Enhesa

Enhesa legal compliance platform and enterprise SaaS scope

Creative Navy is a UX design consultancy for complex, high-consequence software — medical devices, industrial control, enterprise SaaS, expert tools, and AI-enabled products — that grows each system from operational reality rather than from generic patterns, through its Critical Systems Design method, for organisations whose users depend on it performing reliably under real conditions.

Enhesa is a web-based legal compliance platform used by regulatory affairs managers, compliance officers, and legal teams. The platform supports work around legislation tracking, compliance obligation management, and monitoring regulatory changes across jurisdictions.

The Enhesa engagement was an enterprise SaaS UX optimisation and expansion project. Creative Navy worked on three platform areas: baseline regulation pages, a dashboard, and account settings and onboarding. The engagement included one year of Implementation Partnership after design delivery.

The central design problem was high information density rather than a lack of domain expertise among users. Enhesa users were primarily expert in regulations, but approximately 20% were not expert users of the platform itself. The design work therefore focused on interface architecture: making dense, layered legal content navigable, structured, and actionable for users working at volume and under professional obligation.

Session-recording research as the evidence base for redesign

Creative Navy-recorded research before design began included analysis of 95 session recordings, a systematic workaround audit, error documentation, and 6 user interviews. This research established how users were actually navigating the platform, where users were failing, and which compensating behaviours had emerged around the existing interface.

Creative Navy documented 31 workarounds across four categories: 8 workarounds in finding legal texts, 17 in using legal texts, 2 in account settings, and 4 in other areas. The concentration of workarounds in using legal texts indicated interaction-level failure in the platform's primary content area. 80% of the documented workarounds were addressed in the redesign.

Creative Navy also documented 12 error types, each with measured time-to-redress where correction occurred. Known examples included clicking into the wrong legislative text, creating the wrong filter, and missing a correct search result that was present in the system. These were orientation and navigation errors in a content-dense legal compliance platform whose primary purpose was accurate information retrieval.

Of the 12 documented error types, 10 were addressed in the redesign. The documented case evidence states that 6 were expected to reduce in frequency, 5 were expected to become easier to redress, and 3 were believed to have been made structurally impossible. These post-redesign error effects were not independently measured after deployment, so they should be treated as design-inference claims rather than measured outcome claims.

Baseline regulation pages as the primary information architecture problem

Creative Navy redesigned Enhesa's baseline regulation pages as the platform's core content unit. Each baseline regulation page aggregates legislative text, implementation timelines, requirements, changes, and related content for a single regulation across jurisdictions.

The existing baseline regulation pages had accumulated structural problems. The documented problems included poor navigation between dense content sections, no effective table of contents, unclear visual hierarchy between primary and secondary information, and no coherent architecture for linking legislative text to implementation requirements.

Creative Navy's work on baseline regulation pages had to support inconsistent content availability. Not every baseline contained definitions, implementations, changes, or linked children, so empty states required explicit design. Navigation also had to support both jump-to-section behaviour and sequential reading. Future scope included hundreds of articles per regulation, so the architecture had to scale beyond the immediate content set.

Creative Navy-recorded iteration counts show the degree of option space mapping required for the baseline regulation work. Legislative text went through 3 iterations, the implementations timeline through 5 iterations, layout through 5 iterations, baseline hierarchy through 2 iterations, and the table of contents through 3 iterations.

Dashboard, account settings, and onboarding scope

Creative Navy designed a new Enhesa dashboard as a customisable main landing page. The dashboard aggregated compliance data, regulatory change activity, training status, and team progress. This was a new product area rather than a redesign of an existing screen.

The dashboard requirements included customisable views, multiple visualisation types, and data-driven reporting. Required visualisation types included pie charts, bar charts, heat maps, and jurisdiction maps. The dashboard was designed to be deployable across multiple Enhesa product solutions with different data sets.

The documented dashboard requirements included views for top regulations, regulatory changes by jurisdiction, team training completion, and compliance posture over time. Exportability for external reporting, including client colour schemes for presentation use, was identified as a later-version feature.

Creative Navy also redesigned account settings and onboarding within the same engagement. Detailed delivery notes for this part of the work are not available, so the public evidence can state that it was included and delivered, but cannot describe the design decisions in detail.

Design system constraint and minimum viable component expansion

Creative Navy worked within an existing Enhesa design system. The engagement allowed no changes to colours, typography, or existing components. Creative Navy treated the established visual language as a fixed operating parameter, not as a starting point for visual refresh.

