Using UX evaluation to inform a high-risk SaaS partnership decision
Role: UX Designer
Methods: Heuristic Evaluation, Journey Mapping, Usability Walkthrough, UX Writing Review
Context: Pre-contract partner evaluation
Outcome: UX findings became a key input in the decision not to proceed with the partnership
The Context
Product and Commercial leadership were exploring new revenue opportunities through third-party integrations.
One of the options under evaluation was an email security platform that could be automatically integrated and resold as part of our existing email service.
The goal was to understand whether this partner would deliver real value to customers seeking higher email security, while also being feasible from both a user experience and engineering perspective.
Because the analysis happened at a pre-contract stage, identifying risks early was critical to avoid future rework, customer dissatisfaction, and brand damage.
The Challenge
Before moving forward with the partnership, the company needed answers to three key questions:
-
Would this solution be usable and understandable for our target customers?
-
Would the activation and configuration experience align with our UX standards?
-
Could the service scale without increasing support costs or harming the brand?
My role was to assess these questions from the user experience perspective, identifying potential usability risks that could impact adoption, perception, and scalability.
My Role
I worked closely with Product Management and Engineering, while being fully responsible for the UX evaluation of the partner platform.
My responsibilities included:
-
Defining the UX evaluation approach suitable for a pre-contract stage
-
Conducting the full usability analysis of the partner platform
-
Mapping the activation and configuration journey
-
Reviewing UX writing and clarity of instructions
-
Consolidating findings and making a usability-based recommendation
The final results were later presented to leadership by the Design leadership team and used as one of the main inputs for the commercial decision.
Commercial Partner Analysis
Process & Methods
Given the pre-contract context, there was no access to real users or production environments.
For this reason, I selected qualitative, expert-based methods that allow early risk identification with low cost and fast turnaround.
Methods used
Heuristic Evaluation
To identify usability issues related to clarity, feedback, error prevention, and consistency across the partner’s dashboard.
Usability Walkthrough
To simulate the end-to-end experience of a customer configuring the service independently.
Journey Mapping
To visualize the activation flow, identify friction points, and assess cognitive and technical complexity.
UX Writing Review
To evaluate whether instructions, labels, and system feedback were clear enough for non-technical users.
This combination allowed me to assess not only what the issues were, but how they would impact customers in real scenarios.
Activation Flow Analysis
This diagram summarizes the activation journey and key usability risks identified during the evaluation, serving as a visual input to support the final UX recommendation.
Key Findings
The analysis revealed three major usability and experience risks.
1. Confusing activation and configuration flow
The partner’s dashboard presented a fragmented and non-intuitive flow, requiring users to navigate multiple sections without clear guidance or feedback.
This increased cognitive load and made it difficult for users to understand:
-
What step they were in
-
What was required to proceed
-
Whether the configuration was successful
2. High technical complexity for the target audience
The configuration required advanced technical knowledge that did not match the profile of our typical email customers.
This created a mismatch between:
-
The value proposition (improved security)
-
The effort required to activate and maintain the service
3. UX and technical issues combined into a critical risk
To mitigate the complexity, the possibility of automatic configuration was explored.
However, engineering analysis identified technical incompatibilities that made this solution unfeasible.
Combined with the usability issues of the self-service flow, this became a deal-breaker, as it would result in a poor experience regardless of the chosen approach.
Why This Mattered
These issues had direct implications for:
-
Users: high friction during activation and configuration
-
Brand: negative perception of a complex and unreliable service
-
Scalability: increased dependency on support and onboarding assistance
From a UX standpoint, proceeding with the partnership would likely introduce more friction than value for customers.
Outcome
Based on the combined UX and engineering findings, the company decided not to move forward with the partnership.
The UX analysis became one of the main inputs supporting this decision, helping leadership understand the long-term experience risks involved.
Impact
-
Prevented rework and costly post-launch fixes
-
Avoided introducing a poor experience into an existing product ecosystem
-
Established UX evaluation as a reference for future partner assessments
Limitations
Due to the pre-contract stage, it was not possible to conduct usability testing with real users.
Despite this, the expert-based evaluation proved effective in identifying critical risks early and informing a strategic decision.
Learnings
This project reinforced the value of UX involvement beyond interface design, especially in strategic, business-driven decisions where early UX insights can prevent long-term problems.