WiQ Technologies Inc.
2026
Helping operators move discrepancies forward
With around 300 discrepancies handled daily, I wanted to understand why operators were getting stuck. I redesigned the workflow around clearer information and focused actions, helping increase discrepancy completion rates by 134%.
Overview
What is WiQ?
WiQ is a digital waste manifesting and compliance platform that helps companies track waste shipments from pickup to delivery. It connects the teams sending, transporting, and receiving waste so they can maintain accurate records and resolve issues when shipment details don’t match.
My Role
I led the end-to-end redesign, using user research, workflow mapping, and information architecture to understand where operators were getting stuck. I designed and tested flows and interfaces in Figma, mapped the experience in FigJam, and reviewed DataDog analytics to understand completion and friction. Throughout the project, I worked closely with Product and Engineering to bring the redesigned workflow to life.
The Impact
The redesigned workflow increased discrepancy completion rates by 134%, giving operators and admins a clearer view of what had changed and what to do next. We measured completed discrepancies as a proportion of those started, comparing the six months before launch with the six months after launch.
Challenge
300 Discrepancies a Day - and Operators Were Getting Stuck
Each discrepancy involved a mismatch between a load’s recorded details and what the receiving facility identified, which needed to be resolved before a ticket could be completed. When operators struggled with the workflow, admins inherited the work. I wanted to understand what was making it so difficult. Key information was scattered across multiple views, forcing operators to piece together what had changed, why it mattered, and what to do next while managing active loads and communicating across facilities.
Approach
Bringing the Issue into Focus
The part I most enjoyed was untangling the workflow and finding a clear focal point. The process involved a receiver raising an issue, a generator proposing a resolution, and the receiver reviewing it. I focused on bringing the relevant context and actions together at each step so both users could understand what needed their attention and move the discrepancy forward.
01 — Creating Clearer Change Validation
My key design decision was to bring the discrepancy-raising experience into one screen. The receiver could identify the affected information, highlight the issue, and send it off from one place. Grouping related details and establishing a clearer hierarchy gave this step a focal point, helping operators communicate what needed to be corrected.
BEFORE
Discrepancy details and ticket information were separated, making operators piece together their request.
AFTER
Receivers could flag the affected fields and explain the issue within one focused screen.
02 — Unifying the Review Experience
The generator needed a clear connection between the receiver’s concern and the information requiring correction. Previously, they had to compare discrepancy details with ticket information to work out what to update. I brought the flagged fields and the receiver’s comments into the resolution experience, giving generators the context to make corrections and send them back for review.
BEFORE
Generators had to piece together the discrepancy request and ticket details to identify the necessary updates.
AFTER
Flagged information and the receiver’s comments provided a clearer starting point for correcting the ticket and submitting a resolution.
03 — Creating Clear Approval & Rejection Paths
Submitting a correction wasn’t the end of the exchange—the receiver still needed to understand what had changed. I made original and updated values easier to compare, including changes beyond those initially requested. Bringing that context into the review experience helped receivers assess whether the resolution addressed their concerns before accepting it or requesting further corrections.
BEFORE
Receivers had to manually compare ticket information and the submitted resolution to understand what had changed.
AFTER
Original and updated values made the changes clearer to review, including edits beyond the receiver’s initial request.
Platforms
Designing for Operational Environments
Operators handled discrepancies both in the office and in the field. Some needed to compare detailed ticket information on desktop, while others needed to review and act on issues during offloading at the pump. The experience had to support both situations, allowing operators to manage discrepancies on-site without returning to the office to complete the workflow.
Desktop Experience
I designed the desktop experience to support detailed ticket review, comparison-heavy workflows, and audit visibility. Multi-panel layouts and side-by-side comparisons helped operators review ticket details, discrepancy summaries, and submitted changes while keeping the broader ticket context in view. This brought dense operational and compliance information together to support more informed decisions.
Mobile Experience
I designed the mobile experience for quick scanning and focused action in the field, keeping navigation consistent with the existing ticket creation workflow so operators could use familiar interactions. Vertically stacked components reduced visual clutter while keeping discrepancy details, ticket information, and submitted changes accessible in one scrolling view. Sticky primary actions let operators approve or resolve discrepancies without scrolling back through the page.
Outcome
Key Learnings
The redesigned workflow increased discrepancy completion by 134%, making it clearer what had changed and what users needed to do next. While compliance requirements remained fixed, I simplified how information was organised and how users moved through the process. The project taught me that simplifying a complex workflow often means giving users the context they need to make a decision, rather than simply showing less information.
