Redesigning Vancouver’s Carbon Reporting Platform to Cut Support Tickets by 46%
City of Vancouver · Nov 2023 - Feb 2024
A usability-focused redesign of BPRS that helped users complete reports without external help.
Overview
New regulation introduced to building owners: Energize Vancouver. A part of the city's sustainability regulations to reduce the carbon pollution.
Timeline
Nov 2023 - Feb 2024
(4 months)
Team
Business analyst,
Content strategist,
Third-party
develplers
Role
Lead UX Strategist ·
Researcher
Deliverable
UX Consulting · User
research report
Target users
Building owners ·
Energy consultants
quote-left
Background
The city has rolled out new regulations for building owners aimed at enhancing a healthier, cleaner city for all of us to enjoy by cutting down on carbon pollution
quote-left
Background
6 steps are involved in the
circle-exclamation
Problems
A high support ticket volume revealed something was off:
Confusion in the City report platform, BPRS
The City received 160 support tickets from ~212 building owners, with 92% related to Vancouver’s BPRS.
Users struggled to complete reports despite detailed guidelines.
bullseye
Goals
Make the city report platform more intuitive and user-friendly to cut support costs and achieve 90% compliance by the deadline
circle
Outcomes
What impact did we make through?
of completion in the carbon emission report
94 %
Comparing to the first month
46 %
The first in-house user interview done, set a new benchmark for user-centered design.
1st
tools
Design process
Behind the scenes of the redesign
The trigger
What made us pause and look closer: a flood of support tickets
The approach
Heuristic evaluation and contextual interviews
The insights
What we discovered from real users
The design solution
How we turned research into real improvements
Confusion in the product predicts the bigger budget impact in the future
Resolving support tickets costs the City per ticket
We anticipate the increase of volume of supporting ticket will cost the City per 1 support ticket resolved by outsourcing vendor.
~ 212
~ 1,527
x 7.6 times
Investigated what was not supporting users to submit their reports
In order to do that..
- Conducted a heuristic evaluation to identify potential pain points and assumptions.
- Ran contextual interviews with 5 external users who had experience using the platform to validated the assumptions.
Expert
ESRG Program
coordinator
Expert
Building energy system initiative
Expert
Director of energy and commissioning
Novice
Energy analyst
Novice
Administrative
support
Uncovered a mismatch between the assumptions and how users actually interact with our product
Flase assumption #1
User group: Building owners would complete the reporting process themselves. 1:1 one building owner to one building.
Guidance: Written instructions and support materials would be sufficient for users to navigate the process independently.
Expertise level: Technical terms and regulatory language were clear enough for all user types.
lightbulb
The insights
Third-party consultants — the user groups we didn’t see — lacked direct access to building data, making it hard to complete reports.
Building owners delegate the task to third-party consultants. These consultants manage multiple properties and are the true primary users of the platform. They don’t have same levels of data access and familiarities to building owners.
lightbulb
The insights
4out of 5 participants verbally expressed the amount of information is a lot to take in
Users still lacked clear direction at critical moments in the process with all the written instructions.
On the top of that, users defaulted to calling or submitting tickets because the written materials didn’t match the decisions they needed to make in real time.
lightbulb
The insights
Technical jargon confused novice and experts predicted it will be challeging
Novice users were overwhelmed by technical jargon (e.g., “district energy”, “shared meter”) and unsure of what certain inputs meant. Meanwhile, expert users believed that the reporting process
could be challenging for non-experts, such as property managers.
circle
The solution
Users want a report system that:
Reduces manual works
Reduce reliance on manual data gathering by surfacing key building data through system integration with the federal gov product.
Offers a clear affordance
a clear direction on actions, and simplify the step flow to support user progression without referencing external materials.
Supports various experty levles
Reduce reliance on manual data gathering by surfacing key building data through system integration with the federal gov product.
Reducing the manual checking burden on users
Problems
- Essential data is not displayed clearly. Information is dispersed throughout the parent interfaces, making it difficult for users to find what they need.
