Product · B2B SaaS 01 / 06

Redesigning the core workflow that cut churn by 40%

A quiet churn problem hiding in plain sight — and the discovery process that finally surfaced it.

−40%Churn rate
50K+Daily active users
−3 minPer session
6 wkFrom insight to ship

Our largest enterprise segment had started churning quietly. Not with support tickets or angry emails — just silence. Usage would drop off slowly over 60–90 days, and by the time the account reached renewal, the decision was already made.

The retention team flagged it. The CS team had theories. But nobody had a clear answer for why.

I was brought in as PM to lead the investigation and own the resulting workstream. I partnered with a senior designer, two engineers, and our data analyst. No existing spec. No assumed solution.

I started where I always start: with the data. Our analyst pulled session recordings and funnel drop-off data for the segment. The pattern was immediately visible — a specific 4-step workflow had a 34% abandonment rate on step 3. Nobody had flagged it because the completion rate still looked okay in aggregate.

"Users weren't confused. They were bored. The workflow made them repeat the same action four times."

We ran 12 JTBD-structured interviews with churned and at-risk customers. The insight that kept coming up: the workflow felt designed for an admin, not for the actual user doing the job. Every session required the same repetitive input regardless of context.

Key insight: The problem wasn't complexity — it was unnecessary repetition. Users had developed workarounds (copy-pasting from spreadsheets, keeping the tab open in another window) that added 3+ minutes per session and left them feeling like the product didn't respect their time.

Rather than redesigning the whole workflow, I scoped the intervention tightly: collapse steps 2–4 into a single context-aware step that pre-filled known values. This required a backend change (surfacing user context at the right moment) and a frontend change (conditional form logic).

01
Defined success metrics upfront. Primary: workflow completion rate. Secondary: time-on-task and 90-day retention for users who touched the feature.
02
Wrote a tight spec. One page. Problem statement, proposed solution, what we're not doing, and the rollout plan.
03
Ran an A/B test with 20% of affected users for three weeks before full rollout. Kept the old flow as the control.
04
Shipped progressively. New enterprise accounts first, then a phased rollout to existing accounts with a comms plan.
Figma design — Before & After

Figma prototype

In Figma: Share → Copy link → paste into src above.
Change embed_host=share&url= to your link.

Open in Figma ↗

Before: the original 4-step workflow. After: the redesigned single-step version with context pre-filled. Use Figma's prototype view to show the interaction.

−40%Churn rate

Measured at 90 days post-launch for affected accounts.

−3 minPer session

Average time-on-task dropped from 5.2 to 2.1 minutes.

94%Completion rate

Up from 66% on the previous workflow.

The change also had an unexpected secondary effect: support tickets related to this workflow dropped 58% in the following quarter. Users weren't confused — they'd just been frustrated.

The most important lesson here wasn't about the workflow — it was about where to look. Churn is often a trailing indicator. By the time it shows up in your metrics, the user has already made their decision. The signal was buried in session data, not in the renewal conversation.

This case reinforced my belief that discovery isn't a phase — it's a habit. The team that noticed this pattern earliest was the one that had been watching session recordings regularly, not waiting for a problem to be escalated.

← All work
Next case study
Building the $2M case for platform consolidation →