TRIAGE ROOM Case 01 / 03 Full study

Supply-chain collaboration · Toyota × o9

Triage
Room.

A shortage. Many people. One room.

When a part runs short, fixing it scatters across teams, spreadsheets, and calls. I designed the shared room where Toyota and its suppliers work through it together.

Workflow design

Supplier Collaboration / Triage Room
A Triage Room: the Pulse conversation in the centre, the room summary, report status, and affected supply on the right.

5 / 5Five questions, one place: 4 parts · SUP_Loc_1 · 2 OEM locations · both leads named · two owned reports · the pending decision and when it’s due.Prototype · sample data

Problem
A visible shortage.
A scattered response.
My role
Product DesignerJourney mapping, information architecture, wireframes, workflow, interaction & interface design, user validation
Worked with
Product, R&D, ToyotaBuyer-side and supplier-side workflows
Result
Launched with ToyotaLater extended and productized for the wider platform
Scroll to unpack

Scattered · 01 / The problem

The shortage was visible.
The way forward wasn’t.

A planner could see the supply gap. Who was fixing it, what had changed and which decision was still waiting lived somewhere else.

Four places.
Five questions.
No shared record.

Planning system

The numbers.

The gap by part, supplier site, plant, and week.

How big is the gap?

Email & calls

The explanation.

What is constraining the supplier, and what recovery looks like.

Why is it happening?

Spreadsheets

The impact.

Which plants and vehicles are exposed, and how soon.

What will it cost production?

People’s memory

The decisions.

Who agreed to what, on which call, and who acts next.

Who is doing what next?

The record, before the room · 0 of 5 in one placeEvery shortage raised the same five questions. Each answer lived somewhere else.
QuestionWhere the answer lived
01What’s short, and where?Planning systemThe gap by part, supplier site, plant and week.
02Who is on it?People’s memoryWho acts next, and who agreed on which call.
03What do we know?Email & callsSpreadsheetsThe supplier’s explanation in one place, the plant impact in another.
04What’s been decided?People’s memoryWho agreed to what, on which call.
05What happens next?People’s memoryWho is doing what next.

The room had to answer all five without a search.Sources: the four fragments above

Scattered · 02 / The people

Two companies, three roles.
Each held one piece.

The supplier knows why supply is short, the planner knows what that means for production, and someone has to decide. Before the room, each kept their piece in a different place.

Supplier side

Supplier team

AsksWhen can we recover supply?

Knows
The constraint and the recovery plan.
Before the room
Explained it again on every email and call.
In the room
Owns the run-out & supply gap report.

Buyer side · Toyota

OEM planner

AsksWhat does this mean for production?

Knows
Which plants and vehicles depend on the part.
Before the room
Saw the gap in the planning system and worked out the impact in a spreadsheet.
In the room
Opens the room from the shortage rows and owns the plant impact report.

Decides the response

Decision maker

AsksWhere do we need to step in?

Needs
The risk, the owner, and the next action.
Before the room
Relied on people’s memory of who agreed to what.
In the room
Reads the shared summary: owners, state, report status and the pending decision.

Every shortage also brings

Two companies, commercially separateTime pressureMany parts × many plantsDecisions that need an owner

Roles from the requirements and the documented ownership model. They aren’t research personas, so there are no quotes or counts. Dashed rows are off the record; solid rows are on it.

UX lensA shared mental model

The problem wasn’t a lack of information. Each team held a different piece of it. The design had to make those pieces understandable together, while respecting the different decisions each side is responsible for.

Shared · 03 / The evidence

A fifteen-row table named the pieces.
Five questions connected them.

I read the requirements as one person’s task. Every shortage raises the same five questions, so the room had to answer each one in a fixed place.

What I worked from

  1. 01
    A requirements tableFifteen rows. It named the pieces, but not how a person moves between them.
  2. 02
    Toyota reviewsEach direction was walked through with Toyota stakeholders.
  3. 03
    Platform & engineering reviewsWhat the product could build, reuse, and support.
  4. 04
    A user validation sessionA check that the connected journey made sense to its users.