Solutions
- Essential data is displayed and groupded based on the importance and information is grouped
Reduced unneessarily work by using conditional logic from integrated data
Previous flow
The System showed the same steps for all users, even if unnecessary for some
Problems:
- Some steps were unnecessarily for some not qualified, this led time-consuming and confusion.
- The final placement of ESPM connection check, which is mandatory to submit the report, causes content oversight.
Current flow
Reordering the stpes Users face only necessary steps for their situation
Solutions:
- The system can utilize the integrated data by checking the ESPM connection at the first step.
Replacing generic definitions with relevant user data, shifting users’s task from interpretation complex rules to simple verification
Problems
- Extensive and generic definitions
Solutions
- Display the user's actual data for easy verification, the focus shifts from interpreting complex rules and definitions to simply verifying the accuracy of the data automatically presented to them.
Replacing generic definitions with relevant user data, shifting users’s task from interpretation complex rules to simple verification
Problems
- The step2 and 3 were unnecessarily for some not qualified, this led time-consuming and confusion.
- The final placement of ESPM connection check, which is mandatory to submit the report, causes content oversight.
Solutions
Replacing generic definitions with relevant user data, shifting users’s task from interpretation complex rules to simple verification
Previous flow
Extensive forms challenged users to complete the task
Quotes from users:
“Reading this is a lot to take in at once. ”
“Ok, this is a lot to read. ”
“I’m a bit hung up about what these exceptions mean and if it affects if I need to file this year.”
“This is really challenging.”
The condition
Broke extensive forms down into conditional small steps
The current flow
Break down long forms into multi-step flows and group related fields to avoid overwhelming users.
Solutions:
- Presenting information in smaller chunks allows users to focus on one piece at a time. This avoids wasting time on irrelevant steps, resulting in a faster, streamlined process.
circle
Outcomes
What impact did we make through?
of completion in the carbon emission report
94 %
Comparing to the first month
46 %
The first in-house user interview done, set a new benchmark for user-centered design.
1st
Reflection
The interface is the first touchpoint with your customer, and it matters more than you think
In an age where AI and automation dominate conversations, it’s easy to overlook the power of something as fundamental as the interface.
But here's the truth: the interface is your handshake with the user.
It's the first impression,
the first decision point,
the first moment someone decides,
"Do I trust this? Do I understand this? Can I do what I came here to do?"
This project demonstrates that users got overwhelmed — not because the regulation was too complex, but because the interface failed to support real human behavior.
By rethinking the interface — making it more intuitive, more self-explanatory — we didn’t just improve usability. We cut support costs, increased completion rates, and restored user trust.
Bring me back to top
Redesigning Vancouver’s Carbon Reporting Platform to Cut Support Tickets by 46%
City of Vancouver · Nov 2023 - Feb 2024
A usability-focused redesign of BPRS that helped users complete reports without external help.
Overview
New regulation introduced to building owners: Energize Vancouver. A part of the city's sustainability regulations to reduce the carbon pollution.
Timeline
Nov 2023 - Feb 2024 (4 months)
Team
Business analyst, Content strategist, Third-party develplers
Role
Lead UX Strategist · Researcher
Deliverable
UX Consulting · User research report
Target users
Building owners · Energy consultants
quote-left
Background
The city has rolled out new regulations for building owners aimed at enhancing a healthier, cleaner city for all of us to enjoy by cutting down on carbon pollution
quote-left
Background
6 steps are involved in the
circle-exclamation
Problems
A high support ticket volume revealed something was off: Confusion in the City report platform, BPRS
The City received 160 support tickets from ~212 building owners, with 92% related to Vancouver’s BPRS.
Users struggled to complete reports despite detailed guidelines.
bullseye
Goals
Make the city report platform more intuitive and user-friendly to cut support costs and achieve 90% compliance by the deadline
circle
Outcomes
What impact did we make through?
of completion in the carbon emission report
Compliance rate
94 %
Comparing to the first month
Support tickets
reduced by
46 %
The first in-house user interview done, set a new benchmark for user-centered design.
1st
In-house research
tools
Design process
Behind the scenes of the redesign
fire
The trigger
What made us pause and look closer?
vial
The approach
How did we investigate to find the causes?
lightbulb
The insights
What did we discover from our research?
spa
The solution
How did we turn research into real improvements?
