UX ROICalculator
A live tool that helps design teams quantify and communicate the business value of UX investment to non-design stakeholders.
View Case Study
The 30-Second Version
UX teams lose influence during planning cycles because they can't make the value of their work legible to the people who control budgets and roadmaps. I built a calculator that acts as a business translation layer — converting UX assumptions into confidence-weighted impact ranges and a comparable priority score, so tradeoffs can be evaluated transparently before engineering investment begins.
The Problem It Solved
A UX University Substack article on impact calculators stopped me mid-scroll. The formula was clean: volume × behavior change × value per behavior. The problem was that it assumed certainty most teams don't have. It ignored confidence. It couldn't compare two initiatives. And it treated UX impact as something you report after the fact rather than something you reason about before a decision gets made.
The gap it exposed was a communication problem. UX teams consistently struggle to speak the language of the stakeholders who control roadmap priorities and budget. Estimates get dismissed because the assumptions behind them are invisible. Design decisions get deprioritized because there's no shared framework for comparing them. Leadership doesn't distrust UX work — they distrust unverifiable claims.
Self-initiated, end-to-end. I defined the gap, designed the model logic across three iterations, and built the interface. The hardest design decision wasn't visual — it was choosing to show uncertainty ranges instead of a single confident number. That choice is the product.
Why It Matters
UX prioritization is a business problem as much as a design problem.
When UX teams can't quantify tradeoffs, prioritization defaults to whoever argues loudest. A structured model gives designers a seat at the table during planning, not just after decisions are made.
Leadership doesn't reject UX investment because they don't value design. They reject it because the assumptions behind the ask are invisible. Making assumptions explicit changes the conversation.
Most teams evaluate UX work one project at a time. The calculator surfaces comparative priority scores across initiatives, so teams can make tradeoff decisions with visible data.
Self-serve tool, no implementation cost. Designed for consultants, PMs, and CX strategists. Immediate value for any team running quarterly planning or roadmap prioritization.
Three Iterations
The model went through three iterations before a single line of interface code was written. Each version failed in a specific way. Each failure pointed directly at what the next version needed to fix.
How It Works
The calculator guides teams through a decision-centric process. Users define a proposed UX initiative, then provide directional estimates across five inputs: affected users, anticipated behavior change, value per action, confidence level, and effort. Estimates use plain language rather than financial jargon. The output is a confidence-weighted impact range and a priority score — not a single number presented as fact.
Progressive disclosure keeps the interface focused. Plain-language explanations and contextual tooltips surface financial concepts only when needed — not upfront as a barrier. The dark-mode, SaaS-inspired interface was designed for executive review contexts where hierarchy and scannability matter.
When input ranges are too wide, the tool flags it. That guardrail was a deliberate design choice. Credibility matters more than clean outputs.
"Output is always a range, never a single number. The Priority Score surfaces which initiative is worth pursuing — assumptions visible and comparable.
When assumption ranges are too wide, the tool flags it. Credibility matters more than confident outputs.
Three Audiences, Three Shifts
The calculator shifts prioritization conversations from opinion to structure. Making assumptions explicit — volume, behavior change, value components, confidence, effort — creates a shared model that PMs, designers, and stakeholders can reason about together.
The tool doesn't produce a correct answer. It produces a better conversation. Whether a team invests in Initiative A or B matters less than whether they made that call with visible tradeoffs, honest uncertainty, and a defensible rationale — the kind of reasoning that holds up in a leadership review.
Clear assumptions, confidence-weighted outputs, no unverifiable claims.
Faster initiative comparisons, fewer gut-driven calls, structured tradeoff discussions.
Stronger narratives, earlier role in planning, shared language with leadership.
How to Deploy It
Three decisions determine whether a tool like this gets used or gets ignored.
Honest Constraints
This tool was built without live user testing. The model reflects design intent rather than validated behavior. That's the most important next step — a usability session with three to five PMs or CX strategists would either confirm the input model or expose where the assumptions break down.
The current version treats all value types equally across industries. In complex B2B contexts, retention value and efficiency savings carry very different weight. A future version would allow industry-specific weighting and scenario branching.
Designing for honest uncertainty is harder than designing for confident outputs. Every guardrail, range, and confidence toggle was a deliberate choice to resist the instinct to make the numbers look cleaner than they are.