Orbit Shift had 4,000 active users and a credibility problem. The visual language read as a developer's internal tool, the phase structure had no behavioural scaffolding, and an estimated 1,400 students were disengaging before completing the process. This is a redesign of the entire student facing product; landing page, problem discovery, and all 7 innovation phases.
Students aged 16-22 using Orbit Shift for the first time fail to establish trust in the platform and disengage from the 7-phase innovation process because the visual language signals an internal tool rather than a professional problem solving environment, and the phase structure offers no behavioral scaffolding leading to an estimated 35% of active users experiencing navigational confusion and incomplete phase engagement.
Fix the Dark Theme, Don't switch to Light (Rejected)
Full Rebrand, New Visual Identity (Rejected)
Light Base, Restricted Yellow, Rebuilt Phase Architecture (Accepted)
Leads with Erehwon's 30-year legacy and corporate partner names before any feature description. The redesign answers four unspoken questions in sequence:
What is this? → Is this legit? → What will I actually do here? → Am I ready to start?
The tag (Incremental / Disruptive) reduced the information a student needs to process before making a decision. Skills gained pills show learning outcome for students without requiring them to read the full problem description first. Social proof reduces the anxiety of the student to go first.
The Original Dashboard showed everything a student hadn't done yet. The new progress bar shows what's been accomplished. Same information, opposite emotional framing. Nielsen Norman Group research on progress visualization shows forward-looking framing reduces perceived task burden.
The Original Project Overview had valid features but the phase activity sidebar with flat checkboxes didn't really show what the student had done. Expert Consultation was added in the redesign which gives students a structured way to unblock themselves during uncertainty without abandoning the process. Phase count indicator was also added so students now know their position in the overall journey at all times.
Phase 1 is changed from "Excite and Enrol" to "Mission Launch". And was split into 2 sub steps namely "Groundwork", "The Team". The Groundwork sub step anchors students to a real world SDG goal. The Team sub step treats team formation as a values exercise, not a signup form. Research on intrinsic motivation in educational contexts shows that when students articulate why they're here before they start, they carry that intent into every phase that follows.
In the old design the student had to select a problem that was already adopted and perform no research and directly dive into ideas for the solution in the next phase.
Phase 2 is split into 3 sub steps namely "Challenge & Intent", "Problem Research", "Stakeholder Mapping". The table structure in the first 2 sub steps was a deliberate choice over free text fields. Students can't write "this is a big problem," they have to fill in a number and a source. The stakeholder sub step is designed in such a way that students have atleast 5 conversations from stakeholders and they can track the contact status with these stakeholders.
In the old design the same page was used for analysis and converge where the student could just view their ideations.
Phase 3 is split into 3 sub steps namely "Insight Records", "Synthesis & Prioritisation", "Problem Statement". The 1st sub step helps students understand the interviews that they took and make detailed notes on them. The 2nd sub step helps turn qualitative data into structured prioritized data to help understand which needs attention first. The 3rd sub step makes the student give a problem statement in a structure similar to the ones used in professional product briefs along with a digital commitment.
The old design was a freeform mind map canvas. Yellow sticky note nodes scattered on white background, connected by lines, and modals. There was no structure, no guidance, no completion state.
Phase 4 is split into 2 sub steps namely "Idea Generation", "SOTA Report". The 1st sub step removed the blank page syndrome and the tooltips help students with the process. This sub step follows progressive disclosure which acts like a reward system indirectly. The 2nd sub step is used for students to compare their multiple solutions with the existing ones in the market.
The old design had the same page being used for analysis and converge phase where students can just view the ideas they created.
Phase 5 is broken down to 1 sub step called "Feature Synthesis". Using all the ideas and requirements created by students in Phase 3 and Phase 4, students can use them to create features for their solution and group them if needed.
The old design was just one long form where students had to type the solution, its features and implementation, with no logic on how to make the solution, how to position it and how to execute it. And they could ask AI for solution.
Phase 6 is split into 3 sub steps namely "The Blueprint", "Market Logic", "Execution Roadmap". Using the 1st sub step students can map out the usp and the customer journey of the solution. They can then map out their business model and edge over the market products in the 2nd sub step. Finally they can set a development timeline, finances and users for testing in the 3rd sub step.
The old design contained lots of elements such as instructions card, success criteria, supported Formats. It was visually busy, the sidebar had lots of elements and students had to give more description of their solution.
Phase 7 has no sub steps, students just have to submit a document and can submit additional links if needed. It was decided to keep the final phase minimal and light as the students have described their solution to the fullest in the previous phases.
One of the most deliberate behavioral design decisions was how completion states communicate across phases.
Every phase has sub steps. Each sub step tab (on top of the page) has three states:
Not Started
In Progress
Sub Step Complete
Each sub step in each phase overview page has two states. The "Move To Next Step" button is activated only when all the sub steps are completed.
Therefore this system makes progress feel earned, not administrative.
The green completion system was the highest impact decision. Students were self-certifying progress with flat checkboxes. Making completion a visual state that the system awards, not the student declares changed the behavioural contract.
The 5-idea gate was the most counterintuitive decision - less freedom, more output. The constraint that felt restrictive to describe produced exactly the behavior the product needed.
Adding Expert Consultation to the Project Overview because the data showed students had no recovery path when they got stuck and adding one required no additional pages, just two CTAs in an existing screen.
What I'd Do With More Time or Data
Check if phases with the most gate friction (Phase 2 Stakeholder Mapping, Phase 4 SOTA Report) correlate with higher quality corporate submissions. If yes, the gates are producing quality, if no, they're producing compliance without it.
If there's high abandonment at Phase 4's 5-idea gate then the "Tutorial" button could be elevated to a soft mandatory step for first time users an opt in walkthrough that shows what a completed ideation phase looks like before students attempt their own.
The current component cost table (Phase 6) assumes students know what components their solution requires. A reference library of common hardware components and cost ranges would lower the assumption barrier without lowering the financial rigor standard.