My Portfolio Website

Work

About

Resume

Work

About

Resume

QVA Payout

Streamlining the budget allocation process for Quarterly variable allowance payout

Setting the context

Problem Statement

Design Strategy

Empathize Stage

Conceptualize Stage

Critical Challenges

Crafting User Flows

Design Phase

Hi Fidelity Prototypes

Usabilty Testing

Building Iterations

Tasks I worked on

Contributed to designing a clear communication interface and streamlining the multi-level approval workflow.

Worked closely with stakeholders to identify pain points and translate them into effective UX solutions.

Enhanced transparency, reduced delays, and improved the overall user experience in the QVA payout process.

Project Type

Client Project / TATA Consultancy Services Ultimatix

Product

Human Resource Management Tool

Skills

UX research & problem framing

Building IA & user flows

Visual design with functional clarity

Conduting usability Testing

My Role

User Experience Designer

Timeline

Q4 2024 - Q1 2025

Collaborators

Worked closely with a cross-functional team of 6 Developers, 2 Business Analysts, 1 Program Manager, 1 Functional Consultant

Setting the context

Abrupt policy changes

Pre-COVID Compensation Model

Before COVID, the Quarterly Variable Allowance (QVA) was part of the fixed compensation package. A set budget was allocated and directly dispersed among employees.

Shift to Performance-Linked QVA

Post-COVID, the company introduced a more dynamic approach — linking QVA distribution to both company performance and individual employee criteria each quarter. While this made payouts more performance-driven and predictable, it also introduced complexity.

Operational Challenges in Workflow

The approval workflow was managed through Excel spreadsheets shared over long email threads, which quickly led to inefficiencies, delays, and operational chaos.

Why this matters

6Lakh +

Employees directly benefit from the Quarterly Variable Allowance (QVA) payout process.

10,000+

Active users engage with the platform daily for budget allocation and approval workflows.

5 Levels

Of approval are required every quarter before the payout reaches employees.

Cause of the operational chaos

The chain reaction

QVA approvals go through multiple hierarchical levels.

Each level reviews and allocates budgets independently.

Back-and-forth occurs due to lack of structured system

Status updates get lost in email threads & in teams messages.

Communication gaps widen → delays and confusion

The chain reaction

What's happening

1. QVA approvals go through multiple hierarchical levels.

2. Each level reviews and allocates budgets independently.

3. Back-and-forth occurs due to lack of structured system.

4. Status updates get lost in email threads & in teams messages.

5. Communication gaps widen → delays and confusion

It's rippling effect

Frequent Delays in Payouts

The manual approval workflow caused significant bottlenecks, resulting in delayed and inconsistent disbursals of QVA to employees.

Confusion Across Hierarchy

With multiple spreadsheets circulating over email, managers and employees often lacked clarity and visibility on the approval status and final payout decisions.

Eroded Trust on the System

The inefficiencies made the process feel inconsistent, opaque, and unreliable, gradually diminishing employees’ trust in the payout system.

Clarity builds trust, and trust drives action.

Clarity builds trust, and trust drives action.

Clarity builds trust, and trust drives action.

Design strategy

Major Objectives

1. Build an end - to end digital platform to manage the complete QVA payout process.

2. Streamline budget allocation & approval workflows to reduce unnecessary steps and improve efficiency.

3. Keep all stakeholders informed at every stage of the process for better transparency.

4. Handle discrepancies efficiently, allowing users to reset the process at any approval level without starting over.

Design Outcome

Design and build a payout system that enables smooth budget allocation, ensures clarity in approvals, and aligns payouts with business performance.

Key Metrics

Approval Turnaround

Track the reduction in time taken for QVA approvals across all organizational levels by improving communication and minimizing back-and-forth delays.

User Satisfaction Score

Measure the improvement in stakeholder satisfaction with the QVA process by enhancing overall experience and confidence in the payout workflow.

Reduction in Errors

Monitor the decrease in the number of allocation resets and correction cycles, ensuring a smoother and more reliable budget allocation process.

Deep Dive into design process

Empathize

At the first phase of the project, we lacked understanding regarding what the stakeholders wanted, needed and expected from us. So, there were three keys questions we wanted to answer at the beginning of the project.

