Modeling in UX creates a structured understanding of the system, its users, and their interactions. The goal is to transform abstract ideas into concrete, workable items — enabling teams to address user needs while meeting business objectives.
Organize qualitative research data — observations, quotes, notes — into themed clusters. The clustering process itself surfaces patterns and insights that structured methods might miss.
| Attribute | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Theme | The emergent category or pattern. | Navigation confusion |
| Items | Individual observations, quotes, or notes grouped under the theme. | "I couldn't find the settings page," "The menu felt hidden" |
| Insight | What the grouping reveals about user needs or pain points. | Users expect settings to be accessible from the main toolbar |
| Priority | Relative importance to address in design. | High |
| Source | Research sessions or data the items came from. | Usability test session #3, interviews |
The overarching objective the organization aims to achieve. Guides design priorities and defines what success looks like.
| Attribute | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Business Goal Name | The primary organizational objective guiding the project. | Minimize Equipment Downtime |
| Objective Statement | A clear, measurable outcome tied to the business goal. | Reduce Mean Time to Repair (MTTR) by 20% |
| Supporting Metrics | Quantifiable KPIs to measure progress toward the goal. | MTTR, MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures) |
| Strategic Importance | Why achieving this goal is crucial for the business. | Ensures operational efficiency and reduces costs |
| Dependencies | Factors or systems critical to achieving the goal. | Reliable IoT infrastructure, skilled technicians |
A structured series of activities undertaken to achieve a business goal. Aligns user journeys with operational workflows.
| Attribute | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Process Name | The structured workflow contributing to a business goal. | Equipment Maintenance Process |
| Stages | Key phases or steps in the process. | Issue Reporting → Task Assignment → Diagnostics |
| Pain Points | Challenges or inefficiencies in the process. | Communication delays, lack of sensor data |
| Opportunities | Areas for improvement to streamline the process. | Centralized tracking system, real-time updates |
| Inputs/Triggers | Events or inputs that initiate the process. | IoT alert, operator report |
| Outputs/Results | Expected results from completing the process. | Fully repaired and validated equipment |
| Key Stakeholders | Roles involved in the process. | Maintenance technicians, managers, operators |
Provide detailed context including user motivations, actions, and interaction flow. Focus on understanding the user's real-world context — not on how to solve the problem.
| Attribute | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Id | Unique identifier. | #001 |
| Group | Logical grouping of related scenarios. | Diagnostics |
| Persona | The persona interacting with the system. | John Smith (Maintenance Technician) |
| Description | Narrative explanation of the scenario. | Diagnosing a malfunction in a conveyor belt motor. |
| User Goal | What the user is trying to achieve. | Identify the root cause of the malfunction. |
| Design Hypothesis | Early design ideas for supporting the scenario. | Include offline functionality and highlight probable errors. |
The overarching, end-to-end flow of activities and decisions users navigate while working toward a goal. Captures context, emotions, and stages — including where things go wrong.
| Attribute | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Name | The overarching, end-to-end flow of user activities. | Resolving Equipment Downtime |
| Stages | High-level phases users pass through during the journey. | Detection → Reporting → Diagnostics → Repair → Validation |
| User Goals | Goals users aim to achieve at each stage. | Minimize downtime, restore operational efficiency |
| Pain Points | Challenges or obstacles users face during the journey. | Delayed part delivery, incomplete logs |
| Opportunities | Design improvements or solutions to enhance the journey. | Real-time data aggregation, predictive maintenance |
| Randomness/Variability | Areas where the journey may deviate or introduce unpredictability. | Inconsistent IoT sensor data |
| Mapped Business Process | Corresponding business workflow that aligns with the journey. | Equipment Maintenance Process |
| Key Metrics | KPIs for evaluating the success of the journey. | Reduce Mean Time to Repair (MTTR) |
A structured view of what a specific user says, thinks, does, and feels. Useful for building shared team understanding of user motivations before or alongside persona creation.
| Attribute | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Persona | The user this map represents. | Jane Doe, Maintenance Technician |
| Says | Quotes or statements the user makes. | "I need this fixed before the shift ends" |
| Thinks | What the user thinks but may not say aloud. | "This tool is too slow for the field" |
| Does | Observable behaviors and actions. | Takes photos of error codes, calls colleagues for help |
| Feels | Emotional state related to the experience. | Frustrated by unclear error messages |
| Pains | Obstacles, frustrations, or risks. | Unreliable connectivity, ambiguous system feedback |
| Gains | What the user wants to achieve or improve. | Fast resolution, confidence in diagnosis |
Explicit descriptions of what the system must do. Derived from use cases and scenarios — not invented in isolation.
