Case Study

Took direct control of the front-end teams to land a rebrand and a BSS migration on a date that could not move

European telecom operator · Design manager · Delivered on time and on scope

Problem

A telecom operator relaunching everything at once — stores, packaging, all digital — while simultaneously replacing core business systems. Date fixed by physical retail.

My contribution

Design manager for the digital half; later given direct control of front-end development and a mandate to make final design and implementation calls.

What changed

300+ views across 10+ tools shipped consistent and on time. A new web shop and care platform replaced the outgoing systems against explicit UX improvement targets.

Role: Design manager → direct mandate over front-end delivery, reporting decisions to the steering committee.

Scope: 300+ views across 10+ customer-facing channels and back-office tools, including a new web shop and a new customer care platform serving both self-service and support agents.

Constraint: Immovable launch window. Stores, packaging, and retail all changed on the same date.

Outcome: Delivered on time and on scope.

Diagram — "Master scope map", 16:9

300+ views across 10+ tools, with brand gaps and UX improvement areas marked against a fixed launch date.

The bet

The operator had commissioned a global agency for the new brand, and the brand book was genuinely excellent — but no brand book survives contact with 300 real screens.

And the brand was only half of it. A new web shop. A new customer care platform covering both self-service and the agents' side. Key stakeholders had set explicit UX improvement targets measured against the systems being retired. A rebrand and a partial BSS migration, simultaneously, against a date fixed by physical retail.

This wasn't a repaint. Underneath it, we were replacing the business support stack.

Success, defined up front: consistent experience across every digital surface on launch day; new systems measurably better than the ones they replaced; none of it late.

Decisions Under a Fixed Date

1 · Map the surface before committing

Constraint: No credible estimate was possible without knowing the true scope.
Decision: Before designing anything, run handover sessions with the brand agency and build a master map of every key view and flow across every tool — explicitly marking where the brand book fell short and where UX improvements were wanted.
Outcome: The map made a commitment possible: a timetable both design and engineering could stand behind.
Trade-off accepted: Weeks spent inventorying instead of producing.

2 · Testing under secrecy

Constraint: The refresh had to stay confidential until launch. Conventional user testing was ruled out.
Decision: Don't skip research. Get steering-committee approval to recruit a small panel of customer advocates from inside the company; mine existing usability findings on the current brand for known weak points.
Trade-off accepted: Imperfect participants, internal bias.
Reasoning: The alternative was shipping 300 views on assumption.

3 · Taking control of engineering

Constraint: Implementation began running over. The launch window was welded to physical retail. Slipping wasn't available.
Decision: Accept direct control of the front-end development teams and a mandate to make final design and implementation calls, reporting to the steering committee for approval.
What made it work: My front-end background let me judge implementation cost in real time and cut a path between business need and engineering reality.
Trade-off accepted: Traded design perfection for delivery wherever the trade was worth making.

What changed

Delivered on time and on scope — 300+ views, 10+ tools, consistent on launch day, against a date that could not move.

Systems replaced, not just repainted — a new web shop and customer care platform went live against stakeholder-defined UX improvement targets.

Customers received it well on launch, and the relaunch coincided with a period of significant growth in the operator's market valuation.

What I'd do differently

I should have been close to development from the start. The mandate that saved the launch only arrived once there was genuine risk of missing it. Proximity to engineering was treated as an escalation measure when it should have been the operating model from day one.

What I gained was the other half: making significant calls alone and justifying them to stakeholders afterwards. Partly skill, mostly confidence.

Deciding without a committee, on decisions with real consequences, and then standing behind them — that's a different act from advocating for a design.

I'm open to head, lead, and staff product design roles.

pekka.toppi@gmail.com +358 40 577 5547 LinkedIn Download CV (PDF)