What every shortage asked

Where the room answers it

  1. 01What’s short, and where?
  2. 02Who is on it?
Answered inThe summaryScope, both leads, state and report status, always in view
  1. 03What do we know?
Answered inThe reportsTwo structured assessments, one owned by each side
  1. 04What’s been decided?
  2. 05What happens next?
Answered inThe conversationUpdates, files, tasks, and decisions, on the record
Fig. 03 From a requirements table to five questions, and from the questions to three places in the room. The questions are my synthesis of the requirements, not a survey result.

What this evidence is

A requirements table, reviews with Toyota stakeholders on each direction, platform and engineering reviews, and a user validation session. My original design files show how the direction changed.

What it isn’t

A formal research study. There are no user quotes or counts here, and the five questions are my framing of the requirements, not a measurement.

Constraints

A shared room, inside real limits.

01One supplier per roomSuppliers are commercially separate. A shared shortage doesn’t make them one audience.Shaped → Boundary 01 · separate rooms
02Two owners, two reportsSuppliers explain supply; buyers assess production impact.Shaped → Decision 02 · owned reports
03Platform patterns firstReuse the existing conversation, form, and grid patterns before building new widgets.Shaped → The turn · Pulse at the centre
04Many parts × many plantsOne issue can span several part and plant combinations.Shaped → Entry points · one room, several intersections
05Start where people already workThe shortage is found in the planning workspace, so the room has to start there too.Shaped → Decision 01 · start from the rows

Shared · 04 / The approach

How might a visible shortage become
a coordinated response?

I translated the requirements into one journey of five moves. Each move adds to the same record instead of starting a new one.

  1. 01Detect

    The planner selects the shortage rows in the planning workspace.

    Adds the scope
  2. 02Bring people in

    The room opens with that scope and a lead from each side.

    Adds the owners
  3. 03Assess impact

    Each side completes its own report, and reads the other’s.

    Adds what each side knows
  4. 04Agree on action

    The decision goes on the record, in the conversation.

    Adds the decision and the next step
  5. 05Close the loop

    The room closes and stays a readable record.

    Keeps all five, read-only
Fig. 04 · The journey, by who actsDiagram · drawn from the requirements and original designs
  1. Detect
    OEM

    The planner selects the shortage rows in the planning workspace.

  2. Bring people in
    Before the room · off the record

    The planner reached the supplier by email and calls.

    Shared room

    The room opens with the scope and both leads.

  3. Assess impact
    Supplier owns

    Run-out & supply gap report

    OEM owns

    Plant impact report

    Both sides read both reports.

  4. Agree on action
    Shared room

    The decision goes on the record.

  5. Close the loop
    Shared room

    The room closes and stays a readable record.

How to read it

Each lane is who acts. The shortage enters from the OEM’s planning rows and stays in the shared lane until the room closes. Before the room, the same work ran between the two companies off the record.

Five principles, visible in each decision below

  1. 01Start where the shortage is found.The room opens from the selected rows, with the scope attached. Decision 01 ↓
  2. 02Everyone reads. Each side owns its part.Two reports, one owner each, both visible to both sides. Decision 02 ↓
  3. 03The story moves. The facts stay put.The conversation sits beside a steady summary. Decision 03 ↓
  4. 04Reuse what the platform already has.Pulse, forms, and grids come before new widgets. The turn ↓
  5. 05Every “not yet” comes with a way forward.A blocked action keeps the planner’s work. Boundaries ↓

The goal wasn’t another chat tool.It was one shared account of the shortage.

Shared · 05 / Entry points

The shortage is found in the plan.
So that’s where the room starts.

A planner spots the gap in the planning workspace and opens the room from those rows. Everyone else arrives through the room itself, with the scope and the owners already set.

  1. AOEM planner

    From the planning rows

    Selects the shortage rows in the forecast and commit workspace, then creates the room there.

  2. BBoth sides

    From the rooms dashboard

    Every room with its owners, rank, and state. A supplier sees only the rooms shared with it.

