communication and Follow-ups: Re-engaging applicants for edits is difficult, making the process complex and time-consuming.

Re-engaging applicants and grantees to make edits to submitted applications is often challenging, making the management of this process time-consuming and complex.

The Challenge

How might we make it possible for administrators to make edits to submitted forms on behalf of applicants, eliminating time-consuming processes and bottlenecks and at the same time maintain transparency?

User Flow

Studying and mapping the existing ‘Edit request’ user flow for an administrator as well as an applicant provided me insights into- our current user experience, user touchpoint, development limitations, and opportunities to enhance user engagement.

Key Findings:

Out of the 7 different form types available on the platform only 3 forms can offer the new editing functionality.

There were 4 different component styles in use on different form types to perform edits.

Submitters and admins should be able to view original response after editing a submitted response.

Ideation

My design concepts ranged from; parallel screens for live edits, instantly view original and edited response, an editing pop-up window, and a focused edit mode.

During a design review, a major backend limitation emerged, challenging our initial concepts. I led discussions with engineering to assess platform constraints, legacy code, and feasibility. Together, we crafted a hybrid solution that combined key ideas, enabled quick edits, and met product requirements—overcoming technical barriers and keeping the project on track.

Final Designs

BEFORE

Grant-makers were unable to make edits to individual fields. An entire submission was re-opened for editing.

AFTER

Grant-makers can now make quick field edits directly in the admin experience and notify the applicant, resulting in a faster and more efficient review process.

BEFORE

Lack of Guardrails for Transparency: There was no log to record reason for an edit, post a submission.

AFTER

Clear Predefined Editing Reasons: Admins are required to provide an applicant with a reason after making edits.

MOBILE EXPERIENCE

BEFORE

Grant-makers were required to open an entire submission for editing, so an applicant could make changes.

AFTER

Grant-makers can now perform quick edits in the admin experience to each field and notify the applicant.

Customer Interview Quotes

Final Designs

BEFORE

Grant-makers were unable to make edits to individual fields. An entire submission was re-opened for editing.

AFTER

Grant-makers can now make quick field edits directly in the admin experience and notify the applicant, resulting in a faster and more efficient review process.

BEFORE

Lack of Guardrails for Transparency: There was no log to record reason for an edit, post a submission.

AFTER

Clear Predefined Edit Reasons: Admins are required to provide an applicant with a reason after making edits.

MOBILE EXPERIENCE

What's Next?

To meet compliance and audit standards it is crucial to maintain transparency with a submitter and perform timely edits on a submitted application.

BEFORE

Lack of transparency: Applicant had to send a request to a grant administrator to open a submission for editing. These request were not specific to a form field response.

AFTER

Applicants can now review edits in their activity log and easily compare their edited and original response, specific to a submission and a form.

BEFORE

Lack of transparency: Applicant had to send a request to a grant administrator to open a submission for editing. These request were not specific to a form field response.

TAKEAWAYS

Enhanced Efficiency: Grant-makers can now make quick, real-time edits to applications, saving 75–80 hours per program review and streamlining workflows.

Improved User Experience: Reduced friction for both grant-makers and applicants by minimizing back-and-forth communication and enabling faster resolution of errors.

Customer-Centric Design: Addressed a long-standing customer pain point identified since 2022, reinforcing trust and satisfaction.

Competitor Differentiation: The feature mitigated a $910K churn risk by aligning with competitor offerings, strengthening the product's market position.

Collaborative Innovation: The solution was developed through cross-team collaboration and informed by user insights, demonstrating the value of iterative design processes.

Scalable Framework: Built a flexible solution that can adapt to future requirements, ensuring long-term alignment with evolving customer needs.

TAKEAWAYS

Enhanced Efficiency: Grant-makers can now make quick, real-time edits to applications, saving 75–80 hours per program review and streamlining workflows.

Improved User Experience: Reduced friction for both grant-makers and applicants by minimizing back-and-forth communication and enabling faster resolution of errors.

Customer-Centric Design: Addressed a long-standing customer pain point identified since 2022, reinforcing trust and satisfaction.

Competitor Differentiation: The feature mitigated a $910K churn risk by aligning with competitor offerings, strengthening the product's market position.

Collaborative Innovation: The solution was developed through cross-team collaboration and informed by user insights, demonstrating the value of iterative design processes.

Scalable Framework: Built a flexible solution that can adapt to future requirements, ensuring long-term alignment with evolving customer needs.

Next Up

Bias and Backlash: A Decade of Stalled Progress on Gender Equality

View Case Study

Bias and Backlash: A Decade of Stalled Progress on Gender Equality

View Case Study

Next Up