While the design challenges were straightforward, the real test of this project was navigating stakeholder misalignment and resistance—both rooted in deeper organizational barriers like team silos and workflow constraints.
This case study is, in equal parts, a look at the thought process behind key design decisions and a post-mortem on the challenges we faced. It reflects on how we navigated these obstacles in the moment and what we would do differently to prevent them and better address them in the future.
Public Equity Group (PEG) is a consulting firm that helps mission-driven organizations embed equity into their work. When they approached us, they had just developed the Equity Continuum—a framework to help organizations assess where they are in their equity journey, where they want to go, and what it takes to get there. They had been using it in their consulting work but wanted to make it more accessible by bringing it online.
From our initial conversations, we understood that the goal of the platform was to mirror the offline framework while also giving organizations access to tools and case studies to support their equity work. The internal content team had already started creating these resources before we joined, so our role was to design the platform that would deliver them.
A Google Slide version of the Equity Continuum
To digitize the Equity Continuum that’s intuitive to use, we formulated research questions that centered around understanding everything about the offline version of the framework - what it is, how it’s currently used, by whom, for what reason, and to what success:
The Equity Continuum's history, purpose, and use cases
The users of the Equity Continuum—their motivations, goals, and pain points—to make sure we stay aligned with their needs while replicating the Continuum and to find ways to streamline their experience
How users interacted with the framework offline, so we could mirror and enhance these interactions digitally
How users defined success, allowing us to optimize the toolkit for effectiveness
We used the research plan as a guide for PEG to collect relevant company materials to send over, and to inform the objectives and activities of the kickoff meeting.
We led a kickoff meeting with PEG’s founder and team to align on project goals, uncover assumptions about the framework and audience, and map out user journeys together. With limited time, we had just one hour to cover these key areas. While we gained important insights—like the founder’s vision to serve both beginners and advanced users—we didn’t have time to dig into the details of the platform or the specific needs of its users.
We didn’t push for a follow-up session, assuming we could uncover the same details through in-depth stakeholder and user interviews (this decision later proved to be a mistake, as illustrated below).
Following the kickoff, we moved into the discovery phase to better understand the offline framework and its users. In-depth interviews with PEG’s senior consultants, who had been using the Equity Continuum in their client work, revealed a major disconnect. The Equity Continuum was designed as a diagnostic tool for teams to assess where they are in their equity journey and align on where they want to be. This made it best suited for organizations that were already advanced in their equity work—those ready for open and honest discussions about equity.
When used with organizations just beginning to explore equity, the framework often failed. These groups were resistant to talking about race, lacked a shared understanding of equity, and found the framework too theoretical without foundational context on why equity matters.
This directly contradicted what we learned in the kickoff, where the vision was to serve both beginners and advanced users.
To clarify the misalignment, we met with the founder—leading to a key realization: The platform was no longer meant to be a digitized version of the Equity Continuum that engaged users in a diagnostic process. Instead, the founder’s vision had shifted to a resource hub that provided tools and case studies to help organizations take action. The only connection to the original framework was that the resource categories used the same terminology as the Equity Continuum.
This was a complete 180-degree turn from what we initially understood.
With this shift in vision, we needed to rethink not just what we were building, but who we were building it for. Our conversation with the founder became a collaborative product strategy session. We challenged him to think more deeply about:
Who are the users that would come to this platform
What they are looking for
How targeting different user groups align with the intended impact
This led us to refine the target audience to be leaders in organizations at the early stages of their equity journey. Within this broader group, we identified two distinct user segments:
Those who view organizational equity as diversity and inclusion but haven’t fully committed to systemic change
Those who are committed to advancing equity through systemic change but don’t know what steps to take
From these user groups, we defined the behavior changes the platform needed to drive in order to achieve the intended impact, which became our core project goals:
Help the first group commit to the equity journey, and
Equip the second group with how-to’s and tools to take action
Ultimately, we needed to move users through the early stages of the equity journey—from “Unaware” to “Problem-aware” to “Action.”
With this new direction, our research focus also needed to shift. Instead of studying how existing users interacted with the Equity Continuum as a diagnostic tool, we adapted our research plan to better understand:
The new target’s motivations, goals, and mental models around equity and inequities to ensure our design speaks to them and matches their intent
Opportunities, challenges, and workarounds in the early stages of their equity journey to move them along and help them traverse the journey quickly and easily
Since our users were busy executives at large nonprofits and philanthropies, connecting with them directly wasn’t feasible. Instead, we relied on desk research to supplement the insights we had already gathered from in-depth interviews with senior consultants.
We reviewed our findings and used affinity mapping to uncover key themes. While we were looking at different stages of the same user journey, we chose to distill our insights into personas rather than presenting them as a linear journey. Each stage had distinct motivations and goals, and framing them as personas helped humanize the users and build empathy.
