#E-Commerce
Reducing Return Processing Effort by 23% Through ERP Workflow Redesign
#MY ROLE
UI/UX Designer
#INDUSTRY
E-Commerce
#DURATION
3 weeks
#DATE
12th Oct 2025
ABOUT
A Returns Management System is an internal platform that manages the end-to-end process of product returns—from return initiation and validation to warehouse processing, inventory updates, and refund settlement.
Existing Roles
REQUIREMENT
Migrate from 2.0 to 3.0
Unify everything
Redesign for rebranding
Although the initial client requirement was straightforward, we went beyond the brief by conducting user research and stakeholder interviews, which uncovered deeper workflow issues and improvement opportunities.
PROBLEM
Let's first understand what the initial issues are other than the requirements
Through basic interview and workflow testing, we identified these issues:
RESEARCH DETAILS
To understand where the friction actually lived, I ran video interviews with all Roles (AR, CS, Warehouse). Then I synthesised the main issues as shown below:
Findings after User Interviews
What I Explored
Existing Return Workflows
Role-Based User Interviews
Current Return Lifecycle
Data & Validation Requirements
Cross-Team Collaboration
What I Found
Inconsistent workflows across return types.
Missing information caused repeated follow-ups.
Manual Excel tracking reduced visibility.
Inconsistent validations led to errors.
Unclear ownership delayed handoffs.
SOLUTION
Redesigned for consistent, clarity and reduced return initiation duration
The solution focused on standardizing existing workflows, eliminating manual dependencies, and improving collaboration between Customer Support, Warehouse, and Accounts teams—resulting in a more efficient and reliable returns process.
Areas to work on
Unify workflows across all return types
Standardize inputs and validations
Centralize status tracking & ownership
Improve cross-team collaboration
Scale framework for future return types
DESIGN
What was the rational behind the iteration?
Users had to search and import orders into 'Advanced search' before starting the return process.
Different Return process for each one
Each return type followed a different set of steps, making the process harder to follow.
Difference in shipping type
What went wrong?
Action controls lacked simplicity and hierarchy
With Discard, Save as Draft, and Create Return placed separately, making the intended task progression less obvious. Also Users had to enter the Create CS Return page and manually search for an order ID.
What was the rational behind the iteration?
What went wrong?
Notes Lacked Clear Action
Notes explained the issue but still had to follow back with the appropriate team for any specific reason of revalidation, making it harder to track the return's progress.
OUTCOMES
The redesigned workflow delivered measurable improvements in completion, accuracy, and processing speed.
By comparing the existing workflow with the redesigned experience, we validated that a more structured and standardized process led to higher task completion, fewer errors, and faster return handling.
Key Improvements
Standardized input requirements
Fewer manual steps
Faster validations
Improved Visibility into next actions
Fewer drop-offs
FUTURE SCOPE
What I'd do next
Next, I'd initiate an inbuilt AI agent that can send notifications and handle return conversations with customers. It would collect the required details and keep customers updated, so the CS team only needs to validate the case and give the final confirmation before moving it forward. I've made a basic screen for how this could look using Figma Make.
Made using Figma Make