B2B tender intelligence for architecture practices
Competitionline is a B2B platform where architecture practices discover public tenders, assess them as a team and decide whether to participate. The redesign covered dashboard prioritisation, team evaluation and the membership and pricing journey.
Summary
Objectives
- Reduce the time architecture teams spend screening and prioritising opportunities.
- Separate individual relevance assessment from the final participation decision.
- Make membership scope, pricing and included value easier to compare before purchase.
Role
UX/UI Designer · NoAgency · 2019–2022
Scope
Dashboard prioritisation · Team evaluation
Membership and pricing journey
Key Skills
- Product Design
- Information Architecture
- Interaction Design
- Dashboard & Workflow Design
- Conversion-focused UX
- Design Systems & Design QA
Impact
↓ ~25%
Project selection time
↑ ~12%
Paid-plan conversion
Two problems shaped the redesign
01 · Opportunity prioritisation. Dense tender information made relevant opportunities difficult to scan, compare and discuss. The hypothesis was that a shared evaluation model and a prioritised decision queue would reduce selection time.
02 · Membership and pricing. Membership scope, included value and price were difficult to understand before purchase. The hypothesis was that keeping configuration, value and total price in one context would reduce friction and improve conversion.
Prioritise opportunities at a glance
I reorganised the tender list around the decisions teams make first: deadline, project context, shared assessment and the next action. A stable scan pattern keeps dense opportunity data comparable without hiding the detail needed for judgement.
Keep individual evaluation lightweight
Each employee can assess an opportunity directly in the list without entering a separate workflow. The compact selector stays secondary to the tender itself, while the chosen value remains visible and editable.
Turn team input into a decision queue
The dashboard prioritises tenders that already have enough team input and now require a participation decision. Deadlines, evaluation progress and unresolved opportunities are organised by urgency, so the next action is visible immediately.
Separate team assessment from the final decision
Employees contribute relevance assessments; only after the agreed threshold does the director receive a clear participation decision. The system preserves the team evidence while separating collective input from final accountability.
Keep discovery repeatable and decisions explainable
Saved search profiles turn complex filters into recurring monitoring, while shared vote summaries and comments preserve the reasoning behind each opportunity. Both reduce repeated work without creating separate destinations.
Make membership scope and price easy to compare
The membership page keeps office size, coverage, included value and total price in one decision context. A visible trial lowers commitment while the primary action remains tied to a clearly configured offer.
Bring market intelligence into the same product hierarchy
Results, editorial content and market signals follow the same navigation and content hierarchy as the core product. Featured stories, filters and search make the wider platform easier to explore without competing with tender workflows.
Make expertise and track record easy to compare
Project imagery supports recognition, while location, specialisation, competition history and awards follow a consistent scan pattern across office cards. The same reusable structure keeps comparison fast across a large catalogue.
Build a reusable interface foundation
Repeated navigation, cards, filters, evaluation states and overlays were consolidated into reusable patterns. Shared components reduce inconsistencies across roles and states while keeping dense workflows flexible.
What I learned
From legacy screens to decision systems
The valuable part of this work was not visual cleanup. It was separating three different decisions — what deserves attention, how the team assesses it and whether the office participates — without making a familiar tool harder to use.
Balancing user, business and technical constraints
I worked through user feedback, business goals and implementation constraints with stakeholders and engineers. Making the rationale visible helped the team distinguish essential workflow changes from cosmetic preferences and move toward a buildable solution.
What I would measure next
Now that the core workflow and pricing journey are measurable, the next step would be to segment results by office size and role, then identify where team assessments still stall and guide the next iteration.