Introduction & Objective
Introduction
Since October 2024, I have served as lead UX designer for Goldman Sachs’ Risk and Control Self Assessment 360 (RCSA 360) platform—part of the Non-Financial Risk 360 (NFR 360) to modernize risk and control management. Collaborating with diverse teams across the world, I have shaped a unified user experience for core risk assessment tools. My focus: delivering a globally consistent, user-centered platform that transforms fragmented legacy processes into efficient, data-driven workflows.
Legacy Challenges
• Fragmented, inconsistent risk profiling.
• Lack of real-time insight and regulatory responsiveness.
• Overwhelming forms, ambiguous navigation, minimal personalization.
• Lack of real-time insight and regulatory responsiveness.
• Overwhelming forms, ambiguous navigation, minimal personalization.
Design Goal
Build an intuitive, personalized experience. Enable efficiency, auditability, and regulatory alignment with exceptional UX.
Research & Discovery Phase
Understanding the Strategic Risk Experience Lansdscape, Key user groups, data types and application capabilities.
Through stakeholder workshops and research sessions, I mapped the Strategic Risk Experience Landscape to establish a holistic understanding of the system from the project's onset. This involved identifying key user personas (Risk Assessors, Program Facilitators, 2nd Line Reviewers, Unit Owners, and Central Risk/Compliance Leads) and charting their journeys through fundamental data types and processes across the NFR 360 suite. This foundational mapping clarified how different tools and user actions interconnect, creating an adaptable framework that supports evolving requirements while maintaining stakeholder alignment.
Risk Experience Landscape Mapping across the firm showcasing stakeholder groups.
Overall Non Financial Risk 360 conceptual experience model from data type perspective.
The essential functions of the suite of applications simplified.
Stakeholder Workshops
Feedback from users and stakeholders regarding the UI/UX and overall experience with the legacy risk and control self-assessment platforms was consistently critical and highlighted several key areas of dissatisfaction:
→ Cluttered and confusing interfaces
Visual overload made it hard to find information, track progress, or complete tasks efficiently.
→ Unclear cues and complex paths left users unsure of what to do next.
→ Lack of contextual guidance
Insufficient tooltips or error messages led to frequent mistakes and support requests.
→ Inefficient task management
Lack of personalized view or “My Tasks” view made prioritization and tracking difficult.
→ Poor team collaboration support
Missing features in the UI for proxy work, bulk actions, and monitoring increased workload and reduced transparency.
→ Resulting user fatigue
All these issues turned assessments into a chore, eroding engagement and data quality.
→ Cluttered and confusing interfaces
Visual overload made it hard to find information, track progress, or complete tasks efficiently.
→ Unclear cues and complex paths left users unsure of what to do next.
→ Lack of contextual guidance
Insufficient tooltips or error messages led to frequent mistakes and support requests.
→ Inefficient task management
Lack of personalized view or “My Tasks” view made prioritization and tracking difficult.
→ Poor team collaboration support
Missing features in the UI for proxy work, bulk actions, and monitoring increased workload and reduced transparency.
→ Resulting user fatigue
All these issues turned assessments into a chore, eroding engagement and data quality.
These gaps consistently limited adoption and accuracy, directly informing RCSA 360’s redesign to prioritize clarity, actionable interfaces, efficient navigation, better support, and role-based experiences.
Sample insights from stakeholder workshops on legacy platform UI/UX challenges including clutter and navigation issues.
Why We Engage Users: Socializing the Value of User Sessions in RCSA 360
I created this artefact to show the RCSA 360 team why ongoing user sessions are crucial. Direct user engagement uncovers real needs and pain points that technical or business views might miss, keeping the team focused on actual priorities and fostering shared purpose across all stakeholders as we develop NFR 360
Requirements Gathering & Collaboration
Requirements for RCSA were developed through close, iterative collaboration among stakeholders, subject matter experts, and UX designers. Hands-on workshops mapped out each step and decision, while shared documents enabled real-time review. Continuous UX involvement ensured all requirements reflected both operational needs and user experience, leading to practical, well-aligned engineering outcomes
The development of the suite of applications anchored on the UX design.
Samples of process flows and detailed business requirement documentations.
