Finding Patterns in Complexity

Finding Patterns in Complexity

NAV manages a large number of digital application forms that have been developed over many years. As new forms were introduced, differences in structure, terminology and interaction patterns gradually emerged. During this project, we analyzed existing application forms to identify recurring patterns and proposed a more consistent approach to designing application forms.

NAV manages a large number of digital application forms that have been developed over many years. As new forms were introduced, differences in structure, terminology and interaction patterns gradually emerged. During this project, we analyzed existing application forms to identify recurring patterns and proposed a more consistent approach to designing application forms.

Role

UX Designer

Team

4 Designers

Timeline

8 weeks

Methods

System Analysis

System Analysis

Information Architecture

Information Architecture

Pattern Analysis

Pattern Analysis

Framework Development

Framework Development

Goal

Goal

Our goal was to understand why similar application forms differed and identify opportunities for greater consistency in components, terminology and overall interaction design, while preserving the flexibility required by different services.

Our goal was to understand why similar application forms differed and identify opportunities for greater consistency in components, terminology and overall interaction design, while preserving the flexibility required by different services.

Contribution

Contribution

I led the analysis of existing application forms, identified recurring patterns, and developed a conceptual framework for discussing consistency across the ecosystem.

I led the analysis of existing application forms, identified recurring patterns, and developed a conceptual framework for discussing consistency across the ecosystem.

Research process

Research process

01 - Collecting materials

01 - Collecting materials

A broad selection of NAV application forms was collected and documented to create a shared foundation for comparing structure, content, terminology and interaction patterns across the ecosystem.

02 - Analyzising the forms

02 - Analyzising the forms

Each form was analysed individually to understand its structure, content, terminology and interaction patterns. Similar user tasks were compared across forms to identify recurring inconsistencies.

03 - Finding patterns

03 - Finding patterns

Findings from all forms were grouped to identify recurring patterns. This revealed where structures and interactions were consistent, where they differed, and which differences reflected genuine service needs.

04 - Opportunities

04 - Opportunities

The identified patterns formed the basis for design opportunities. The goal was to improve consistency across forms while preserving the flexibility required by different services

Key Findings

Key Findings

Our analysis revealed three recurring themes across the application forms. Some differences reflected genuine service needs, while others had developed without a shared structure or design approach.

Our analysis revealed three recurring themes across the application forms. Some differences reflected genuine service needs, while others had developed without a shared structure or design approach.

01 - Different Structures

Application A

Application A

About you

About you

Circumstances

Circumstances

Work and income

Work and income

Children

Children

Application B

Application B

Circumstances

Circumstances

About you

About you

Work

Work

Relations

Relations

Application C

Application C

Financial situation

Financial situation

Personal information

Personal information

Family

Family

Situation

Situation

Forms often contained similar information, but organised it under different labels and in different sequences. This made it harder for users to predict where to find information across applications.

Forms often contained similar information, but organised it under different labels and in different sequences. This made it harder for users to predict where to find information across applications.

02 — Similar information, different interactions

Forms sometimes asked for similar information through different interaction patterns. For example, one service required users to enter their current address, while another displayed their registered address for confirmation. The difference was meaningful because the services needed different information.

Registered legal address

  • Retrived from the National Registry

  • Must be correct in the National Registry

  • Cannot be changed directly in form

  • User confirms or updates the information

Current address

  • Where the user is currently staying

  • Used to route the application correctly

  • Can differ from registered address

03 — Necessary differences vs. inconsistent design

Not every difference was a problem. Some variations were required by the purpose of the service, while others appeared to result from forms being developed independently without a shared system. The challenge was therefore to distinguish necessary flexibility from avoidable inconsistency.

Necessary Differences

Different information needs

Different service requirements

Different interaction needed to complete the task

Avoidable inconsistencies

Different terminology for the same information

Different structures for similar tasks

Different interaction patterns without a clear functional reason

Reflection

Reflection

Looking back, the biggest insight wasn't that the forms were inconsistent. It was that they were fundamentally built from the same pieces. By shifting the focus from individual forms to shared building blocks, we were able to discuss consistency at a system level rather than treating each application as a separate problem.

Looking back, the biggest insight wasn't that the forms were inconsistent. It was that they were fundamentally built from the same pieces. By shifting the focus from individual forms to shared building blocks, we were able to discuss consistency at a system level rather than treating each application as a separate problem.

Individual forms

A broad selection of NAV application forms was collected and documented to create a shared foundation for comparing structure, content, terminology and interaction patterns across the ecosystem.

Shared building blocks

Each form was analysed individually to understand its structure, content, terminology and interaction patterns. Similar user tasks were compared across forms to identify recurring inconsistencies.

Flexible structure

Findings from all forms were grouped to identify recurring patterns. This revealed where structures and interactions were consistent, where they differed, and which differences reflected genuine service needs.

Consistent experience

The identified patterns formed the basis for design opportunities. The goal was to improve consistency across forms while preserving the flexibility required by different services

Previos Project

Next Project