(04) — Case study · Service Agreements
Office users couldn't itemize materials needed for Service Agreement Visits until after activation — blocking accurate pricing and forcing technicians into return trips. This case study traces the six-phase process behind the redesign, from problem framing through Maze usability testing to stakeholder sign-off.
Client
ServiceTitan
Role
Lead Designer
Year
2023
Team
Service Agreements
Hi-Fi Deliverables
High-fidelity screens covering the full Scope of Work experience — Visit Details, Cost Estimates, Equipment, Services, and Materials — across quick-estimate and commercial-scale use cases.
Fig. 01 — Hi-fi screens across the visit takeover
Fig. 01.1 — Hi-fi screens across the visit takeover
Clickable Prototype
Interact with the high-fidelity prototype below to walk through the Add Visit takeover — including the Scope of Work, Equipment, Services, and Materials sections.
Fig. 02 — Clickable prototype
Open in new tab ↗End-to-end design process
Tap any phase to explore the activities, decisions, constraints and deliverables that shaped the final design.
Design process · SA Materials
Materials in Scope of Work
Service Agreement · Office user & technician workflows
Problem framing & requirements
Office users can't itemize materials for SAVs until after activation — blocking accurate cost estimation and forcing technicians into return trips.
Core problem
Goals & success metrics
Define measurable customer benefits, product vision, and how this feature lays the foundation for future TitanIntelligence automation.
Customer benefit metrics
Constraints & technical feasibility
Map dependencies, hard technical limits, and competing user needs across quick-estimate and high-volume commercial customers.
Key constraints
Iterative design exploration
Multiple layout drafts stress-tested against real equipment names, commercial volumes, and the Equipment–Service–Materials information hierarchy.
Variants tested
Maze usability testing
Validated comprehension and task success. Surfaced a critical discoverability failure in the Pricebook cost alignment action.
Critical finding & response
Stakeholder reviews & sign-off
Cross-functional review with Product, Engineering, SA domain SMEs, and Field/CS. Capture blocking concerns before development begins.
Next steps after sign-off
Fig. 03 — Interactive process map
Reflection
01 — Users
One of the core challenges was designing for two very different user groups: field users who needed quick estimates and commercial users who required detailed material breakdowns. Rather than optimizing for one at the expense of the other, we used progressive disclosure to support both workflows. Users see a lightweight summary by default, with full itemization available when needed. The result is an experience that adapts to different levels of complexity without forcing either group to change how they work.
02 — Systems
This could have been approached as a simple request to add a materials section to the visit form. Instead, we treated it as a foundational systems problem. Material data was structured at the agreement level, creating a single source of truth that powers Item Requisitions, aligns with the Pricebook, and lays the groundwork for TitanIntelligence material recommendations. By designing the underlying infrastructure—not just the surface feature—we created a solution that scales with future workflows and capabilities.