Summary
We carried out user research with Operations and Support colleagues to see what they made of the proposed designs for managing support tasks in the TRS console.
The research focused on comparing alternative approaches, understanding overall usability, and exploring how users expect to pick up, assign and complete tasks.
We also examined expectations around task progress, visibility of past actions and system activity, and how users communicate and coordinate work across related tasks.
We tested two prototypes (Option A and Option B) with support agents and managers. Both options were seen as improvements on current ways of working, with Option B generally preferred due to clearer task allocation, filtering, and visibility of progress.
Research context and method
We conducted 1:1 remote usability testing and interviews with:
- 2 support agents
- 2 managers/team leads
Participants were shown both options, with the order varied to avoid bias. Sessions explored how users expected to:
- pick up new tasks
- understand task status and progress
- assign or reassign work
- track completed and outstanding tasks
- understand ownership and responsibility
Pre-journey findings
Before viewing the prototypes, users described a working model where:
- tasks are often picked up as part of a rota or informal allocation
- visibility of who is working on what relies heavily on communication outside the system
- it can be difficult to track whether tasks have been completed, are outstanding, or have been forgotten
- there is limited visibility of workload or task throughput across a day or team
Users consistently described a lack of system-level visibility leading to potential duplication of work and uncertainty around task progress.
Option A: findings
Landing page
The landing page was generally familiar and behaved as users expected. Most users continued to prioritise searching for a record, with task-related content seen as secondary.
Users suggested that a clearer overview of outstanding and completed tasks could be useful, particularly to understand what still needed attention.
“Having completed a task, it’s great to see what’s to do and can be done... having a dashboard of what status they’re in."
Task list view
The task list was easy to understand and navigate. Users expected:
- clicking a name to open the task
- status to indicate whether work had started
The completed tasks tab was repeatedly highlighted as valuable, particularly for:
- tracking mistakes
- understanding what had already been actioned
“Completed tasks tab is definitely useful. One that really annoys me is currently once a task is completed, that’s it, (it’s) gone.”
Users expressed interest in additional filtering, including by owner and task type. Status labels were generally understood but prompted discussion around whether alternatives such as ‘On hold’ would be clearer.
“In my head 'On hold' is a status on Zendesk, 'New' means not assigned, 'Opened' means it’s either waiting to be responded to or agent attached to it or user responded so reopened, 'Pending' means we've gone back with an email”.
Task detail view
The task detail view was seen as clear and easy to use. Users did not expect opening a task to automatically assign it to them, noting that tasks are often opened simply to review information.
Users expected ‘Save and come back later’ to mark progress as ‘In progress’. Notes were consistently raised as a missing but important feature, particularly for tasks that are paused or awaiting a response.
“Notes would be really useful, maybe not as rigid, maybe something I can add and remove, like Trello”.
Assign task
Assigning tasks was well understood. Users did not expect to need an explicit ‘unassign’ option.
A difference in expectations emerged:
- managers questioned whether agents should be able to assign or reassign tasks
- agents felt this ability would save time and reduce unnecessary hand-offs
Both groups recognised that clearer ownership would reduce duplicated work.
“It can cause duplication if someone has had to contact somebody and you can’t leave a note or say ‘I’m working on this’… definitely (being able to) assign tasks can help mitigate that”.
Option A conclusions
Option A was seen as straightforward and usable, but limited in how well it supported:
- tracking progress over time
- communicating work between users
- managing paused or complex tasks
Users repeatedly described features in Option B as “nice to have” improvements on Option A.
“This is almost everything you’d need to have to get it up and running and anything else could be added at a later point”.
Option B: findings
Landing page
The addition of a Tasks and allocation entry point was seen as very useful. While some users still navigated via record management initially, the new entry point made sense once explored.
One user was initially unclear on the meaning of ‘View allocation summary’ but understood it after interacting with the page.
One user said that showing completed tasks on the landing page could also be helpful.
Allocation team leads view (team leads)
The allocation view was generally seen as clear and easy to navigate. Managers were comfortable with agents being able to see other agents’ workloads, noting similar patterns in other services.
The breakdown of tasks by type was particularly valued, as it reflected differences in task complexity and duration.
“I really do like the fact that it breaks down by task as some tasks take much longer. For example, change of name and birth are very quick”.
One manager expected to be able to directly view and assign tasks from this page.
“The first thing that strikes me is I click into it and I can’t see the tasks. It’s lacking what it needs to be an allocation page”.
A small number of users were confused when the page appeared to relate to a specific task because of how it was accessed from the landing page.
Task list view (filtered)
Users welcomed being taken directly to their own tasks by default. Filters and the completed tasks tab were again highlighted as particularly useful.
Users expected search to apply to the task list itself. Additional filters (such as by owner or status) were frequently requested.
Status labels prompted discussion. Several users felt “On hold” better reflected real-world practice than “Blocked”, which was associated with technical or policy issues outside their control.
“I guess ‘Blocked’ would indicate to me more of a tech issue... We don’t use the term ‘Blocked’ unless it's something that’s not in our control... In an ideal world there would be ‘Open’, ‘On hold’, ‘Complete’.”
Manage task
The Manage task page was understood once opened, but the label caused confusion, with users expecting it to open the task itself rather than administrative actions.
Users consistently expected to be able to:
- change status
- add notes
- link Zendesk tickets
- reassign tasks
Users expected to see:
- who made notes or changes
- a log of assignment and reassignment activity
Most users preferred these actions to be integrated into the task detail view rather than split across separate pages.
Task detail view (manager and agent)
The task detail view was generally clear and familiar. Notes were seen as especially valuable.
The agent view was perceived as overly restrictive. Most users wanted agents to be able to update status and add notes directly on the task.
Users expected:
- status changes to be available on the task
- notes to appear alongside a visible change history
- ownership changes to be traceable
“Changing my status is like going to the toilet and putting the lock on… I’d want change of status here.”
“I would expect notes to be further down, you’d only add a note if there’s a problem, so would want the notes last.”
Option B conclusions
Option B was generally preferred over Option A. Users felt it better supported:
- tracking progress on incomplete tasks
- understanding ownership and responsibility
- managing workload across a team
- reducing duplication and missed work
Features such as notes, completed tasks, filters, and direct access to assigned tasks were seen as particularly helpful.
Overall conclusions
Key findings from the research were:
- both prototype options were seen as improvements on current ways of working
- Option B was consistently preferred due to clearer visibility, progress tracking, and task management
- completed tasks, task assignment, and filtering were repeatedly highlighted as valuable across both agents and managers
- users expressed confidence in using the prototype and, in most cases, teaching others to use it
Next steps
Based on these findings, we identified opportunities to:
- refine status labels to better reflect user language
- clarify task management labelling and navigation
- explore merging task management actions into the task detail view
- expand filtering options
- review role-based permissions around task assignment
- consider how completed tasks and workload summaries are surfaced more consistently