  3. CBoth sides

    Named as the room opens

    A lead and followers from each side. The supplier lead comes from that supplier’s own people.

This project

The Triage Room
Arrives with4 parts · SUP_Loc_1 · 2 OEM locationsOEM leadSupplier lead
Built from the platform’s own patternsPulseFormsGrids

When it closes

Watchlist

Part families stay watched

The buyer chooses whether monitoring ends. A family stays monitored while a related room is still open.

Fig. 05 Where the room sits: three ways in, one room, and one way out that keeps watching. The planning workspace and the Pulse, form, and grid patterns were already in the platform. The room is the new part.
PartValve assembly
×
Supplier locationSUP_Loc_1
×
OEM locationOEM_Loc_1
=
The room’s subjectOne supply intersection

A part number alone wasn’t enough: the same part can mean different things at different plants. A room holds one intersection or several. The room in the prototype holds four.

Sample data

Shared · 06 / The turn

First, I designed for tasks.
Then, for the conversation.

My first room looked organised: task counts, status cards, and a task grid. But a shortage doesn’t arrive as a tidy to-do list, so I moved the conversation to the centre and kept the structure beside it.

The room, as a plan

The room as a plan, in two arrangements. First direction: task counts and a task grid at the centre, posts, tasks and files as separate views switched from a toolbar, the two reports behind buttons in the header, and the summary on the right. Revised direction: the Pulse conversation at the centre with files and tasks inside the posts, the two reports as tabs above it, and the same summary on the right. Room · Open Summary 4 parts · 2 plants Supplier lead OEM lead REPORT STATUS AFFECTED SUPPLY 04 REPORT REPORT 03 POSTS TASKSFILES 02 TASK GRID 01 ROOM RUN-OUT & GAP PLANT IMPACT 03 PULSE Write an update for the room… FILE TASK DECISION NEEDED 02 01
Fig. 06 The summary never moved. The centre changed from a task grid to the conversation, files and tasks moved into the posts, and the reports became tabs of the room. The numbers match the notes under the screens below.

These are my designs, redrawn as low-fi in React with a neutral logo and sample names. Select a change to see where it moved. Click through all 15 screens

First directionShown to Toyota · redrawn low-fi
Revised directionShown to Toyota · redrawn low-fi
  1. Before

    Task counts and a task grid took the main workspace. Work was visible, but the explanation behind it had nowhere to grow.

    After

    The Pulse conversation became the workspace. Updates, files, and decisions build one shared account of the shortage.

  2. Before

    Posts, tasks, and attachments were separate views, switched from a toolbar.

    After

    Files, tags, and tasks travel inside each post, so evidence stays next to the discussion it supports.

  3. Before

    The two reports sat behind buttons in the header, one step removed from the room.

    After

    Reports became tabs of the room: one step away, never somewhere else.

  4. Kept

    The summary: status, the two leads, report completeness, and the affected parts.

    Kept, on purpose

    It stayed beside the conversation in both directions. It’s the stable reference while the thread moves.

Force / 01 · People

Tasks follow explanation.

A shortage starts as a question, not an assignment. People need room to explain before they can divide the work.

Force / 02 · Platform

Reuse before rebuild.

Pulse, forms, and grids already existed. Bespoke task widgets meant more to build, integrate, and support.

The decision

Conversation at the centre. Structure beside it.

The tradeoff was deliberate: less task-management prominence, more space to coordinate. It changed the information architecture, not just the layout.

What informed the change?

My original design files show the shift from task widgets to a Pulse feed, a persistent summary, and report tabs; the screens here are redrawn from them. The project records describe stakeholder reviews and platform feasibility discussions as the inputs.

Reuse was a design decision too. It let people bring what they already knew about the product into a new workflow, and it limited how freely every interaction could be customised. I accepted that where a familiar pattern supported the work, and used hierarchy to give the room its purpose.

Shared · 07 / Three decisions

One shared room.
Three decisions that made it work.

Each decision puts more of the five answers on the record. The record beside each one shows what it added.