Take me to the solution
Confusion in the product predicts the bigger budget impact in the future
Resolving support tickets costs the City per ticket
We anticipate the increase of volume of supporting ticket will cost the City per 1 support ticket resolved by outsourcing vendor.
~ 212
~ 1,527
x 7.6 times
Investigated what was not supporting users to submit their reports
In order to do that..
- Conducted a heuristic evaluation to identify potential pain points and assumptions.
- Ran contextual interviews with 5 external users who had experience using the platform to validated the assumptions.
In order to do that..
- Conducted a heuristic evaluation to identify potential pain points and assumptions.
- Ran contextual interviews with 5 external users who had experience using the platform to validated the assumptions.
Expert
ESRG Program
coordinator
Expert
Building energy system initiative
Expert
Director of energy and commissioning
Novice
Energy analyst
Novice
Administrative
support
Uncovered a mismatch between the assumptions and how users actually interact with our product
False assumption
User group: Building owners would complete the reporting process themselves. 1:1 one building owner to one building.
Guidance: Written instructions and support materials would be sufficient for users to navigate the process independently.
Expertise level: Technical terms and regulatory language were clear enough for all user types.
lightbulb
The insights
Third-party consultants — the user groups we didn’t see — lacked direct access to building data, making it hard to complete reports.
Building owners delegate the task to third-party consultants. These consultants manage multiple properties and are the true primary users of the platform. They don’t have same levels of data access and familiarities to building owners.
lightbulb
The insights
4out of 5 participants verbally expressed the amount of information is a lot to take in
Users still lacked clear direction at critical moments in the process with all the written instructions.
On the top of that, users defaulted to calling or submitting tickets because the written materials didn’t match the decisions they needed to make in real time.
lightbulb
The insights
Technical jargon confused novice and experts predicted it will be challeging
Novice users were overwhelmed by technical jargon (e.g., “district energy”, “shared meter”) and unsure of what certain inputs meant. Meanwhile, expert users believed that the reporting process
could be challenging for non-experts, such as property managers.
circle
The solution
Users want a report system that:
Reduces manual works
Reduce reliance on manual data gathering by surfacing key building data through system integration with the federal gov product.
Offers a clear affordance
a clear direction on actions, and simplify the step flow to support user progression without referencing external materials.
Supports various experty levles
Reduce reliance on manual data gathering by surfacing key building data through system integration with the federal gov product.
Reducing the manual checking burden on users
Problems
- Essential data is not displayed clearly. Information is dispersed throughout the parent interfaces, making it difficult for users to find what they need.
Solutions
- Essential data is displayed and groupded based on the importance and information is grouped
Cutting unnecessary work with conditional logic from data
Previous flow
The System showed the same steps for all users, even if unnecessary for some
Problems:
- Some steps were unnecessarily for some not qualified, this led time-consuming and confusion.
- The final placement of ESPM connection check, which is mandatory to submit the report, causes content oversight.
Current flow
Reordering the stpes Users face only necessary steps for their situation
Solutions:
- Only qualified users will see the step 2and 3 based on the ESPM integrated data that is a previous step.
- The system can utilize the integrated data by checking the ESPM connection at the first step.
Shifting from interpretation to verification
Problems
- Extensive and generic definitions
Solutions
- Display the user's actual data for easy verification, the focus shifts from interpreting complex rules and definitions to simply verifying the accuracy of the data automatically presented to them.
Reducing completion time by reorganizing forms into a linear flow
Previous flow
Extensive forms challenged users to complete the task
Quotes from users:
“Reading this is a lot to take in at once. ”
“Ok, this is a lot to read. ”
“I’m a bit hung up about what these exceptions mean and if it affects if I need to file this year.”
“This is really challenging.”
The current flow
Break down long forms into multi-step flows and group related fields to avoid overwhelming users.
Solutions:
- Presenting information in smaller chunks allows users to focus on one piece at a time. This avoids wasting time on irrelevant steps, resulting in a faster, streamlined process.