1. Current frustrations & pain points

2. What do they really want

3. What do they really need

Mapping Hierachy

Rationale behind the mapping

1. It has helped me understand the roles and responsibilities of people across different hierarchical levels.

2. It has helped me understand the communication and decision-making flow, enabling effective collaboration and smoother project execution.

CEO ( Chief Executive Officer )

The CEO oversees the entire organization and gives final approvals, ensuring all decisions align with company goals.

TR ( Total Rewards Head )

The TR Head assesses quarterly performance, raises the budget, and allocates the QVA based on company outcomes.

BG ( Business Group Head )

The BG Head manages business groups across regions and distributes the budget among their respective IOUs.

UH ( Unit Head )

The IOU Head leads units within a business group and handles budget planning and distribution to subunits.

SUH ( Sub Unit Head )

The Subunit Head manages operations at the subunit level and ensures effective budget allocation and execution.

Tracing current flow

Objective of flow tracing

To identify key friction points within the entire existing QVA flow and user interactions.

To uncover meaningful opportunities for improvement & optimize the overall process for greater efficiency.

Actions Taken

Distribution

Negotiation

Approval

Total Rewards Head

Sub Unit Head

Unit Head

Business Group Head

CEO

Evaluates the company’s quarterly performance and reviews available budget.

Shares the proposed allocation via email with all levels of the organization.

Reviews the available budget w.r.t that subunits & allocates gradewise.

Negotiations regarding the available budget takes place back & forth with the unit head.

Negotiations regarding the available budget takes place back & forth with the BG head.

Negotiations regarding the available budget takes place back & forth with the TR head.

Upon agreement, it is finally pushed to the level of the SUB IOU units.

Upon agreement, it is finally pushed to the level of the IOU units.

Upon agreement, it is finally pushed to the level of the BG units.

Upon agreement, it is finally pushed to the level of the IOU units.

Stakeholder Interviews

Stakeholder interviews were conducted virtually over two weeks with 25+ participants from different regions across the country.

Need for the interviews

1. To find out the actual perspective of the people who are within the system.

2. To uncover the hidden pain points from the employers themselves.

3. To gather suggestions and ideas for improving the current process from those directly involved.

Overview

25 +

Working Professionals Participated

5 participants

At Total Rewards ( TR ) level

10 participants

At Business Group ( TR ) level

10 participants

At Unit & Subunit level

Testimonials

Anand Ranganathan

TR Head, TCS Chennai

"Every quarter, we’re stuck aligning allowances to grade pay, while performance keeps changing. Adjusting budgets around that is a nightmare."

Insight 01

Readjusting budgets every quarter based on business performance has become challenging.

Nachiket Tiwari

Unit Head, TCS Noida

“We’re stuck in the middle — BGs pushing down, subunits pushing up. No one’s happy, and we’re left juggling numbers with no breathing room."

Insight 02

Employees caught in the middle of this process often feel squeezed.

Rajat Singhal

TR Head, TCS New Delhi

“Budget allocation always gets delayed. Negotiations drag on with every unit, & by the time we close one month, the next one’s comes."

Insight 03

Endless negotiations between stakeholders frequently cause delays.

Padma Reddichintla

TR Head, TCS Hyderbad

“Sharing budget data across teams is just chaos. Too many formats, too many updates. We waste hours cleaning up the mess every quarter.”

Insight 04

Sharing budget information across levels in multiple formats leads to confusion.

Samjeet Wagmare

Subunit Head, TCS Mumbai

“Once the budget is in, I’m left making promises I can’t guarantee. There’s no clear way to justify who gets what — it just gets awkward.”

Insight 05

Employees consistently question the basis of their allowances.

Anshu Parekh

Subunit Head, TCS Gurugram

“If there’s a single mismatch in allocation, restarting the process takes forever. Too many approvals, too much confusion.”

Insight 06

Any reallocation due to discrepancies creates chaos, prompting a cautious approach.

Names altered to maintain NDA compliance

Conceptualize

In the second phase of the project, we were faced with a large volume of data gathered during research. To transform this into a meaningful experience, we focused on addressing three key challenges during the conceptualization stage.

