Write-as-you-go reporting for school psychologists
Role:
Solo Product Designer
Team:
PMs, engineers,
Duration:
5 months
WHAT’S MARKER?
Special education reporting made faster, clearer, and more compliant
Marker helps school psychologists and special education teams manage evaluations and write high-quality psychoeducational reports — without sacrificing accuracy or professional judgment.
What Marker enables:
Automated drafting from referral and assessment documents
Centralized caseload and document management
Built-in compliance checks and validation
Evidence-based citations for transparency and review
Proof points:
Up to 6× faster evaluation workflows
Manual, 40-hour processes significantly reduced
FERPA & NIST CSF compliant
Used by school psychologists and diagnosticians
PROBLEM
The MVP didn’t reflect real psychologist workflows
The initial MVP assumed psychologists would upload all documents upfront before starting a report. In reality, their work unfolds gradually.
RESEARCH APPROACH
Understanding how psychologists actually work
To understand why report creation felt slow and fragmented, I conducted:
We mapped real workflows to uncover friction points and mental models.
This research revealed a clear mismatch between the MVP’s assumptions and real-world workflows.
KEY INSIGHTS
Psychologists want to write as they go
Through interviews and workflow mapping, three consistent patterns emerged:
These insights pointed toward a flexible, state-driven workflow that could adapt as cases evolved
DESIGN PROCESS
Designing around non-linear, real-world workflows
Using research insights as a foundation, I explored ways to let psychologists begin drafting immediately and build reports incrementally as new documents arrived.
Key areas of focus included:
Balancing automation with user control
Ensuring AI support enhanced speed without sacrificing trust or visibility in sensitive cases.
Aligning across squads
Coordinating the Student Page and Report Regeneration flows so progress, data, and system states stayed in sync.
CONCEPT TESTING
Finding the balance between automation and control
We explored two approaches for creating student accounts — testing the balance between efficiency and control.
✅ Result: Hybrid flow
Minimal manual entry (name, DOB, grade) with optional auto-fill from uploaded documents.
Psychologists appreciated automation but preferred to retain control for sensitive data.
Rather than forcing psychologists into a single “right” starting point, we learned the system needed to adapt to different stages of a case — supporting both early momentum and ongoing control.
Arriving at this hybrid approach required alignment across product, design, and engineering — especially around where automation should live in the workflow.
SOLUTION
A flexible, state-driven Student Page that adapts to case progress
Inspired by psychologists’ real-world workflows
The Student Page serves as a central hub where psychologists can begin drafting immediately and build reports incrementally as documents arrive — without forcing a rigid, all-or-nothing flow.
Instead of optimizing for speed alone, the design intentionally balances:
Early momentum (start writing without waiting for all documents)
Ongoing organization (add files and information over time)
Clear progress visibility (understand what’s complete and what’s pending)
This approach restores control and trust in sensitive cases, while still enabling automation where it adds value.
FINAL DESIGN
The Student Page as a central workflow hub
Designed for psychologists’ real workflow — start, organize, and finish reports all in one place.
Prototype
BEFORE → AFTER
From fragmented tools to a unified workflow
From fragmented tools to one flexible Student Page.
Before:
Reports required all documents upfront
New documents forced deletion and restart
Writing happened late, under deadline pressure
After:
Psychologists start drafting immediately
Documents added incrementally over time
Progress continues without losing work
From fragmented tools to one flexible Student Page
The new workflow adapts to real case progress instead of enforcing a rigid sequence.
IMPACT / RESULTS
Strong adoption validated flexible workflow approach
User Impact:
Immediate report drafting without document wait
Reduced IEP deadline stress
Workflow matched real psychologist process
Business Impact:
Validated PMF signals through sustained use
Strong NASP Conference engagement
Removed major workflow blocker
Informed roadmap for customization
Key Metrics:
WAU ↑ +15% (35% → 50%)
Sustained engagement post-Beta
High user satisfaction ratings
Metrics based on Alpha to Beta launch comparison and post-launch analysis.
REFLECTION
Reflection & Learning
What I learned:
Workflow fit is a stronger adoption driver than feature breadth.
Even powerful capabilities fail if they require users to change how they already work.Flexibility builds trust in high-stakes, regulated workflows.
Allowing incremental progress reduced anxiety around IEP deadlines and compliance.Early momentum matters.
Letting users start writing immediately increased confidence and ongoing engagement.
What I’d do differently:
Validate cross-squad dependencies earlier.
The workflow change required coordination across Student Page and Report Generation — earlier alignment would have reduced iteration cycles.Instrument report lifecycle metrics sooner.
I’d track time-to-first-draft and document rework rates earlier to quantify impact beyond WAU.Test flexibility boundaries earlier.
Future iterations could better define when automation should step in versus defer to user control.
This project reinforced that achieving product–market fit requires depth before breadth, fitting into existing workflows before expanding capabilities.