| Attribute | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| ID | Unique identifier for traceability. | FR-012 |
| Description | What the system must do. | The system shall display real-time sensor error codes |
| Priority | Importance relative to other requirements. | Must-have / Should-have / Nice-to-have |
| Source | The scenario, use case, or stakeholder that generated this requirement. | Use Case: Retrieve Diagnostic Error Codes |
| Acceptance Criteria | Conditions that confirm the requirement is met. | Error codes load within 2 seconds; offline mode shows cached data |
| Dependencies | Other requirements or systems this depends on. | FR-008 (sensor connectivity), IoT platform |
Defines the structure, organization, and navigation of content within a system. The blueprint for how users find and access information.
| Attribute | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Section/Page | The named area or screen in the system. | Equipment Dashboard |
| Parent | The section this item belongs to in the hierarchy. | Home |
| Content Type | The kind of content or functionality at this node. | List view, detail view, form |
| Navigation Label | How the section is labeled in menus or breadcrumbs. | Diagnostics |
| Access/Permissions | Who can access this section. | Maintenance Technician, Manager |
| Related Scenarios | Contextual use scenarios that rely on this section. | Scenario #001: Diagnosing a motor fault |
Represent key actors in the system — their roles, motivations, and challenges. Keep design decisions grounded in real user needs rather than assumptions.
| Attribute | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Name | Persona's name. | Jane Doe |
| Role | Their role or position. | Maintenance Technician |
| Picture | Visual representation for relatability. | Photo or illustration |
| Focus | Key aspect of their interaction with the system. | Diagnosing and fixing equipment |
| Notes | Motivations, goals, and challenges. | Needs fast tools; dislikes ambiguity |
Tangible representations of design concepts used to validate ideas before development. Fidelity should match the question being tested — not the effort available.
| Attribute | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Name | Identifier for the prototype. | Diagnostic flow v2 |
| Fidelity | Level of detail and polish. | Low-fidelity (paper), High-fidelity (interactive) |
| Purpose | What question or hypothesis this prototype tests. | Can a technician locate error codes in under 30 seconds? |
| Key Interactions | The flows or interactions included in the prototype. | Login → Dashboard → Diagnostic view |
| Feedback Collected | Insights gathered from testing this prototype. | Users missed the filter controls — move to top bar |
| Next Step | What to iterate or validate next. | Retest with updated filter placement |
A minimal implementation to validate that a technical or design approach is feasible. Focuses on one critical risk or assumption — not on completeness or polish.
| Attribute | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Goal | The specific hypothesis or risk being validated. | Can we retrieve sensor data in under 500ms on a mobile network? |
| Scope | What is included — and explicitly excluded. | Single endpoint, no authentication, no UI polish |
| Success Criteria | What result confirms the concept works. | Response time under 500ms in 95% of tests |
| Method | Technology or approach used. | Direct REST call to IoT platform API |
| Outcome | What was learned or confirmed. | Feasible — average 320ms; caching needed for edge cases |
| Risks Identified | Open risks or unknowns that remain. | Performance degrades on 3G; needs offline fallback |
Extend journey maps by exposing the backstage processes, systems, and people that support the user-facing experience. Useful for identifying operational gaps and dependencies.
| Attribute | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Customer Action | What the user does at each stage. | Opens diagnostic tool to report fault |
| Frontstage Interaction | Visible touchpoints the user interacts with. | Mobile app, error code display |
| Backstage Process | Invisible processes that support the frontstage. | IoT data aggregation, log storage |
| Support Systems | Tools, platforms, or services that enable the process. | IoT platform, maintenance database |
| Physical Evidence | Tangible artifacts the user encounters. | Work order printout, equipment tag |
| Pain Points | Friction or failure points in the service. | Sensor data not syncing in real time |
Visual representations of how a system transitions between states or processes in response to inputs and decisions. Useful for understanding complex logic and edge cases.
| Attribute | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| State/Process | A node in the system — a status or activity. | Awaiting diagnosis |
| Trigger/Input | What causes a transition to this state. | Technician submits fault report |
| Actions | What happens within this state. | System queries IoT sensors for error codes |
| Decision Points | Branching logic within the flow. | Sensor data available? Yes → display; No → show cached |
| Output/Result | What the system produces or the next state reached. | Error codes displayed to technician |
| Actors | Users or systems involved in this part of the flow. | Technician, IoT platform, diagnostic tool |
Step-by-step sequences of actions a user performs to complete a specific task. More granular than journey maps — focused on a single goal within a specific UI context.
| Attribute | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Task Name | The specific goal the user is completing. | Submit equipment fault report |
| Persona | Who is performing this task. | Jane Doe, Maintenance Technician |
| Trigger | What initiates the task. | Equipment alert or technician observation |
| Steps | Sequential actions to complete the task. | 1. Open app → 2. Select equipment → 3. Log fault → 4. Submit |
| Decision Points | Points where the flow can branch. | Is the fault type known? Yes → select type; No → describe manually |
| End State | The successful outcome of the task. | Fault report submitted and assigned |
Detailed, technical descriptions of how a system behaves in response to user interactions. Define preconditions, steps, and expected outcomes — actionable for developers.