Detailed Persona Development & Journey Mapping
Developed detailed personas:
• Risk Assessor (needs clarity, fast completion)
• Program Facilitator (oversees and proxies for teams)
• 2LOD Reviewer (validates, raises issues)
• Exec/Owner, Central Risk/Compliance Officer
• Risk Assessor (needs clarity, fast completion)
• Program Facilitator (oversees and proxies for teams)
• 2LOD Reviewer (validates, raises issues)
• Exec/Owner, Central Risk/Compliance Officer
Sample of detailed personas, envisioned screen types and detailed requirements in formation.
Page Types & Their Roles
To guide NFR 360’s design, I created an artefact clarifying the distinct role of each page type—List, Dashboard, Report, Destination, and Analysis. This quick-reference guide summarizes user expectations, complexity, and common pitfalls, helping the team keep interfaces focused, user-centric, and tailored to risk management needs
Page type roles and their intended purpose within NFR 360 supporting intentional UI design.
UX Objectives for Assessments Experience
• Key tenets that we have in our mind for every interaction
• We developed these based on 20+ interviews/sessions with users of the current experience and evaluation of the existing experiences.
• They manifest themselves throughout the experience.
• We developed these based on 20+ interviews/sessions with users of the current experience and evaluation of the existing experiences.
• They manifest themselves throughout the experience.
Ideation & Early Concept Exploration
Facilitated ideation workshops with stakeholders, engineering team members, PMs, and user group representatives. Actively iterated on ideas based on input from each group to shape initial concepts and directions
Some of the explored approaches:
• Form and reference information display
• Risk-centric versus AU-centric navigation
• contextual guidance without hindering flow
• Rating scale interaction
Some of the explored approaches:
• Form and reference information display
• Risk-centric versus AU-centric navigation
• contextual guidance without hindering flow
• Rating scale interaction
User-Centered Design Iterations through Continuous Feedback
Interviews with user groups involved reviewing initial mockups and exploring design options. We organized feedback into logical categories and analyzed it for emerging patterns. These ongoing sessions ensured real user input continuously shaped design decisions, keeping development aligned with evolving user needs from wireframing through prototyping and beyond.
Story-Based Dashboard Design Approach
The approach focuses on telling the story of the risk assessment process through dashboards crafted for different personas and roles. By mapping the journey—from “Am I done?” for Risk Assessors to “What’s the plan?” for Divisional Heads—the approach establishes a coherent design direction. Each dashboard highlights information relevant to its user, ensuring consistency across the platform while supporting the unique perspectives and responsibilities of every role involved in the risk process
Risk Assessment Flow Design
The design process followed the journey of a specific user, leveraging actual or close-to-actual data to validate and stress-test the workflows and interface. This approach ensured the design performed as intended under real-world conditions, effectively addressing user needs throughout critical flows such as completing assessments, proxy submissions, and tracking team progress
Sample user flow mapping demonstrating key tasks such as IRR assessment completion and proxy submission
Prototyping & Iteration
Release 1 screens for the Inherent Risk Rating (IRR) module, developed in close alignment with engineering and business teams to meet project timelines. The focus was on balancing clarity and usability:
Only the IRR module was prioritized for this initial release, ensuring alignment on requirements and timeline.
Color coding was applied minimally, highlighting only truly critical ratings. This preserves the clarity and impact of colors, avoiding visual overload and maintaining clear meaning for users.
The rating scale underwent a revision to improve user comprehension and accuracy in risk assessment.
Show/hide description toggles were incorporated to give users control over detail visibility—supporting both quick scanning and in-depth review as needed.
These design decisions were shaped by ongoing feedback from representative end users and leads, aiming to deliver a module that is both focused and adaptable to evolving requirements.
Only the IRR module was prioritized for this initial release, ensuring alignment on requirements and timeline.
Color coding was applied minimally, highlighting only truly critical ratings. This preserves the clarity and impact of colors, avoiding visual overload and maintaining clear meaning for users.
The rating scale underwent a revision to improve user comprehension and accuracy in risk assessment.
Show/hide description toggles were incorporated to give users control over detail visibility—supporting both quick scanning and in-depth review as needed.
