United Airlines · Safety Risk Management

The vendor shipped a platform users scored 42 out of 100. One release cycle later: 60.

United Safety Hub replaces a legacy safety risk management system. The external vendor's build ignored United's design system and tested badly. My job was to turn research findings into fixes the vendor couldn't misread.

ClientUnited Airlines
My roleUX Designer
TeamEUX + external vendor
TimelineAug – Sep 2025
StatusDetails under NDA
42 → 60SUS score across two moderated testing rounds
40+design system violations documented, specified, and fixed
15participants in 60-minute moderated sessions

This work is under NDA. The public version tells the story with details generalized and artifacts removed. The full case study is available on request.

The situation

Safety risk management software is where near-misses become policy. When United replaced its legacy system, the new vendor-built platform arrived with inconsistent UI patterns, confusing terminology, and workflows that buried critical actions in nested popups.

The first round of usability testing put a number on it: a SUS score of 42 out of 100, far below the industry benchmark of 68. One participant summarized the problem better than any metric: it felt like a reorganization of the old system's data, still overly complicated.

What I did

An audit the vendor couldn't argue with

I audited the vendor's deliverables against United's Orion design system and documented 40+ violations. Not as complaints, as specifications: exact components, exact styles, exact behaviors, each tied to a research finding or a standard. Vendor accountability works when the requirement is unambiguous.

Research findings turned into build tickets

Two rounds of moderated testing with policy owners and safety representatives fed a prioritized fix list across three categories: navigation consistency, actionable guidance, and design system alignment. Every finding shipped as an implementable requirement, and I worked with the developers through implementation.

FIG. 01 · Two rounds, one release cycle Redrawn abstraction · NDA-safe
SUS 68 · INDUSTRY BENCHMARK 42 ROUND 1 60 ROUND 2 · SAME CYCLE 40+ FIXES SPECIFIED
Round one set the baseline. 40+ documented violations became build tickets. Round two measured what shipped.
Worth admitting

The score went from 42 to 60. The benchmark is 68. One release cycle of specification and testing closed most of the gap, but not all of it. The remaining work was scoped and prioritized when the engagement ended.

Impact

An 18-point SUS improvement in a single release cycle, a 43% relative usability gain, and a vendor working from specifications instead of interpretations. The platform went from testing as a liability to trending toward the industry benchmark.

The full case study is gated

Screens, the violation audit, and testing detail are protected to respect United's confidentiality. If we're talking about working together, ask and I'll send you the password.

Or email hello@studiogridline.com · I have the password

Next case study

What aircraft maintenance actually looks like