At Wolters Kluwer, I owned CX/UX and feature design across specialist tax and accounting products, connecting research with detailed workflows, validation and shared portfolio standards.
Enterprise systemConceptual visualization, not production UI
RoleSenior CX/UX
PortfolioADDISON, SBS, AKTE
Scale20k customers
ResearchInterviews + validation
01 / Context
A mature system with specialist stakes
The product environment served tax advisors, auditors and small and
medium-sized businesses. The employment evidence describes a German
customer base of around 20,000, including more than 6,000 tax and
audit practices, and more than 2.5 million payroll statements handled
each month. Those figures describe the product ecosystem, not my
personal impact.
Users
Domain experts
Experienced users depended on accurate terminology, efficient task completion and confidence in the system.
Portfolio
Multiple product lines
ADDISON, SBS and AKTE formed a wider landscape in which local feature choices could affect cross-product coherence.
Constraint
Accuracy and clarity
Specialist detail could not be removed, but information order and interaction behavior could make it easier to understand.
Scale
Established behavior
Improvements had to respect learned user expectations while moving the portfolio toward a clearer shared language.
02 / Ownership
From difficult situation to feature definition
My responsibility covered customer and user experience and the design
of new functions and features. That meant carrying a problem through
research, concept definition, interaction detail and validation rather
than treating wireframes as the finish line.
Each artifact answered a different question, from whether the team understood the right problem to whether a specialist user could operate the proposed behavior with confidence.
Explore product and systems depthProduct thinking, shared standards and collaboration03 / Product thinking
Preserve expertise, remove avoidable friction
Observed tension
Expert workflows needed precision, but fragmented interaction patterns increased the effort required to understand and operate them.
Product question
Which complexity belongs to the professional task and which complexity was introduced by the product itself?
Decision
Keep domain terminology and necessary task detail while making information hierarchy, flow progression and recurring actions more predictable.
Validation
Use interviews and concept validation to test comprehension and workflow fit before committing to detailed implementation.
Portfolio effect
Translate proven recurring behavior into design standards that could improve consistency beyond a single feature.
04 / Systems design
Connect feature work to shared standards
Design standards were not a separate library task. They were a way to
encode solutions to recurring workflow problems. The work connected
detailed feature design with a clear visual language and reusable
interaction behavior across the product portfolio.
Local evidence
Real feature needs
Patterns began with concrete usability and design problems, not abstract component inventory.
Shared behavior
Predictable interactions
Recurring actions and information structures could become easier to learn across products.
Visual language
Clarity with consistency
A coherent design language supported specialist comprehension as well as brand and product quality.
Governance
Standards in delivery
Standards mattered when they informed new functions and implementation decisions, not only documentation.
05 / Collaboration
Make the reasoning visible across teams
Specialist software requires translation between customer language,
product intent and implementation detail. User stories, journeys,
flows and prototypes made the reasoning visible at different levels so
partners could challenge assumptions before they became expensive.
Customers and users
Needs and validation
Interviews and concept validation grounded the work in actual specialist situations.
Product
Requirements and scope
Stories and journeys connected the customer problem with feature intent and priority.
Design
Interaction resolution
Flows, wireframes and high-fidelity prototypes made behavior, hierarchy and visual quality explicit.
Engineering
Buildable decisions
Detailed prototypes and shared standards reduced ambiguity at implementation time.
06 / Outcome
What changed and what the evidence supports
Feature ownership became a path to stronger portfolio consistency.
The previous portfolio reports an estimated 40% reduction in UI inconsistencies. I retain that number as an estimate rather than presenting it as an externally audited KPI. The employment evidence directly supports the underlying responsibility for CX/UX, new features, validation, difficult usability problems and design standards.
Depth
Complete design loop
Research and interviews connected directly to stories, journeys, flows and production-level prototypes.
Breadth
Cross-product thinking
Recurring needs informed shared design standards across an enterprise portfolio.
Reported impact
Estimated 40%
The portfolio-reported improvement refers to fewer interface inconsistencies and remains clearly labelled as estimated.
Measurement integrity
Ecosystem is not attribution
Customer and payroll volumes communicate product scale, not individual performance.
This is an anonymized reconstruction based on documented employment responsibilities. It does not reproduce confidential product screens, customer data or internal roadmaps.