Applying clear visual hierarchy and cues
Problems
- The step2 and 3 were unnecessarily for some not qualified, this led time-consuming and confusion.
- The final placement of ESPM connection check, which is mandatory to submit the report, causes content oversight.
- The screen is filled with instructional text and multiple paragraphs. It's unclear what actions users should take. The “Claim Buildings” tab is easily missed, which is the first action needed.
Solutions
circle
Outcomes
What impact did we make through?
of completion in the carbon emission report
Compliance rate
94 %
Comparing to the first month
Support tickets
reduced by
46 %
The first in-house user interview done, set a new benchmark for user-centered design.
1st
In-house research
Reflection
The interface is the first touchpoint with your customer, and it matters more than you think
In an age where AI and automation dominate conversations, it’s easy to overlook the power of something as fundamental as the interface.
But here's the truth: the interface is your handshake with the user.
It's the first impression,
the first decision point,
the first moment someone decides,
"Do I trust this? Do I understand this? Can I do what I came here to do?"
This project demonstrates that users got overwhelmed — not because the regulation was too complex, but because the interface failed to support real human behavior.
By rethinking the interface — making it more intuitive, more self-explanatory — we didn’t just improve usability. We cut support costs, increased completion rates, and restored user trust.
Bring me back to top
Redesigning Vancouver’s Carbon Reporting Platform to Cut Support Tickets by 46%
City of Vancouver · Nov 2023 - Feb 2024
A usability-focused redesign of BPRS that helped users complete reports without external help.
Overview
New regulation introduced to building owners: Energize Vancouver, a part of the city's sustainability regulations to reduce the carbon pollution.
Timeline
Nov 2023 - Feb 2024 (4 months)
Team
Business analyst, Content strategist, Third-party developers
Role
Lead UX Strategist · Researcher
Deliverable
UX Consulting · User research report
Target users
Building owners · Energy consultants
quote-left
Background
The city has rolled out new regulations for building owners aimed at enhancing a healthier, cleaner city for all of us to enjoy by cutting down on carbon pollution
quote-left
Background
6 steps are involved in the new regulation of carbon emission report
circle-exclamation
Problems
A high support ticket volume revealed something was off:
Confusion in the City report platform, BPRS
The City received 160 support tickets from ~212 building owners, with 92% related to Vancouver’s BPRS.
Users struggled to complete reports despite detailed guidelines.
bullseye
Goals
chart-pie
Outcomes
What impact did we make through?
of completion in the carbon emission report
Compliance rate
94 %
Comparing to the first month
Support tickets
reduced by
46 %
The first in-house user interview done, set a new benchmark for
user-centred design
1st
In-house research
tools
Design process
Behind the scenes of the redesign
fire
The trigger
What made us pause and look closer?
vial
The approach
How did we investigate to find the causes?
lightbulb
The insights
What did we discover from our research?
spa
The solution
How did we turn research into real improvements?
Take me to the solution
Confusion in the product predicts the bigger budget impact in the future
Resolving support tickets costs the City per ticket
We anticipate the increase of volume of supporting ticket will cost the City per 1 support ticket resolved by outsourcing vendor.
~ 212
~ 1,527
x 7.6 times
Investigated what was not supporting users to submit their reports
In order to do that..
- Conducted a heuristic evaluation to identify potential pain points and assumptions.
- Ran contextual interviews with 5 external users who had experience using the platform to validated the assumptions.
Expert
ESRG Program
coordinator
Expert
Building energy system initiative
Expert
Director of energy and commissioning
Novice
Energy analyst
Novice
Administrative
support
Uncovered a mismatch between the assumptions and how users actually interact with our product
False assumptions
User group: Building owners would complete the reporting process themselves. 1:1 one building owner to one building.
Guidance: Written instructions and support materials would be sufficient for users to navigate the process independently.
Expertise level: Technical terms and regulatory language were clear enough for all user types.
lightbulb
The insights
5 out of 5 participants expressed challenges in gathering this information as third-party consultants
Building owners delegate the task to third-party consultants. These consultants manage multiple properties and are the true primary users of the platform. They don’t have same levels of data access and familiarities to building owners.
lightbulb
The insights
4 out of 5 participants verbally expressed the amount of information is a lot to take in
Users still lacked clear direction at critical moments in the process with all the written instructions.
