Intake Process for Client Requests

Intake Process
for Client Requests

Intake Process for Client Requests

Company

Company

Cotiviti

Product Design

Product Design

Heather Cooper and Brylan Leviston

Responsibilities

Responsibilities

Research, Information Architecture, Persona Development, Design Strategy, Wireframing, Prototyping

Timeline

Timeline

4 Months

Context

Context

Context

Cotiviti handles a constant stream of client requests, ranging from small feature enhancements to large customizations. They arrive from different teams, at different moments in the client lifecycle, each using its own process, tools, and expectations. And while the teams handling these requests are deeply knowledgeable, the system around them wasn’t built to support the volume or the complexity.


By the time these requests reach Product, no one has a complete picture. Sales might track their conversations in one place, Implementation in another, and Client Engagement in a third. Statuses live in emails, timelines live in spreadsheets, and a lot of critical context lives only in people’s heads. The result is predictable: delays, rework, mismatched expectations, and a constant scramble to figure out where things really stand.

Discovery

Discovery

Discovery

We began with discovery sessions to map how client requests actually moved through the organization. Talking with teams across Sales, Implementations, and Client Engagement quickly revealed how fragmented the process had become and how much work was happening outside any system. The core challenges were immediately clear.

Core Challenges

Absence of Automation

Lack of

Visibility

Inability

to Track

Platform Limitations

Cluttered & Outdated UI

Error-Prone Workflows

Limited Visibility

Scattered

Comms

Delays

Poor Estimates

Problem Statement

Problem Statement

Problem Statement

Users across Sales, Implementations, Client Engagement, and Product need a single, standardized workflow for submitting and managing client requests so they can track progress, estimate accurately, communicate clearly with clients, and make informed business decisions

Users

Users

We focused on six different personas for this application, those involved across the entire client intake process, including Sales, Implementation, Product, Development, and Business. We learned about each of the user's needs and heard over and over about the lack of visibility and constant bottlenecks.

Information Architecture

Information Architecture

Information Architecture

Insights from user interviews helped us identify the key needs and priorities across teams. We translated these into a sitemap that clarified the structure of the tool and highlighted the most critical task flows, from request submission through approval. One of the biggest breakdowns in current state was a lack of accountability, and this issue was factored in throughout the solution.

Process Flow

Process Flow

Process
Flow

The current process was full of bottlenecks and blind spots, so we knew the new solution needed thoughtful automation. We worked to define how a request should move from submission to approval with a balanced mix of user tasks and automated support. The aim was simple. More consistency and fewer delays.

Low-fidelity

Low-fidelity

Low-fidelity wireframes allowed us to validate solutions with the team, still focusing on the full client intake flow through the system. A dashboard, serving as the landing screen, surfaced key metrics as well as prioritized tasks. Notifications were also included to ensure users knew what was needed of them and when. The My Tasks screen mirrored similar project management solutions and included search, filtering and sorting capabilities. Again, the goal was to help the user know exactly what tasks were required with associated SLAs. The primary screen of the application was the client business case details screen. All details, tasks, history, notes, documentation was to be included in this important screen.

High-fidelity

High-
fidelity

Moving into high fidelity allowed us to refine how users would understand progress and ownership. The business case details screen centered around a simple, readable timeline that showed exactly where a request stood. Hovering revealed more context, including task ownership and upcoming steps. As automation increased, we also designed an admin area that gave permissioned users the ability to manage teams, roles, and task configurations so the workflow could adapt as processes evolved.

Solution

Solution

We designed a single place for client requests to live and move. The new intake system replaces scattered tools with a clear workflow that supports submission, routing, review, and approval. Users can see where a request is in the process, who owns the next step, and what information is still needed. Automation removes repetitive work and reduces delays, while the interface keeps teams aligned and informed. The experience gives Cotiviti a predictable and transparent process that never existed before.

Product Design

Heather Cooper and Brylan Leviston

Responsibilities

Research, Information Architecture, Persona Development, Design Strategy, Wireframing, Prototyping

Timeline

4 Months