INTERNAL TOOL
2024

/DECK BUILDER

An internal tool UI for self-serve sales-deck assembly. Component library, drag-and-drop layouts, and brand enforcement built into the system so non-designers couldn't break brand rules even if they tried.

CLIENT /
Gate Corporation USA
ROLE /
Design lead
TIMELINE /
8 weeks
TOOLS /
Figma · React (specs) · Notion
Sales-Deck Builder Internal Tool hero
[01] Overview

Project at
a glance.

Internal tool Design system Self-serve Brand enforcement

Gate's sales team needed deck updates weekly and every change went through design. The internal tool was meant to solve this without sacrificing brand consistency — a constrained design space where on-brand was the only path forward.

Active users
25+
Turnaround
5d → 2d
Design hours saved
~15/wk
02 THE PROBLEM

EVERY SALES DECK WENT THROUGH DESIGN.

Gate's sales team needed deck updates weekly. Every change came back to the design team, averaging a 5-day turnaround. Self-serve attempts in PowerPoint broke brand rules — wrong type, wrong colors, copy-pasted slides between unrelated decks.

[03] Research

How I got
to the answer.

A mix of methods, scaled to the size of the project. The goal: get to the underlying user need without overengineering the research phase.

METHOD 01

Sales interviews

Talked with 8 sales reps across regions to understand what they actually needed to change, vs. what they thought they needed.

METHOD 02

Design team retrospective

Walked through 30 days of deck requests with the design team to identify the 20% of changes that drove 80% of the volume.

METHOD 03

PowerPoint audit

Catalogued how reps were currently breaking brand rules — wrong type, copy-pasted slides, color mistakes.

METHOD 04

Pattern matching

Mapped the 12 most common deck assembly patterns to identify what to build as templates vs. what to leave as building blocks.

Key insights

What the research surfaced — distilled to the three things that drove every design decision after.

01
80% of deck changes were the same 5 things: client name, logo, stats, headline copy, and case study selection. Build for the 80%.
02
Sales reps don't want design freedom — they want predictable on-brand output. Constraints help, not hurt.
03
The tool had to feel faster than PowerPoint to win adoption. Speed beats power for an internal tool.
04 APPROACH

BRAND RULES BAKED INTO THE TOOL.

A drag-and-drop interface that only let users pick from pre-built, on-brand components. Type styles couldn't be overridden. Colors picked from a token system. Layouts followed a small set of templates. The tool made the right choices easy and the wrong choices impossible.

Approach visual
Supporting visual
[05] Design Process

Four phases,
one outcome.

The same process on every project, scaled to the size of the brief. Predictable enough to plan against, flexible enough to fit the work.

PHASE 01

Discover

Sales interviews, design team retro, PowerPoint audit.

PHASE 02

Define

Constraint model — only on-brand outputs possible.

PHASE 03

Design

12 deck templates, 40+ swappable components, 3 layout systems.

PHASE 04

Iterate

5 rounds of feedback with sales reps to refine the assembly flow.

Process detail
Process detail
06 OUTCOME

5-DAY TURNAROUNDS DROPPED TO UNDER 2.

25+ sales reps now self-serve deck updates without involving design. The design team got back ~15 hours a week previously spent on slide tweaks. Brand consistency across customer-facing decks measurably improved.

Final outcome
[07] Reflection

Internal tools taught me that constraint is a feature, not a limitation. The best internal tools make the right thing the easy thing — and the wrong thing impossible.

Sushmanth · 2024
← Previous UX project
GRK Real Estate Site
Next UX project →
Analytics Platform
[X] Get in Touch

Let's build something
worth shipping.