| Attribute | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Use Case Name | The specific user interaction or task. | Retrieve Diagnostic Error Codes |
| Objective | The purpose or goal of the interaction. | Access sensor data to identify equipment errors |
| Preconditions | What must be true or available before the use case can occur. | Equipment must be powered on, and sensors must be functional |
| Steps | The sequence of actions required to complete the task. | 1. Open diagnostic tool → 2. Query sensor logs |
| Outcome | The expected result or deliverable of the use case. | Error codes retrieved and displayed to the technician |
| Pain Points | Potential challenges in executing the use case. | Network latency or missing sensor data |
| Opportunities | Improvements to streamline or enhance the task. | Real-time fault aggregation, prioritization of critical errors. |
| Dependencies | Tools, systems, or data required for the task. | IoT platform, diagnostic tool, centralized database |
A concise, user-focused description of a specific feature or functionality. Bridges the gap between high-level scenarios and technical use cases.
| Attribute | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Role | The type of user or stakeholder. | Maintenance Technician |
| Action/Need | What the user wants to do. | Access real-time error codes from equipment sensors |
| Purpose/Benefit | Why the user wants to perform this action. | Quickly diagnose and resolve malfunctions |
| Full User Story | A complete statement of the story in standard format. | "As a maintenance technician, I want to access real-time error codes so that I can quickly diagnose and resolve malfunctions." |
| Dependencies | Resources, systems, or conditions required for the story to work. | IoT-enabled equipment, diagnostic tool |
| Outcome | The result or success criteria for the story. | Sensor data retrieved, root cause identified, and repairs initiated |
A 2D visualization that organizes user stories across the product flow (horizontal axis) and priority or release (vertical axis). Helps teams see the full product scope and plan incremental delivery.
| Attribute | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Activity | High-level user activity or goal across the top of the map. | Diagnose equipment fault |
| Task | Steps users take to complete each activity. | Open diagnostic tool, query sensor logs |
| User Story | Individual story cards beneath each task. | "As a technician, I want to view error codes so I can identify the fault" |
| Release | Which release or sprint the story belongs to. | MVP, Release 1, Release 2 |
| Priority | Relative importance within the release. | Must-have, nice-to-have |
Maps what the product offers against what users actually need. Identifies fit between features and user jobs, pains, and gains.
| Attribute | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Customer Segment | The specific user group this canvas addresses. | Field maintenance technicians |
| Customer Jobs | What the user is trying to accomplish. | Diagnose and fix equipment faults quickly |
| Pains | Obstacles, frustrations, or risks the user faces. | Slow data retrieval, unclear error messages |
| Gains | Outcomes or benefits the user wants. | Fast resolution, confidence in diagnosis |
| Products/Services | What the solution offers. | Real-time diagnostic tool with offline mode |
| Pain Relievers | How the solution reduces user pains. | Cached data for offline use, prioritized error display |
| Gain Creators | How the solution creates user gains. | One-tap fault reporting, step-by-step repair guidance |
Low-fidelity layouts that define the structure and placement of UI elements without visual design. Focus on layout, hierarchy, and functionality — not aesthetics.
| Attribute | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Screen/View Name | The page or state being wireframed. | Equipment Diagnostic View |
| Key Elements | UI components present on this screen. | Error code list, filter controls, back navigation |
| Interactions | How the user interacts with elements on screen. | Tap error code to expand detail view |
| Annotations | Notes explaining decisions or behavior. | Filter defaults to most recent 24 hours |
| Related Scenario | The use case or scenario this wireframe supports. | Use Case: Retrieve Diagnostic Error Codes |
Visual representations of the final design. Low-fidelity focuses on layout and flow; high-fidelity includes visual design, typography, and interaction states.
| Attribute | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Name | Identifier for the mockup. | Diagnostic View – Error Detail |
| Fidelity Level | Level of visual and interaction detail. | High-fidelity, interactive |
| Purpose | What this mockup is validating or communicating. | Stakeholder sign-off on error detail layout |
| Design System Components | Reusable components used in the mockup. | Alert card, action button, data table |
| Interaction States | States shown in the mockup. | Default, loading, error, empty state |
| Feedback Status | Whether this version has been reviewed and approved. | Approved by stakeholders 2024-04-15 |
Steps can be followed in any order, though it makes sense to go from high abstraction level to lowest. Steps can also be omitted. Each of the activity provides value even if other activities cannot be executed for reason or another. The idea is to outline an activity space that would, if completed, provide solid foundation for succesful project.