003Honeywell · 2024—2025
Cloud Supervisor
Redesigning enterprise-level workflows for scalable, secure, cloud-based BMS
Summary
Led strategy and design for Cloud Supervisor, Honeywell's enterprise workflow redesign for Niagara Cloud Suite, across a 40+ week programme spanning research, a new design system and phased delivery.
- Role
- Strategy & Design
- Client
- Tridium / Honeywell
- Team
- PM / POs / Scrum / Architects
- Timeline
- 40+ weeks
- Platform
- Cloud & Web
My role
I worked across strategy and design: mapping user pain points, running stakeholder interviews and task analysis, and designing the core Remote, Backup & Restore and Data Registration flows.
I partnered with PMs, POs, the scrum team and architects across the 40+ week delivery, and treated accessibility as its own backlog item rather than a pre-launch audit.
Impact
63% → 91%
task success in moderated testing
90%
of users connect to a target station on the first attempt
<5%
permission-related task failures
>30%
of sessions include cross-site view comparisons
Context
Familiar Niagara, without the on-premise limits
Niagara is a vendor-neutral software layer that connects and controls building systems, so teams can monitor, automate and manage operations in one place. It is the system of systems trusted across critical facilities, unifying devices and data through open drivers and APIs.
Niagara Cloud Suite extends that to secure remote access, portfolio-level data services and resilient backup and restore, all from a browser. The objective was to turn NCS into a genuinely intuitive enterprise-grade platform for facility managers and system integrators operating at scale.
Discovery & research
Understanding what teams actually do between sites
Stakeholder interviews with operators, integrators and IT; task analysis of current station workflows; and sessions with subject-matter experts.
Operators wanted one place to see what matters and act quickly. Integrators wanted safe, repeatable workflows that scale across sites. Both wanted to stop paying a tax for the gap between them.
- 01Access friction: teams lost time juggling VPNs and inconsistent station logins.
- 02Restore anxiety: backups existed, but people weren't sure what would actually come back.
- 03Portfolio blind spots: data and alarms were siloed per site, with no cross-site comparison.
Define
Finding the hidden gaps
I evaluated early pre-beta screens with user researchers and prioritised one critical feature for deeper testing, because earlier versions were too sparse to judge fairly.
The research framework combined problem-focused questionnaires with task scenarios, plus live-beta feedback loops. The resulting report was blunt: too many steps, ambiguous feedback, reactive alarms and scattered device data.
Those findings were synthesised into focused problem statements, the sharpest being that users need to acknowledge alarms immediately, not eventually.
Design
Three core interactions, shipped in phases
Remote: one-click secure connect for swift, safe access. Backup & Restore: an interactive restore preview with clear scope, so people know what is coming back before they commit. Data Registration: guided setup with a live ingest preview for immediate validation.
Delivery ran in phases against a public beta. Phase 2A adopted the new design system for consistent branding, improved navigation and systematically resolved accessibility issues. Phase 2B added detail and clearer insight to support better decisions. Phase 3 developed a comprehensive dashboard with usage metrics and overview detail for quick reads.
Accessibility was treated as a phase deliverable with its own backlog, not as a pre-launch audit. It is the reason the design system work held up under enterprise procurement review.
Due to official reasons the complete project cannot be disclosed here. Happy to discuss it offline.