Benchmark Gensuite: Evolving the experience across a 75+ application enterprise suite.

01 / THE OPPORTUNITY

Balancing familiarity with expectations for a modern experience

Existing customers valued familiarity. Prospective customers brought evolving expectations for modern enterprise software experiences.

Benchmark needed to improve the experience while preserving the familiarity and workflows valued by existing customers. The request was measured: move the front end towards a newer framework, improve the look and feel, and create visible progress without turning recognition into retraining.

Familiarity was not resistance to change. It was part of how customers completed important work efficiently.

For established users, familiarity and consistency are important parts of efficient workflows.

BENCHMARK TECHNICAL LEADERSHIP

02 / THE CONSTRAINT

One product that could not stop while it changed

Benchmark could not pause a shared enterprise platform for a screen-by-screen redesign. Isolated improvements would not deliver the desired consistency across the broader experience.

The work therefore began at the shared layer and moved into one high-use feature.

• Stabilise: resolve reusable components and their states.
• Apply: assemble those foundations inside a real product workflow.
• Evaluate: distinguish visual opportunities from interaction-model opportunities.
• Refine: focus investment where research indicates the greatest user and product value.

PRODUCT PRINCIPLE: Effective modernisation goes beyond visual updates to consider the complete interaction experience.

03 / THE UX FINDINGS

Clarifying the interaction model

The first pass modernised the components and preserved the existing model. That exercise was useful because the next opportunity for improvement became clearer.

Search, archive controls and navigation each had a useful role, but the interface could communicate their scope and behaviour with greater consistency. Search appeared in places where its boundary could be more explicit. Archive controls appeared in more than one area and could be unified. Nearby sites introduced a location-based way of finding the right scope, while the hierarchy supported browsing through the organisation.

Figure 1: Legacy Scope Selector, “All” view

1. Opportunity to more clearly distinguish navigation and filtering
2. Opportunity to clarify the role of the Custom Group viewing mode

Figure 2: Legacy Scope Selector, “My” view

1. Opportunity to more clearly distinguish Search Results from the "My" view
2. Search behaviour varies by viewing mode

Figure 3: Legacy Scope Selector, “Search Results” on left, “All” view on right

1. Opportunity to unify Archived Sites controls and behaviour

04 / THE DECISION

Three user needs, supported by three distinct views

The selector had to support three user needs. Separating them gave each view a clearer role:

• Browse the organisation: move through the hierarchy and choose the scope of work.
• Return to recents and favourites: re-enter the parts of the organisation used most often.
• Find sites nearby: use location rather than hierarchy to identify the relevant site.

Each view could now clearly communicate the scope of its search. Browse could support hierarchy. Recents and favourites could support return behaviour. Nearby could make location the primary way of finding the relevant site.

Figure 4: Redesigned Scope Selector

1. Simplified navigation with clearer labels for each user need
2. Distinct views for Browse, Recents and Favourites, and Nearby

Figure 5: Redesigned Scope Selector

1. Search behaviour appropriate to each viewing mode

Figure 6: Redesigned Scope Selector

1. Unified Archived Sites control and behaviour

05 / DESIGN ENGINEERING

Reviewing behaviour, not pictures

Benchmark needed working HTML, CSS and JavaScript so stakeholders could review interaction behaviour and implementation feasibility before broader production decisions. Tcules used coded prototypes to preserve interaction intent and make the design easier to test with the people responsible for taking it forward.

The attachments prototype explored organisation, nested folders, previews, reordering and system states while the direction was still open to review.

I was curious if you use an external library for the drag and drop because Bootstrap 5 doesn't natively support drag and drop.

BENCHMARK ENGINEERING STAKEHOLDER

06 / WHERE IT STANDS

Validated design direction

The work established and validated the design direction and feasibility ahead of broader implementation. It created a component direction for the Bootstrap 5.3 migration target and a selected three-view direction for the scope selector.

The modules had not reached customers when this case was documented. There is no adoption, task-time or commercial outcome to claim yet. Benchmark retained responsibility for implementation across the wider platform. The evidence here is validated design direction and feasibility review ahead of broader implementation.

Figure 7: Legacy Attachments Modal on left, Redesigned Attachments Modal on right

WHAT THIS PROVES

Modernising a mature enterprise platform requires identifying where targeted UX and architectural changes can create the greatest value while preserving the workflows customers depend on.

A framework upgrade, visual refresh, interaction-model change and design-system programme are different investments. Distinguishing among them helps focus investment where it can deliver the greatest value.