On the top of that, users defaulted to calling or submitting tickets because the written materials didn’t match the decisions they needed to make in real time.
lightbulb
The insights
Technical jargon confused novice, and experts confirmed that it’s challenging for novice
Novice users were overwhelmed by technical jargon (e.g., “district energy”, “shared meter”) and unsure of what certain inputs meant. Meanwhile, expert users believed that the reporting process
could be challenging for non-experts, such as property managers.
spa
The solution
Users want a report system that:
Reduces manual works
Reduce reliance on manual data gathering by surfacing key building data through system integration with the federal gov product.
Offers a clear affordance
a clear direction on actions, and simplify the step flow to support user progression without referencing external materials.
Supports various expertise levels
Reduce reliance on manual data gathering by surfacing key building data through system integration with the federal gov product.
Applying clear visual hierarchy and cues
Problems
- This screen area is for static instructions, not primary components. The main goal "Submission" isn't visually prioritized and looks like secondary actions such as "Extensions" or "Revision."
Solutions
- The screen now offers only one core task, supported by relevant resources placed below, not above, the main action. This reduces cognitive fatigue.
- It’s much cleaner, with what task to start with (“Claim buildings”) immediately visible and centred.
Reducing the manual checking burden on users
Problems
- Essential data is not displayed and information is dispersed throughout the parent interfaces, making it difficult for users to find what they need.
Solutions
- Automatically retrieve and display building-related data (e.g., Gross Floor Area, use type, building ID) reducing the manual checking burden on users.
Cutting unnecessary work with conditional logic from data
Previous flow
The System showed the same steps for all users, even if unnecessary for some
Problems:
- Some steps were unnecessarily for some not qualified, this led time-consuming and confusion.
- The final placement of ESPM connection check, which is mandatory to submit the report, causes content oversight.
Current flow
Reordering steps for users to face only necessary actions
Solutions:
- Only qualified users will see the step 2and 3 based on the ESPM integrated data that is a previous step.
- The system can utilize the integrated data by checking the ESPM connection at the first step.
- Rewrote the step titles more understandable
Shifting from interpretation to verification
Problems
- The broad and vague definitions did not align with the users' primary task of verifying data in the Federal government.
Solutions
- Display the user's actual data for easy verification, the focus shifts from interpreting complex rules and definitions to simply verifying the accuracy of the data automatically presented to them.
Reducing completion time by reorganizing forms into a linear flow
Previous flow
Extensive forms challenged users to complete the task
Quotes from users:
“Reading this is a lot to take in at once. ”
“Ok, this is a lot to read. ”
“I’m a bit hung up about what these exceptions mean and if it affects if I need to file this year.”
“This is really challenging.”
The condition
Three conditions that filter who actually need to answer these questions
The current flow
Break down long forms into multi-step flows and group related fields to avoid overwhelming users.
Solutions:
- Presenting information in smaller chunks allows users to focus on one piece at a time. This avoids wasting time on irrelevant steps, resulting in a faster, streamlined process.
chart-pie
Outcomes
What impact did we make through?
of completion in the carbon emission report
Compliance rate
94 %
Comparing to the first month
Support tickets
reduced by
46 %
The first in-house user interview done, set a new benchmark for
user-centred design
1st
In-house research
Reflection
The interface is the first touchpoint with your customer, and it matters more than you think
In an age where AI and automation dominate conversations, it’s easy to overlook the power of something as fundamental as the interface.
But here's the truth: the interface is your handshake with the user.
It's the first impression,
the first decision point,
the first moment someone decides,
"Do I trust this? Do I understand this? Can I do what I came here to do?"
This project demonstrates that users got overwhelmed — not because the regulation was too complex, but because the interface failed to support real human behavior.
By rethinking the interface — making it more intuitive, more self-explanatory — we didn’t just improve usability. We cut support costs, increased completion rates, and restored user trust.
Bring me back to top