How do we synthesis the data into actionable insights ?
How do we strategize the user flows to cater to users across all organizational levels ?
How do we present our synthesis for stakeholder buy-in ?

Synthesizing data

Based on insights gathered during the research phase, we clustered the findings into two role-based categories: Total Rewards (TR) and Business Group (BG) Heads.

The Need for Personas

Personas clarified how the TR Head prioritizes policies versus how the BG Head focuses on operations, highlighting alignment gaps.

Mapping their journeys revealed friction points in decision-making & info. flow between TR & BG head.

These insights guided the design of targeted features addressing the unique needs of both roles.

Building TR's persona

Anand Ramakrishnan, TR Head

Age

41 years

Gender

Male

Location

TCS , Chennai

Work Mode

Hybrid

Avg. Work Hours

10 -11 hours

Personality

Deeply Dedicated

Resilient Under Pressure

Emotionally Invested

Community Oriented

Context

Anand is a Total Rewards (TR) Head working at Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) in Chennai for the past 15 years. He is responsible for managing the Quarterly Variable Allowance (QVA) across the organization. Anand plays a key role in maintaining and updating the total compensation data company-wide. Additionally, he oversees budget allocation for different components of compensation, aligning them with the company’s performance metrics.

Goals & Motivations

Ensure timely and accurate QVA disbursal.
Link budget allocation to performance metrics.
Improve coordination across departments.
Automate compensation data management.
Minimize discrepancies and manual errors.

User’s Emotions & Major Influences

Feels pressured to maintain flawless accuracy, knowing errors can erode employee trust.
Frustrated by slow approvals and lack of cross-team coordination.
Overwhelmed by manual data handling and frequent discrepancies.
Motivated to implement automated systems for faster, error-free processing.
Feels sidelined as just a mere process executor.

Tracing total reward’s journey

Set the overall QVA compensation budget for the quarter.

Subtasks

1. Assess the company’s performance for the current quarter.

2. Review historical allocation trends across Business Groups (BGs).

3. Allocate the budget and define bonus potential for BGs, IOUs, and sub-IOUs.

Send out data templates and QVA instructions to stakeholders.

Subtasks

1. Add, delete, or update the organization’s employee data.

2. Set gateway-specific limits (e.g., C1, C2, C3).

3. Send out instructions and deadlines via email to all concerned parties.

Review feedback and negotiate or approve allocations.

Subtasks

1. Collect feedback from Pink Teams (BG representatives).

2. Based on feedback, either approve or negotiate changes.

3. If discrepancies arise, restart the budgeting and communication process.

Assist the CEO in giving final approval for QVA allocations.

Subtasks

1. Reassess final allocations across BG, IOU, and sub-IOU levels.

2. Internally approve the finalized structure.

3. Present the full picture to the CEO and obtain final sign-off.

Building business group's persona

Suman Patel, Student

Age

12 years

Gender

Female

Location

Kanpur

Online Location

Laptop & Computer

Internet Uasge

2 - 3 hrs

Personality

Curious Learner

Playful and Social

Easily Distracted

Resilient & Empathetic

Context

Rahul Bhattekar is a Business Group Head at TCS in Ahmedabad with over 10 years of experience. He oversees the western region, allocating quarterly budgets across IOUs under his supervision. Rahul actively negotiates with IOU leaders, often making future assurances when current demands can't be met. He also leads periodic review and adjustments to ensure a fair, transparent, and results-driven process.

Goals & Motivations

Maximize impact within limited budgets.
Understand the logic behind allocations.
Track approval status in real time.
Avoid rework through early validations.
Speed up negotiations and approvals.

User’s Emotions & Major Influences

Company-wide budget policies leave him pressured to manage expectations within tight constraints.
Dependency on IOU response causes frustration due to frequent delays & coordination gaps.
Lack of clarity in allocation logic creates uncertainty & limits his ability to justify decisions.
Rigid internal workflows make him long for greater control, flexibility, and visibility in the process.

Tracing business group head’s journey

The BG Head reviews the budget allocation from the IOUs.

Subtasks

1. Collect the budget allocation received from each of the IOUs under him.

2. Wait till the receiving of the budget allocation from all the IOUs.

3. Check the budget allocation for each of them.

Negotiate with IOUs based on the allocations received.

