CIRBI Redesign

Overview

CIRBI is a complex enterprise platform used to support Institutional Review Board (IRB) operations and the review of research studies. The platform serves multiple user groups, each with distinct goals, workflows, and responsibilities.

When I became involved, the product was already undergoing a significant modernization effort. A substantial amount of design work had been completed, but feedback from users and stakeholders suggested the new direction was not fully meeting expectations.

What initially appeared to be a visual redesign challenge ultimately became an exercise in understanding complex workflows, rebuilding trust in the modernization effort, and helping the organization determine what should be preserved, what should be improved, and where entirely new approaches could create better outcomes.

Why This Matters

This project demonstrates my ability to navigate ambiguity, diagnose root causes, and help organizations make thoughtful modernization decisions.

Rather than approaching redesign as a purely visual exercise, the work required understanding years of accumulated product decisions, identifying what users genuinely valued, and determining where modernization could create meaningful improvements without disrupting critical workflows. It illustrates a recurring theme throughout my career:

Give me a complicated system with real users, real constraints, and real consequences, and let me help make it better.

Problem

CIRBI was undergoing a significant modernization effort intended to improve usability and create a more contemporary user experience. While substantial design work had already been completed, user and stakeholder feedback indicated that the proposed direction was not fully solving the problems it was intended to address.

The challenge was not simply determining whether the redesign was successful. The organization needed to understand what was working, what users were reacting negatively to, which legacy workflows should be preserved, which created unnecessary friction, where modernization could create value, and how to move forward without discarding valuable work. What initially appeared to be concerns about look and feel often turned out to be symptoms of deeper workflow and communication challenges.

Constraints

Established user base. Experienced users relied on existing workflows to complete critical tasks.

Regulatory environment. Changes had to support highly regulated processes within clinical research and IRB operations.

Existing design investment. Significant work had already been completed, making it important to evaluate and leverage previous efforts where appropriate.

Multiple stakeholders. IRB reviewers, research sites, sponsors, administrators, and internal teams.

Active product development. The effort needed to continue while the product remained in active use.

Approach

Before proposing solutions, I focused on understanding how the platform had evolved and why existing workflows existed — learning not only the interface, but the operational realities of the people using it.

Rather than treating feedback as a reaction to visual design alone, I worked to understand the underlying issues driving user concerns. In many cases, what appeared to be an interface problem was actually rooted in workflow complexity, communication gaps, or process inefficiencies. I reviewed the existing work through the lens of user needs and business goals, which let the team preserve valuable ideas, improve areas creating friction, avoid unnecessary rework, and focus effort where it would have the greatest impact.

Some parts of the system benefited from significant redesign; others benefited more from refinement than replacement. The goal was not modernization for its own sake, but improving the experience while respecting the workflows users depended upon.

As trust developed, stakeholders increasingly brought larger workflow and product challenges into the discussion — shifting the work from evaluating interface design to solving broader problems involving workflow efficiency, information architecture, communication, and collaboration between user groups. One particularly meaningful area involved improving communication between IRB reviewers and the sites or sponsors submitting applications: how the product could create greater clarity, reduce ambiguity, and support more effective collaboration throughout the review process.

Outcome

The project helped create a clearer path forward for the modernization effort. Rather than framing the discussion around whether the redesign should succeed or fail, the organization developed a more nuanced understanding of where value existed and where change was needed.

Outcomes included better alignment around modernization priorities, improved understanding of user needs, greater confidence in design decision-making, identification of meaningful workflow improvements, and an increased focus on solving root causes rather than surface-level symptoms. The work also expanded the role of UX within the project — as trust grew, UX became involved not only in interface discussions but also in conversations about workflows, communication, and broader product strategy.

Reflection

One of the most important lessons from CIRBI was that modernization is not the same thing as replacement. Complex systems evolve over years in response to real customer needs, business requirements, and operational constraints. When modernization efforts struggle, the answer is not always to start over.

Successful modernization requires understanding why a system evolved the way it did, identifying what users genuinely value, and making deliberate decisions about what should change and what should remain. Some of the most impactful improvements came not from replacing existing work, but from recognizing where refinement, clarification, and alignment could create better outcomes than a complete restart.

This project reinforced my belief that many UX problems are not actually design problems. Interfaces often expose deeper issues in workflows, communication, organizational processes, or product strategy — and solving those underlying issues creates more lasting value than simply redesigning screens.