Themes uncovered from the affinity mapping exercise
From the affinity map, we fleshed out the details of the two user groups and developed them into goal-directed personas with associated insights. Their names were inspired by The Person You Mean to Be by Dolly Chugh, a key resource in our research.
“Believer”: They see themselves as good people who care about everyone and identify as non-racist. They believe in diversity and inclusion and assume that’s all equity is about. However, they haven’t yet recognized how inequity is embedded in systems, structures, and cultures, nor have they confronted their own role in it. Common mindset: “How do I diversify my staff?”
Insight #1: “It’s hard for a fish to see the water in which it swims.” The structural biases embedded in our society form an invisible current organizations operate in. Neutral actions can produce biased outcomes, reinforcing inequities without the people involved realizing it. For Believers to engage in meaningful equity work, they need to first see how their organizations contribute to inequity by understanding the unintended impacts of everyday policies, practices, and organizational culture.
Insight #2: As Believers start to recognize inequities within their organizations, they may experience self-threat—a defensive reaction that makes it difficult to take action. This is fueled by the either/or discourse around social justice, where people feel they must either be "good" or "bad," rather than seeing equity work as a growth process.
“Builders”: Builders recognize how inequity is deeply embedded in implicit biases, systems, structures, and cultures and are committed to advancing organizational equity. However, they struggle with what that actually looks like in practice. They don’t know how to take action in their specific organizational context.
Insight #1: The concept of equity is complex and high-level. To take action, “Builders” need the concept to be translated into achievable actions or changes they can enact within their unique organizational context. They then need concrete “how-to’s” that lay out the literal steps while providing the necessary tools that guide them to carry out these actions or changes. It needs to be easy-to-grasp (i.e., they look at it and immediately they go “okay, this is what they did, and this is how I can do it”) because “Builders” are spread thin and the limited capacity has contributed to the difficulty to move things in their organizations.
Insight #2: Builders look to peers for guidance. Wanting to do things the right way and stay informed, Builders seek examples from peer organizations that have successfully implemented best practices. They value proven approaches and real-world case studies to help them navigate uncertainty and risk in implementing equity-driven changes.
We turned our insights into "How might we" statements, each serving as a brainstorming prompt for the ideation session with the core team.
To give participants time to think ahead, we shared the insights and prompts a few days in advance. This helped them process ideas on their own without feeling put on the spot. We also framed each insight as a user story to make the challenges feel more human and relatable.
Since the project had recently shifted direction, we first needed to align the team on the new objectives and audience. We started the session by walking them through the process that led to these insights—from the shift in product purpose to the development of target users and project goals.
Then, through a mix of brainwriting and group discussions, the team generated ideas to support users at the early stages of their equity journey. Finally, we used dot voting to narrow down options and focus on the strongest concepts.
Results from the brainstorm session
After our ideation session, we organized the shortlisted solutions using a sitemap, and produced low-fidelity mockups to clarify basic functionality, placement, and how each feature would work in tandem with the rest. Key features included:
Landing page…
Bold statement that makes the invisible visible by highlighting how organizational actions perpetuate societal inequities, challenging the idea of neutrality
Quotes from industry leaders to make the message relatable and credible while modeling the commitment and vulnerability needed to confront organizational inequities
Success stories from peer organizations to give users proven examples of equity-driven change, helping users stay informed, learn from what’s working, and feel inspired
Organizational dimension singles (e.g., program strategy, HR & operations, etc.)…
Concrete examples of how organizational operations, policies, and practices within the respective dimension unintentionally create inequities—bridging the gap between abstract concepts and real-world implications, making the problem tangible
Tools for self-assessment to help users identify the current unintended impacts within the respective dimension
A list of actions to take within the respective dimension, filterable by organization type, each with concrete steps, relevant tools to support implementation, and case studies of peers that have successfully carried out the action
When we presented the sketch prototype to the project manager, we faced significant pushback on features addressing the problem awareness insight for “Believers.” Much of the feedback centered on the lack of content to support these features, pushing for pre-existing materials developed before the design process. The issue was that this content did not reflect the user insights uncovered during design research.
We initially compromised by shifting the focus toward tools and resources. However, when we shared the revised prototype with the founder, he reaffirmed the importance of problem awareness, leading us to revert the changes.
Despite this alignment, the project manager’s resistance persisted as we began to layer in the content. To strengthen our case, we pushed for a second alignment with decision-makers—this time focused on the specifics of the content within the features. We also proposed gathering user feedback through testing to ground the conversation in real user responses.
We succeeded in not only gaining decision-maker buy-in at a much deeper level of detail, but also obtaining user feedback that strongly reinforced our design direction. Test participants confirmed that identifying hidden organizational impacts was crucial—not only for pulling users onto an equity journey, but also for providing the clarity and context needed to make specific actions feel tangible and relevant.
Nonetheless, we continued to experience pushback. Ultimately, this resulted in the dropping of a critical feature addressing problem awareness - tangible examples that bring to light the different ways in which an organization can unconsciously amplify inequities.