These design decisions were shaped by ongoing feedback from representative end users and leads, aiming to deliver a module that is both focused and adaptable to evolving requirements.
Screens from Release 1 focusing on the Inherent Risk Rating (IRR) module with clarity and usability.
What If! Concept Exploration
Conceptual ideas and exploratory designs inspired by real user insights, behavioral data, and ongoing feedback from user sessions. While the current requirements have been met, these forward-thinking concepts serve as conversation starters with stakeholders and the broader team. They illuminate potential future states, spark discussion on enhancements, and help envision possibilities that could further elevate user experience and drive continuous innovation.
Concept explorations presenting innovative designs inspired by real user data and behavioral insights.
UI Development and Visual Design QA
I collaborated closely with UI and backend engineers to align on interactions, select UI components, and make timely design adjustments, fostering a design-driven development process. I also led visual QA to ensure screens met the design vision and usability standards before release.
Sample visual design QA.
Usability,UAT Testing & Feedback Loops
I observed hours of UAT sessions with users from different divisions, watching how they tackled test case tasks and noting both minor improvements and occasional individual challenges. Throughout, I reviewed the team's consolidated feedback logs and paid close attention for any signs of recurring pain points or patterns across multiple users. By using this evidence-based approach, I ensured that any significant, repeated issues—if they emerged—were addressed promptly, supporting a focused and responsive feedback cycle.
Sample of usability and UAT testing observation documentation.
Legacy to New tool comparison (with Release 2)
Comparison between the firm’s previous risk and control assessment tool (ORCA) to RCSA 360.
ORCA risk Instance to the RCSA 360 Risk Instance Comparison
• Updated methodology
• “1, 2, 3” in response to “What do I need to do?” feedback from users
• Consolidated mosaic of information instead of modal windows and tooltips
• Transparency of the placemat logic
• Revised rating scale design
• Show/hide descriptions
• tabs to easily move between IRR, CSR and RRR
• “1, 2, 3” in response to “What do I need to do?” feedback from users
• Consolidated mosaic of information instead of modal windows and tooltips
• Transparency of the placemat logic
• Revised rating scale design
• Show/hide descriptions
• tabs to easily move between IRR, CSR and RRR
ORCA control Instance to the RCSA 360 control Instance Comparison
• Updated methodology
• “1, 2, 3” in response to “What do I need to do?” feedback from users
• Consolidated mosaic of information instead of modal windows and tooltips
• Transparency of the placemat logic
• “1, 2, 3” in response to “What do I need to do?” feedback from users
• Consolidated mosaic of information instead of modal windows and tooltips
• Transparency of the placemat logic
‘My Tasks’ Toggle
• Answers the “where do I begin?” or “What do I need to do?” feedback, which was a common theme emerging from user interviews.
• Narrows the list of instances to only those that require the logged-in user’s attention.
• Provides a single button with flexible back-end rule sets (preferring simplicity over complex filters or interactions). Filters are available as well.
• Has the potential for saving and defaulting to more personalized attributes in the future (such as saved searches, etc.)
• Narrows the list of instances to only those that require the logged-in user’s attention.
• Provides a single button with flexible back-end rule sets (preferring simplicity over complex filters or interactions). Filters are available as well.
• Has the potential for saving and defaulting to more personalized attributes in the future (such as saved searches, etc.)
Control Assessment-Pocket Instances
• Termed the "pocket instance" since it is merely a subset of necessary functions already built for the full detailed view of the instance.
• Addresses user desire to submit ratings within the context of the dashboard.
• Allows users to interact with individual cells related to ratings.
• Sets context in the header – based on feedback that modals to the effect of "they lack the context of what I am looking at".
• What's Included: The most salient and critical modules that appear in the full detail view of the instance.
• Has a link in the header to the detailed view if more information ends up being necessary
• Addresses user desire to submit ratings within the context of the dashboard.
• Allows users to interact with individual cells related to ratings.
• Sets context in the header – based on feedback that modals to the effect of "they lack the context of what I am looking at".
• What's Included: The most salient and critical modules that appear in the full detail view of the instance.
• Has a link in the header to the detailed view if more information ends up being necessary