Subtasks

1. Collects budget allocations from all IOUs under his supervision.

2. Reviews each allocation and waits until all are received.

3. Tallies the total against the BG-level budget for consistency.

Assignment Completion and Test Preparation

Subtasks

1. Even after the multiple approvals, the budget allocation does not tally. He sends for the reassessment across the BG, and then the process starts, restarts again.

2. Again the negotiations happen, and after that, the final approval takes place.

Send the finalized allocation to the TR Head.

Subtasks

1. After the final approval of the budget, he sends it to TR.

2. Negotiates with the TR in case of any disapproval.

3. Finally satisfies at a number which is to be numbered.

Critical Challenges Uncovered

Once the journey maps and personas were plotted, all collected friction points were distilled into the following major critical challenges.

Information Gets Lost

No clear trace of communication. Statuses often get buried in endless email threads, leading to low transparency and delayed processes.

Unclear Process Stages

Users remain unsure whether a task is in allocation, approval, or completion. This lack of visibility creates constant confusion.

Discrepancy Creates Chaos

Budget reallocations or process discrepancies trigger major disruptions, creating chaos and affecting multiple levels of the organization.

Rigid Timelines

The process must start 3 months before the next quarter, any delay/discrepancy makes it nearly impossible to adjust and teams struggle to either finish

Approach to Solution

Idea Generation Flow

Once the critical challenges were identified, we conducted brainstorming sessions to address the gaps.

For each pain point, we explored a wide range of potential solutions, encouraging creative ideas.

The ideas were grouped into meaningful themes & prioritized based on their potential impact & feasibility.

The development team was involved early to ensure solutions were technically feasible.

Key Solutions derived

The solutions that we built

Simplified & accelerated back-and-forth approvals across the levels.

Enable smooth & structured budget allocation at each level.

Made it easy to track the current status of the allocation process.

Add an option to reassess & reset allocations in case of errors.

Strategizing user flows

Objectives of user flows

1. To provide users with greater flexibility in managing time during the allocation process.

2. To streamline the existing flow and eliminate confusion in the process.

Hence the flow is split into two categories to match approval timelines.

Budget Allocation - Implemented when there is no time constraint and the budget is fixed.

Grade Wise Allocation - Implemented when there is a time constraint but no budget limitation.

Budget Allocation / Forward

Budget Allocation / Reverse

Grade Wise Payout

Actions Taken

Budget Distribution

Allocation

Total Rewards

CEO

Business Group Head

Unit Head

Evaluates the company’s quarterly performance and reviews available budget.

Based on the available budget, assigns bonus potential to each business group and performs a bulk data upload.

Thoroughly evaluates the available budget and strategically allocates it across business groups.

Carefully reviews the proposed budget allocation for each individual business group.

Finalizes the allocation details and forwards them to the respective Business Group Heads.

Reverse Flow Starts

Due to NDA, the information architecture cannot be shared as it contains sensitive source file information.

Design

In the third phase of the project, with the experience already strategized, the main challenge was translating it into screens. Time constraints added pressure, as we had already run out of development bandwidth. This raised three key questions:

What should the visual design language be?
What should be the input variables over here ?
Have we truly addressed user needs and expectations?

Sketching wireframes

UI Breakdown

1. Culturally Aware Design

Applied Hofstede’s framework to design a UI for Indian users, presenting key information in a single, structured view and ensure clarity without overwhelming the user.

2. Simplified User Input

Since users were already overwhelmed with extensive information, we limited the input to a single variable to make the interaction straightforward and less stressful.

3. Consistent Design System

To ensure uniformity and consistency, the UI follows the existing TCS payroll and compensation design system, maintaining familiarity and ease of use across the platform.

Hi Fidelity Prototypes

Budget Allocation

Implementation Steps

Initially, the Total Rewards team sets the budget and enters the data.

Allocation and approval takes places across the organizational levels.

Forward Flow ( Top to bottom )

Here, the budget allocation takes place across levels in a top-to-bottom approach, starting from the CEO and flowing down to the subunit level.

Reverse Flow ( Bottom to top )

Once the allocation is done, the negotiation process begins in a bottom-to-top manner—starting from the subunit head, moving up to the unit head, and so on.