Beyond platform features, we struggled to align resource content with user insights because it fell outside our design scope and was fully managed by the internal team. This led to misalignments in four key aspects of resource content design:
Scope and coverage: The resource content did not include tools to help users identify unintended impacts or how-to guides for creating problem awareness and gaining buy-in among other stakeholders, despite insights showing a need for them.
Information architecture & usability: Resource content wasn't structured around concrete actions that organizations could take. Instead, it was categorized at broader levels without a consistent organizing system. As a result, the content stopped at “what to do” without breaking it down into clear, actionable steps for “how to do it.” This made it feel too abstract, leaving users unsure of how to apply it in practice.
Tone of voice: The content did not align with the tone of voice outlined in the style guide, missing an opportunity to create a user experience that matched brand attributes and audience needs.
Equity is a sensitive and overwhelming topic. It’s complex and requires confronting long-held beliefs and behaviors, which takes courage. This challenge is made even harder by either/or narratives in equity conversations, where people feel pressured to be seen as doing the right thing or risk being judged. For leaders, especially those just starting their equity journey, this often leads to uncertainty, anxiety, and feeling stuck.
To address these challenges, we focused on creating a visual experience that feels reassuring, compassionate, and empowering. We expanded PEG’s visual identity with vibrant hues and complementary tints that build on their existing color palette. We also created 3D-style illustrations to add structure, reinforcing practicality, actionability, and credibility. To counter the perception that advancing equity is complex and overwhelming, we kept shapes and objects simple and approachable to make the work feel achievable.
Looking back, every challenge we faced stemmed from the same core issue—a siloed approach to this project. The vision, content, user insights, and platform design were each owned by different stakeholders:
The founder held the vision for the platform
The senior consultants had deep insights into the target audience
The content team & project manager created case studies and tools independently of the design process
We were tasked with designing the platform to hold the content—but with no control over the content itself
Coupled with barriers to cross-functional communication, misalignment was inevitable—from the initial confusion about what we were actually designing, to the pushback on problem-awareness features and the misalignment between resource content and user needs.
These challenges, however, taught us a few important lessons on how to ensure alignment and collaboration in the future.
A major consequence of the siloed approach was that different teams had different interpretations of what we were building. Because we worked through the project manager instead of directly with the decision-maker, we were at risk of inheriting this misalignment.
Instead of anticipating that risk and addressing it early, we made the mistake of taking the product purpose outlined in the project brief at face value and assuming the broader team was already aligned. Since we didn’t question it upfront, we dismissed the need to schedule a follow-up kick-off session to clarify product purpose, intended users, and use cases. This led to a major pivot midway through the project.
What we’ll do differently:
Engage all stakeholders at the start of a project to ensure alignment and attain a full understanding of product purpose and audience in addition to project goals
Prioritize clarity over convenience by pushing for alignment sessions when key details remain unexamined—even if stakeholder availability makes follow-ups difficult
Create a shared project brief after the kickoff that clearly defines the product vision, audience, and success criteria so every team is working toward the same goal
Build alignment checkpoints into the process to ensure teams remain aligned and catch any discrepancies before they become major pivots
One of our biggest challenges was ensuring content actually aligned with user needs—whether it was platform content (e.g., features establishing problem awareness) or resource content (e.g., case studies, tools).
This challenge arose because content was treated separately from design and handled as a fixed deliverable with its own workflow. As a result, stakeholder decisions were driven by workflow constraints—like the time and effort required to get new content approved—rather than user needs. The issue was further amplified by the fact that content writers worked independently from those with deep user insights, preventing our research from being internalized.
By agreeing to let the internal team retain full control of resource content, we reinforced this misalignment. We mistakenly treated resource content as separate from the platform, focusing only on platform features, significantly limiting our influence over its scope, structure, and tone.
What we’ll do differently:
Make content a core part of the design scope by being explicit that design solutions include all content, which should be informed by research-based user insights
Adopt a content-first approach by developing core content before wireframing to ensure that design is structured around the most critical component in addressing user needs
Embed content creators into the research process. If content is a part of the design scope but developed by a separate team, ensure content writers work closely with researchers to internalize user insights instead of relying on secondhand interpretations
Set boundaries on content control. If content is not a part of the design scope, recognize that this limits the impact of design and walk away from the project
In responding to stakeholder resistance caused by the separation between content and design, we failed to recognize how workflow constraints shaped the project manager’s decisions. We assumed that presenting user insights and making a strong design case would be enough to gain buy-in. However, decisions weren’t driven solely by research—they were influenced by feasibility, approval processes, and internal priorities.
What we’ll do differently:
Anticipate and address constraints early by pushing for open conversations about feasibility and constraints at the start of the project, rather than waiting for pushback to occur
Extending empathy beyond end users by working with key stakeholders to understand the barriers they face and co-design solutions that remove internal barriers to delivery