Decision / 01

Where should a room begin?

A / BLANK FORM

A standalone create pageFlexible
Re-enter what you already know

B / OPEN CHAT

A general channelFast to start
No defined issue

C / FROM THE ROWS

From the selected shortageContext arrives with the room
Tied to one issueCHOSEN
SETUP EFFORTSCOPE CLARITYFLEXI­BILITY Blank form●○○●●○●●● Open chat●●●●○○●●● From the rows●●●●●●●○○

More dots = better for the person opening the room. A design judgement, not a measurement.

Why

I placed room creation beside the supply gap. Selecting the affected rows sets the part, supplier location, and plant before anyone starts explaining the problem. People check what’s already there instead of remembering identifiers and typing them again.

The tradeoff: a room is tied to a concrete supply issue. It’s less flexible than a general chat, and much clearer about what the conversation concerns.

Recognition over recall

EarlyRedrawn low-fi
Opened from the planning grid, but the parts still had to be added by hand.
RevisedRedrawn low-fi
The selected rows arrive as chips. You remove what doesn’t belong instead of adding what does.
Selected shortage rowsPart × supplier site × plantNamed buyer and supplier leadsA focused room, ready for the conversation

Decision / 02

Who can change what?

A / ONE SHARED DOC

Everyone edits everythingOpen
Nobody owns the facts

B / SEPARATE ROOMS

A room for each sideClear ownership
Back to piecing it together

C / OWNED REPORTS

Shared visibility, owned reportsBoth sides see both
Each edits its ownCHOSEN
SHARED PICTUREACCOUNT­ABILITYCONFIDEN­TIALITY One shared doc●●●●○○●●○ Separate rooms●○○●●●●●● Owned reports●●●●●●●●●

Confidentiality depends on a second rule: a room is shared with one supplier organisation only.

Why

A supplier knows why a part is running out. A buyer understands what that means for production. Sharing a room shouldn’t blur those responsibilities, so each side owns one report and can read the other’s.

The boundary: collaboration is scoped to the room’s participants. A common workspace must never imply access across suppliers.

Clear ownership

Supplier ownsReport form · redrawn low-fi
Run-Out & Supply Gap. When will parts run out, and what is constraining recovery?
OEM ownsReport form · redrawn low-fi
NAMC Impact Evaluation. What does the shortage mean for each plant?

Decision / 03

How does a moving conversation stay grounded?

A / ALL IN THE FEED

Everything is a postComplete history
The current state gets buried

B / ALL IN TABS

Everything is a pageTidy
Discussion loses its context

C / FEED + SUMMARY

Feed beside a steady summaryThe story moves
The facts stay putCHOSEN
Why

A conversation explains how a decision happened. It doesn’t make the current situation easy to find. I kept ownership, status, report completeness, and affected supply beside the discussion, so everyone has a stable reference as the thread grows. The detailed reports wait one step away, in tabs.

Recognition over recall

Progressive disclosure

  1. Pulse brings updates, files, tasks, and decisions into one sequence, tied to the issue it is resolving.

  2. Owners, state, report status, and affected supply stay visible. Someone returning can reorient without rereading the thread.

  3. The two reports and the impact analysis live in tabs: the shared picture first, depth when the question calls for it.

Before → decision → after

BeforeExplain the issue from scratchin every email and call
Decision

Start the room from the selected shortage rows.

AfterContext arrives with the roompart, site, plant, and leads
BeforeOne thread, blurred responsibilitywho owns which fact?
Decision

Share the room, separate the reports.

AfterEveryone sees, each side ownsand suppliers stay separate
BeforeUpdates scattered across toolsthe current state is anyone’s guess
Decision

Put the conversation beside a steady summary.

AfterThe story moves, the facts stay putdepth one tab away

Settled · 08 / Follow the shortage

One shortage, from the planning rows
to a closed record.

Everything above, in one run. Watch the prototype carry a single shortage through the five moves, then step through them one at a time.

