Flight Test Requirements
Simplifying aircraft test requirements and authoring document generation that replaced multiple tools and streamlined the process
Challenge
Before a flight is cleared for takeoff, engineers must compile test requirements into a Work Request Document (WRD), a formal document that authorizes test execution and captures results. This process was spread across Excel, Word, and third-party tools with no single source of truth, leading to duplicated effort, version confusion, and delayed approvals.
Solution
We designed a unified web application that replaced the fragmented toolset with a single platform for WRD authoring, multi-stakeholder approval, and publication. Engineers could clone existing documents, track approval status in real time, and compare test conditions without leaving the application.
Research & Discovery
An onsite counterpart led a two-day user research activity with a limited set of engineers. I owned the wireframing and prototyping, translating research findings into design solutions. Based on the research outcome, we created personas to ground every design decision in real user needs and pain points.
Our user
The primary user is an aircraft flight engineer responsible for compiling test requirements into Work Request Documents (WRDs). They coordinate across multiple teams, manage approval chains, and need to ensure every document meets strict compliance standards before a flight test can proceed.
What we learned
Decoding the research, two insights emerged that shaped every design decision that followed.
WRD reuse over fresh creation
Most users told us they rarely start a WRD from scratch. They find a similar existing document, copy it, and modify it. Any solution that forced a blank-slate workflow would fight their established practice and add time to the process.
Approval tracking was the hidden bottleneck
Engineers spent significant time chasing approvals via email, losing track of where a WRD was in the review chain. The lack of status visibility was as painful as the authoring inefficiency itself.
I spend more time copying and reformatting old WRDs in Excel than I do on the actual test requirements. If I could just clone an existing document and update it, that would save me hours every week.
Before vs. After
- ✗ WRDs authored in Excel and Word separately
- ✗ Approval tracked via email chains and manual follow-ups
- ✗ No way to clone or reuse previous WRDs efficiently
- ✗ Test condition analysis done with separate comparison tools
- ✓ Single platform for WRD authoring, review, and approval
- ✓ Structured approval workflow with status visibility
- ✓ Clone and modify existing WRDs with one click
- ✓ Built-in similarity analysis for test condition comparison
Mapping workflows
A critical outcome from the research was visualizing the complete WRD lifecycle. We mapped every user role involved, the activities each performs, and the end-to-end flow from authoring through multi-stakeholder approval to publication. This alignment exercise ensured the entire team shared the same understanding of the process before any design work began.
Designing key screens
The persona and workflow diagram revealed two high-priority areas: WRD authoring (where engineers spend the most time) and approval management (where the most friction occurs). We focused our design effort on these two critical touchpoints.
Low fidelity wireframes were drafted through rough sketches and whiteboard sessions, then presented to engineers to validate our direction. After alignment, we developed high fidelity clickable prototypes in Axure RP. These prototypes were walked through with engineers to demonstrate real interaction scenarios and gather feedback, which directly shaped the final design decisions.
Key design decisions
- Clone-first authoring. The default entry point lets engineers search and clone an existing WRD rather than starting blank, matching their established workflow.
- Inline approval management. Approvers are added and sequenced directly within the WRD view, replacing the disconnected email-based process.
- Status at every level. Each section of the WRD shows its current approval state, so engineers can immediately see what's blocking publication.
WRD authoring tool
The core interface for creating and editing Work Request Documents. Consolidating what was previously done across Excel, Word, and third-party tools into a single unified view with inline status tracking.
Approval workflow
A dedicated approver management panel that streamlines the multi-stakeholder review process. Engineers can add approvers, assign roles, set signature sequences, and track status without leaving the application.
Similarity Analysis tool
Once a WRD is being authored, engineers need to decide which test conditions to include. Previously, this analysis was done using separate comparison tools outside the main workflow. We brought this capability directly into the application. The Similarity Analysis tool lets engineers compare test conditions by their attributes, values, and associations, then add the relevant conditions to the WRD without switching context.
The primary comparison interface where engineers select and review test conditions side by side, with color-coded status indicators for quick assessment.
Detailed drill-down view for analyzing specific test condition parameters, enabling engineers to inspect attribute-level similarities.
Results grouping view that organizes comparison outcomes, helping engineers quickly identify which conditions can be reused or need modification.
The final analysis summary with match scores across all compared conditions. This is the basis for deciding which test conditions to include in the WRD.
Results & Impact
A survey conducted before and after the implementation showed significant improvements in both efficiency and accuracy of the WRD creation process.
Reduction in WRD creation time
Reduction in WRD rejections
Other notable improvements
- Unified tool eliminated context switching. Replacing Excel, Word, and third-party apps with a single web application reduced the cognitive overhead of managing WRDs across multiple tools.
- WRD reuse was critical. The ability to clone and modify existing WRDs matched the users' most common workflow pattern, saving significant authoring time.
- Visual workflow mapping improved clarity. Engineers could now see exactly where a WRD was in the approval process, reducing follow-up emails and status check meetings.
- Similarity analysis streamlined test condition management. The comparison tool enabled faster, more accurate decisions about which test conditions to include in each WRD.
Reflection & Learnings
Simplifying a complex workflow doesn't mean hiding complexity. Aerospace requirements management taught me how to design for high-stakes, compliance-driven environments where every interaction carries real consequences. The biggest lesson was that simplification means making the right information visible at the right moment so domain experts can stay focused on their judgment calls, not on wrestling with tools.
User research with a limited pool can still be decisive. We only had access to a small group of engineers for a two-day research session, but the insights were sharp enough to drive every major design decision. The clone-first authoring model and the inline approval workflow both came directly from those conversations. Small sample, high signal.