Enterprise automation · Web
Digital Worker AI
A three-week design engagement exploring how operational users could build, monitor, and intervene in automated workflows without losing sight of system state.
RoleProduct Designer
Duration3 weeks
PlatformWeb
StatusDesign and prototype
Key decision
Treat intervention and recovery as part of the main workflow.
The trade-off
More visible states add interface detail while making paused or failed work easier to understand.
Current outcome
Builder and monitoring interface concepts, with operational validation still needed.
Project summary
Make automation understandable when it does not follow the happy path.
The existing portfolio material describes fragmented validation, inconsistent workflow states, and unclear override actions. The engagement focused on organizing these concerns into a central builder and monitoring experience. No measured production results or customer adoption evidence was available, so this case study describes the design intent rather than claimed impact.
Scope completed
- Workflow architecture and information hierarchy
- Builder and monitoring interface concepts
- Validation, intervention, and status patterns
- High-fidelity prototype and reusable components
Design constraint
Automation needed to remain efficient without hiding failures or making manual intervention feel like an exceptional, unsupported mode.
Main workflow
Build → run → monitor → intervene → recover.
Ready
Inputs are available and the workflow can start.
Running
Execution progress and the active step remain visible.
Needs review
Automation pauses and presents the issue requiring a person.
Failed
The interface explains the failure and available recovery action.
Completed
The record preserves the final state and execution history.
Design decisions
Keep state, ownership, and recovery together.
Centralize operational visibility
A shared dashboard brings execution state and attention items into one scan, reducing the need to infer progress from separate views.
Make intervention an explicit state
“Needs review” is treated as part of the workflow, with the reason and available action adjacent to the affected step.
Reuse status and alert patterns
Consistent cards, status labels, alerts, and action panels help the builder and dashboard communicate the same operational language.
Expected benefits
- Clearer workflow progress and attention states
- More consistent intervention and recovery patterns
- Less ambiguity between automated and human-controlled steps
Outcome & next steps
The available project files do not document participant counts, usability results, shipped status, or measured business outcomes. Validation with operational users and engineering review remain the appropriate next steps.
Next: Grid Intelligence
View case study