Prototype rebuild · filmSample data · 1:07 · silent
Triage Room · one shortage, end to end
Film One shortage, recorded in the Carbon rebuild: four rows selected in the planning workspace, a room opened with a lead from each side, the supplier’s report completed from Denso’s side, a recovery scenario approved, and the room closed with a part family still monitored. The captions name the five moves.

Then take it one move at a time.

Prototype rebuildSample data

01 / Detect

The shortage already has a context.

A planner selects the affected part-location rows. The selection summary shows what the room will carry: one supplier, two OEM locations, and the projected gap.

The record

1 of 5: the selected rows set the scope, and the room opens with it.

4 parts · SUP_Loc_1 · 2 OEM locations

Start where the shortage is found

Open this step in the prototype

Try it yourself.

Create a room from the shortage, switch between the Toyota and Denso views to see who can edit what, then close the room and watch it become a record. The data is sample data.

Open the prototype Try a boundary case

Settled · 09 / Beyond the happy path

A good room also knows
when to say “not yet.”

The harder questions appeared at the edges. Each boundary below blocks something for a reason, and each keeps the planner’s work instead of throwing it away.

Boundary / 01 · Confidentiality

Different suppliers, separate rooms.

A selection that spans two supplier organisations can’t become one room. A shared shortage doesn’t make competitors one audience.

RecoveryKeep the selection and split it: “Keep Denso rows” or “Keep Aisin rows”.

Boundary / 02 · Continuity

An active issue, one shared response.

A part and plant already in an open room shouldn’t start a competing conversation. The history and the ownership would split again.

RecoveryPoint to the existing room, or leave that row out and carry on.

Boundary / 03 · Lifecycle

Closing shouldn’t close every risk.

Closing a room stops editing but keeps the record. Unfinished reports are called out first, and a related part stays monitored while another room is open.

RecoveryFinish or request the missing report, or close knowingly.

The recovery designs shown here are from the rebuilt prototype.

My closed-state specMy notes · redrawn low-fi
A cross-functional review asked what a closed room still allows. I answered it element by element, in nine notes for developers.
The closed roomPrototype rebuild · sample data
The state says “closed”, and so does every control: posting, reactions, and report edits are off, and the history stays readable.

Review states,
not only screens.

UX lensError prevention & visible status

The open room looked finished long before its closed counterpart was. Defining what each state allows made the lifecycle coherent: a label, the available actions, and the explanation for unavailable ones all agree.

Settled · 10 / Outcome & reflection

Launched with Toyota.
Then productized for the wider platform.

What the project records support, what I don’t claim, and what I would test next.

Before

Spot the gap

↓

Email the supplier

↓

Re-explain the parts

↓

Assess impact in a spreadsheet

↓

Reconcile on a call

↓Decide · who owns it?
ONE ROOM→
After

Select the affected rows

↓

Open a room with context and leads

↓

Each side completes its report

↓

Discuss beside the summary

↓

Agree on the next step

↓Close with a readable record

What changed

Evidence,
without invented metrics.

01
CONTEXT

A room tied to the affected supply, not a blank conversation.

02
OWNERSHIP

Visible leads on both sides and separate report responsibilities.

03
CONVERSATION

The discussion beside the current situation, not apart from it.

04
LIFECYCLE

A closed room that stays a readable, trustworthy record.

What I can say

The original artifacts show a connected workflow and a substantive change of direction. The project records describe an initial Toyota launch, then enhancements and productization.

What I don’t claim

A measured drop in resolution time, feature adoption figures, or engineering savings. The prototype’s analytics are sample data, and they’re labelled that way.

Looking back

The real design problem was
the space between teams.

01

Platform feasibility pushed me to reconsider the room’s centre.

A useful constraint can change the right thing.

02

The room’s value depended on how context, authority, and lifecycle fit together.

Design the relationships as carefully as the screens.

03

Next, I’d test whether a returning participant can name the next action and its owner.

Shared context should become shared understanding.

One room.
Five questions.
One shared record.

Chapter 01 started with four places and no shared record. Every shortage still raises the same five questions; now they’re answered in one room, and the answers stay readable after it closes.