Grade Wise Payout

Implementation Steps

Initially, the Total Rewards team sets the budget and enters the data.

It can be applied at any level, from CEO to unit heads, & the allowance is directly disbursed to employees.

Usability Testing

Usability testing was conducted to assess how TR Heads, BG Heads, and IOU Heads interacted with the budget and grade allocation flows. The goal was to uncover friction points across roles and identify gaps in clarity, communication, and decision flow. This helped us validate assumptions and highlight critical changes needed before moving into final design.

Tasks Assigned

Review the assigned budget and allocate it.

Verify the allocated budget and submit for approval.

Review the budget and send it back for reallocation if needed.

Allocate the budget across grades in the grade-wise allocation flow.

Overview

25 participants

Total number of users tested

2 weeks

Duration of the testing period

Unmoderated testing

Method used to gather insights

Key Metrics

Task Success Rate

Measures whether users are able to complete specific tasks correctly. It has been chosen to evaluate the effectiveness and clarity of the interface for core actions.

Average Task Completion Time

Tracks how long users take to complete each task. It has been used to assess the overall efficiency, flow, and ease of navigation within the system.

SUS Score

A standardized questionnaire that captures perceived usability & satisfaction. It has been included to gather subjective feedback on overall user experience in a quantifiable way.

Due to NDA compliance, the results of the usability testing have n't been shared here.

Iterations

Approval Tracking

Stakeholder Feedback

The first screen was overwhelming with too much information (status, conversations, budget allocations). They found it confusing to know what to search and where.

Action Implemented

We simplified by showing only the current approval status (e.g., pending with user, UG, or BG). A step-based preview was added so users always know the next stage in the process.

Making comments purposeful

Stakeholder Feedback

Comments were vague (“ok,” “done,” “good” “successfully completed”) and did not support meaningful conversations, often leading to confusion & shallow engagement.

Action Implemented

We introduced a comment section directly tied to each status. This encouraged stakeholders to share context-specific inputs, renegotiate, and maintain clear communication.

Enabling top level visiblity

Stakeholder Feedback

BGs and TRs could not keep proper oversight of the lower hierarchy levels, such as unit heads and subunit heads, making it difficult to monitor their progress, negotiations, and budget allocations.

Action Implemented

We enabled drill-down visibility with hyperlinks. BGs and TRs can now click through to view UG, unit head, and subunit head screens, ensuring better oversight and accountability.

Benchmarking QVA allocation

Stakeholder Feedback

Employees and stakeholders questioned the fairness of budget allocations and often struggled to present convincing points during tough negotiation discussions.

Action Implemented

We introduced QVA benchmarking based on quarterly performance ratings. This provided a transparent and fair rationale for allowances, strengthening negotiation clarity.

Measuring Outcomes

Within 3 months of rolling out these updates:

0 %

Reduction in approval turnaround time

By streamlining communication and eliminating unnecessary back-and-forth, the approval process became significantly faster, reducing turnaround time by 40% and allowing quicker budget finalization.

0.0/ 5

User Satisfaction Score

The new QVA payout system was rapidly embraced, with 95% of business groups and units actively using the platform in the first cycle, demonstrating strong user confidence and smooth onboarding.

0 %

Decrease in rework and errors

Improved process clarity and tools reduced the frequency of allocation resets and correction cycles by 30%, resulting in a more efficient, accurate, and reliable budget allocation workflow.

NDA Compliance

To explore the full case study and dive into the complete design process, feel free to connect with me.

Connect with me

Key Learnings

Clear Communication Channels Are Crucial

Establishing transparent and traceable communication between all approval levels significantly reduces delays and misunderstandings.

Simplifying Complex Workflows Enhances Efficiency

Breaking down a complex multi-level approval process into clear, manageable steps speeds up decision-making and reduces frustration.

User-Centric Design and Feedback-Driven Approach Drives Adoption

Designing the system based on real pain points gathered from stakeholder interviews encourages higher user engagement and smoother transitions.

Flexibility in Process Management Is Essential

Providing options to reassess and reset allocations empowers users to correct errors early, minimizing costly rework and improving overall accuracy.