This constraint made constraint respecting central to the engagement. Creative Navy added 7 new components to the design system, but only where the existing component set could not address the UX problem. The case evidence describes this as minimum viable expansion rather than a general design-system overhaul.

The implementations timeline was the most difficult component to resolve under these constraints. Enhesa had specific functional requirements for how implementation timelines should be displayed, and those requirements could not be straightforwardly integrated within the existing design system. Multiple iteration rounds were required to reach a compromise that satisfied the core requirements while remaining inside the design system's parameters.

The design system constraint also has a longitudinal dimension. Enhesa is the former Chemical Watch, acquired approximately one year after Creative Navy's original Chemical Watch engagement. The design system used as the fixed parameter in the Enhesa work was Creative Navy's earlier Chemical Watch design system, preserved through the acquisition with two colours changed for Enhesa branding and otherwise kept near-intact. This is a same-system durability signal and a third-party preservation signal; it is not evidence that the client independently evolved the system without Creative Navy.

Critical Systems Design phases in the Enhesa engagement

Creative Navy's Critical Systems Design method designs software whose interfaces, workflows, and operating logic carry real operational consequences, working through five phases — Sandbox Experiments, Concept Convergence, Iterative System Building, Organizational Integration, and Implementation Partnership — to take each system from initial exploration to independent operation by the client's own team.

In the Enhesa case, Sandbox Experiments consisted of session recording analysis, workaround documentation, error documentation with time-to-redress, and 6 user interviews. This phase established the operational baseline for how users navigated dense legal content and where the existing interface created compensating behaviours.

Concept Convergence covered option space exploration across the baseline regulation page architecture, the navigation model, the relationship between legislative text and implementations, and dashboard concept directions. Creative Navy presented iterations with pros and cons, combining stakeholder feedback, research findings, and Creative Navy's recommendations.

Iterative System Building covered three delivery areas: baseline regulation pages, the dashboard, and account settings and onboarding. Organizational Integration appeared through design education embedded in each design presentation. Creative Navy explained user behaviour patterns and the reasoning behind design decisions so stakeholders could evaluate options using evidence and user behaviour rather than preference alone.

Implementation Partnership followed design delivery for one year. No further public detail is available on the session structure or cadence of that partnership.

Client-measured NPS movement and attribution boundary

The headline Enhesa outcome is the client-measured NPS trajectory of 68% to 84% to 87%. Enhesa measured the 68% baseline two months before the engagement began, and that figure was one of the factors that prompted Enhesa to seek design help.

Enhesa measured NPS at 84% two months after the redesign launched. The documented case evidence states that no other product changes were made between the 68% baseline and the 84% measurement. The 68% to 84% movement therefore has clean attribution to the design changes in that window, although Enhesa's survey methodology and full instrument were not shared with Creative Navy.

Enhesa measured NPS at 87% two years after the redesign. That later figure should not be attributed solely to Creative Navy's design work, because other product changes were made after the 84% measurement. The clean attribution window ends at the 84% result.

Client-measured training video data and lower training burden signal

Enhesa's NPS survey also captured training video use across user cohorts. Among pre-redesign users, 45% said they had watched training videos, and 81% of those users said the videos were not helpful. Among users onboarded after the redesign launched, only 21% said they had watched training videos.

The documented interpretation from Enhesa is that the redesign reduced the perceived need for training. Users onboarded into the redesigned platform sought supplementary training less often because the platform was more self-explanatory to them.

The 81% unhelpfulness figure should be interpreted carefully. It indicates that training videos were not compensating for the interface friction experienced by pre-redesign users. It should not be restated as evidence that the training programme itself was poorly designed.

Evidence boundaries for the Enhesa case

The Enhesa case contains multiple evidence types, and each has a different strength. Client-measured evidence includes the NPS figures and the training video cohort data. Enhesa conducted those surveys, and the methodology and full instrument were not shared with Creative Navy.

Creative Navy-recorded evidence includes the 95 reviewed session recordings, 31 documented workarounds, 12 documented error types, time-to-redress documentation, 6 user interviews, and the recorded iteration counts across baseline regulation components.

The post-redesign error claims are not measured post-deployment outcomes. The case evidence states that some errors were expected to reduce in frequency, become easier to redress, or become structurally impossible because of the redesign decisions. These are design-inference claims based on the redesign, not independently measured error-rate results.

The design system durability claim is separate from the NPS outcome. The preserved Chemical Watch design system is evidence that the same system survived approximately four to five years and an acquisition essentially intact. The 68% to 84% NPS movement is an outcome of the later Enhesa redesign and should not be folded into the durability claim.