I build the decision layer between mission-critical systems and the people who have to act on them in real time.

01Situation

Operators needed to validate air-track information, but the information required to make that call was distributed across a technically complex system. This wasn't a "show more data" problem — operators needed to know what track required attention, why, what was relevant to the decision, what further investigation was needed, and what to do next. Without a cohesive workflow, they risked assembling that context manually while still holding awareness of the broader battlespace — exactly the wrong place to add cognitive overhead.

02Action

I led the problem framing and interaction design for an end-to-end Track Validation workflow: mapping the operational decision process itself rather than treating it as a set of separate screens, determining what information should surface at each stage, and organizing investigation, context, validation controls, and follow-on actions into one continuous experience. I worked directly with weapons officers and operational users to evaluate concepts against how they actually reasoned through validation, and iterated the workflow on that feedback.

The goal throughout: make the system support the operator's reasoning process, instead of forcing the operator to adapt their reasoning to the software.

03Result

• Became the most complete end-to-end operational workflow delivered within the product's scope
• Reduced cognitive overhead during track investigation by unifying context, decision, and action
• Clearer, more direct relationship between surfaced information and required operator action
• Workflow reflected how operators actually reasoned through validation, not an idealized version of it

01Situation

More information does not automatically create better situational awareness. Before operators could meaningfully interpret the battlespace, they needed to answer a more fundamental question first: what fight am I actually looking at? Without a clear way to establish that context, relevant and irrelevant information competed for attention, and users had to mentally scope the mission before they could do anything else. The challenge was preserving the depth expert users need while creating a clear way to progressively narrow the picture.

02Action

I helped define the information architecture and interaction model for progressively establishing mission context — structuring the relationship between geography, operational parameters, time, and supporting mission information, and designing patterns that gave expert users control without surfacing every variable at once. A core part of the work was sequencing: deciding what needed to be established first, what could come later, and how each decision should progressively shape the picture. I iterated the concept directly with operational stakeholders.

03Result

• Reduced information overload by giving operators a deliberate way to scope the battlespace
• Faster orientation within a complex, data-dense operating picture
• Greater operator control over what information was relevant to their mission
• Established a clearer foundation for downstream analysis and decision-making

01Situation

Standard Conventional Loadout information involves interconnected data — aircraft/platform, weapon type, quantity, configuration, and mission relevance. Simply presenting those as fields in a table wouldn't help an operator understand what capability an aircraft actually represented. The brief itself was ambiguous: I was asked to figure out how to show the information, not given a predefined feature to build.

02Action

I researched the operational meaning of standard loadouts, determined the relationships between aircraft, weapons, quantities, and configuration, and built the information architecture and interaction model from that understanding — considering how the concept would integrate into the larger command-and-control environment rather than function as an isolated visualization. I presented and evaluated the concept directly with weapons officers and pilots, refining it against their feedback.

03Result

• Transformed a highly technical set of aircraft/weapons relationships into something operators could apply intuitively
• Clearer relationships between platform, weapon, quantity, and configuration
• A visual model that communicated operational capability, not just raw data
• Consistently well received by weapons officers and pilots in review

01Situation

The common operating picture had to support a large and growing number of geospatial and mission-data types. Showing everything at once would create visual clutter that buried what mattered. But hiding information or oversimplifying the map wasn't an option either — expert operators needed the full depth of the system and needed to control the picture differently depending on mission and role. The real question: how do you give operators access to a very large amount of information without letting the map itself become operationally unusable?

02Action

I organized categories of geospatial and operational information into a scalable hierarchy, defined the relationships between layer and data types, and designed visibility controls that made clear what was currently displayed. I focused heavily on discoverability — so operators could find information without memorizing where every data source lived — and on interaction patterns for progressively revealing more detail without requiring the underlying system to sacrifice depth as more data types were added.

03Result

• Reduced visual clutter on a data-dense operational map
• Improved discoverability of operational data across an expanding set of layers
• A more scalable structure for accommodating new data types without redesign
• Clear separation between information that was available and information visible at a given moment