Matching Enterprise Tools to Field-First Work

Nutrien's 10,000+ crop consultants are the company's biggest competitive advantage. They build relationships with farmers, provide expert guidance in the field, and drive over $1.5 billion in annual retail revenue. But their digital tools weren't matching how they actually worked.

Simple orders that could be completed in five minutes still required desktop access, forcing consultants to drive back to sales branches unnecessarily. Complex planning documents that benefited from larger screens lacked the efficiency features needed for real productivity. This mismatch was eating into the time consultants could spend with customers, which is the most valuable part of their job.

Initial interviews about Nutrien's new digital hub revealed a pattern hiding beneath positive feedback. Consultants appreciated the new features, but two signals demanded deeper investigation. Despite our desktop-focused application, most employees said they preferred mobile because they spent most of their day in the field. Even more concerning, some consultants had quietly reverted to legacy software for ordering. That was a clear sign of workflow misalignment. I needed to find out why.

I synthesized patterns across multiple user studies from the past two years and used OpenAI's deep research to benchmark pain points across the ag-tech industry against our internal findings. The data confirmed what interviews had hinted at. Consultants used mobile devices 70% of the time, yet over 70% of documents were created on desktop.

We had been optimizing for the wrong question. The company was asking "how do we make mobile work?" when we should have been asking "what work belongs on mobile?" Different document types have fundamentally different complexity requirements. Quick field tasks belong on mobile. Complex planning belongs on desktop. The strategy needed to match the work, not force the work into one device.

I presented this systems-level finding to leadership, connecting user frustration directly to business efficiency. The presentation convinced them to create "Improved Sales Document Workflow" as a new strategic priority, proving that UX research can reshape organizational direction when you frame insights around business impact.

The reframe gave us a new design strategy built on three principles. Mobile optimization for high-frequency field tasks. Desktop enhancement for complex planning work. Seamless cross-device workflows for flexibility. Every design decision had to answer one question. Does this match how the work actually happens?

Leading across 4 squads with 4 different working styles

The hardest part of leading across 4 product squads wasn't coordination, it was adaptation. We had one PM across all 12 employee-facing squads, but each squad had its own engineering lead with their own preferences for how design and engineering collaborated. Some teams wanted me hands-on in their daily work. Others operated more independently and preferred async handoffs.

I held UX retros with each squad to understand how they actually worked, then tailored my process to fit. That meant more frequent design syncs with hands-on teams, lighter-touch reviews and clearer documentation for hands-off teams. The retros also surfaced where my time would have the biggest impact, so I could focus my design effort on the squads that needed it most rather than spreading thin trying to give every team the same treatment. Standardizing the process would have been easier. Adapting to each team was what actually made the work move.

Documentation as a design tool

Throughout the project, I maintained documentation tailored to different audiences. Decision logs to track agreements and rationale. High-level design files for stakeholder collaboration. Detailed specifications for engineering handoff. I used ChatGPT to synthesize notes, organize action items, and create shared resources so the whole team stayed aligned without endless meetings. Figma's AI tools for layer naming and content autofill let me build realistic prototypes faster, which meant more feedback cycles with users before we locked in decisions.

Navigating scope uncertainty

Not everything made the cut. Offline mode, which research showed was critical for field work in areas with poor connectivity, got pushed to a future phase due to technical complexity. We also had to reduce the scope of inline editing interactions to meet timeline constraints. These trade-offs were difficult, but necessary. We focused on shipping what we could do well rather than shipping everything poorly.

I transformed the ordering experience from a 14-click desktop-dependent flow to an 8-click mobile-optimized process that consultants could complete directly in the field with customers. Through user behavior analysis, I identified optimal defaults like delivery dates, high-inventory SKUs, and suggested retail prices that users selected over 80% of the time. This data-driven approach to smart defaults, combined with multi-select functionality, eliminated redundant interactions while maintaining information integrity. The redesign enabled consultants to complete orders on-site, reducing office visits and maximizing customer face time.

Desktop inline editing: navigating real constraints

For complex planning documents, I designed inline editing that let users modify products directly within table interfaces, eliminating disruptive context switching. But when engineering tested the feature, they raised a concern. Real-time search across thousands of products was too slow.

I worked with the team to find a solution that preserved the user experience while meeting technical constraints. Our research showed that 80% of users already knew their target products, so implementing a three-character search activation threshold would limit results to manageable sets without impacting usability. For the 20% who needed to browse, the full catalog drawer remained available. This compromise maintained the streamlined workflow while keeping the system performant.

Product reference tracking: connecting planning to execution

I established a universal reference pattern that scaled across document types, enabling consultants to track product status, source relevant context inline, and quickly add items to new workflows. This created seamless connections between contracted products, active orders, and planning documents, bridging the gap between yearly planning and daily execution.

The results validated the systems thinking approach.

• —60% reduction in order completion time
• —2x transaction volume completed in the digital hub
• —Organizational shift toward device-appropriate design strategy across product teams

Most importantly, we changed how Nutrien thinks about cross-platform design. The conversation shifted from "how do we ensure compatibility?" to "how do we optimize for device strengths based on task complexity?" Consultants got their time back, and that time went where it belonged. With customers in the field, building the relationships that drive the business.

The biggest lesson from this project wasn't about design systems or cross-team coordination. It was about where to look for problems. The device disconnect was hiding in plain sight across two years of research. No one had connected the dots because we were asking the wrong question. That reframe changed everything.

I've since applied this lens to every complex system I touch. Before optimizing the experience, question whether the strategy matches reality. The biggest design wins often live one level above the design problem itself.