Case Summary
Speed Pass let Rogers customers buy additional data before incurring overage fees. The challenge was to help them understand their usage and decide when to act across web and apps.
I led five designers and secured support for a month-long diary study, including interviews, before interface design began.
Uncertainty about data charges was a major trigger for calls. I used that insight to guide the team toward three usage states: On Track, Warning and Action Needed, with a shared direction across web and apps.
In pre-launch prototype testing, participants rated the redesigned experience 8/10 for ease of use.
Project Overview
Speed Pass allowed Rogers customers to purchase additional mobile data before incurring overage fees. Introducing that capability created an opportunity to redesign how customers understood and managed data usage across Rogers digital channels.
The work covered every major surface that displayed data consumption, including desktop and mobile dashboards and the Rogers apps for iOS and Android. It built on the experience I gained as a designer on the original 2016 Data Manager initiative, while expanding my role into research strategy, people leadership and cross-channel product direction.
My Role and Leadership Scope
My responsibility was to turn the research into a coherent cross-channel experience. I led five designers who reported directly to me and partnered with a UX researcher. I set the design brief, connected findings to the Speed Pass opportunity and approved the overall direction.
The researcher owned the detailed study plan, fieldwork and reporting. Designers developed the usage experience across platforms; I contributed concepts, reviewed the work and held accountability for the shared customer model, the consistency of the experience across channels and the decisions that affected the Speed Pass purchase journey.
The Problem
Speed Pass depended on customers recognizing when they were approaching an overage and understanding the value of purchasing additional data. Existing usage interfaces were designed primarily to report consumption. They did not provide a consistent path from monitoring to interpretation and, when needed, to action.
The team had traditionally used analytics and stakeholder feedback to frame problems, then brought customers into the process to validate screens after design was underway. That sequence left the broader usage lifecycle largely untested. Customers also faced delayed or incomplete data, uncertainty about their billing position and the possibility of an unexpected charge.
The redesign needed to support a purchase decision with real financial consequences without presenting uncertain information as more precise than the underlying systems allowed. Stakeholders were initially wary of the time and value involved in generative research, so I had to make the case that a deeper understanding of the lifecycle would improve decision quality and reduce speculative design work.
Strategic Response
I focused on three connected decisions: study the customer lifecycle before designing screens, use research to reduce delivery risk and create one experience model across every channel.
Frame the lifecycle before the interface
I asked the team to study how customers monitored, interpreted and responded to data usage across an entire billing cycle, including the conditions that could lead them to purchase additional data. This shifted the unit of analysis from a dashboard visit to a sequence of decisions, revealing triggers, mental models, coping strategies and movement from passive monitoring to action.
Use research to reduce delivery risk
I used trust built through earlier delivery to position research as a practical way to improve decision quality. If the team could agree on the right customer problem early, Product and Design could make fewer speculative changes later. That framing secured the space for the researcher to plan and conduct the study before wireframes began.
Create one usage model across every channel
I kept usage states, information hierarchy and the Speed Pass purchase action consistent across desktop, mobile web and native apps. Designers adapted layouts and interactions to each platform’s technical constraints.
Research and Key Insights
The researcher conducted a month-long diary study, including interviews, to understand behaviour across the billing cycle. Participants described when they checked usage, what prompted concern, how they interpreted changes and what they did when their allowance felt at risk. This revealed changing information needs, emotional states and readiness to act that point-in-time testing would have missed.
Unexplained charges prompted calls
We found that customers were less likely to call when they understood how their data use had led to additional charges. A major trigger for calls was uncertainty about why they were paying more. The usage experience needed to make that connection clear throughout the billing cycle.
The journey had meaningful states
I used this insight to guide the team toward On Track, Warning and Action Needed. The framework connected usage status to potential billing consequences and the next relevant action. Each state required a different hierarchy, level of urgency and relationship to Speed Pass, giving designers a shared model across channels.
Technical uncertainty had to be visible
When data was delayed or incomplete, the experience needed to communicate that condition clearly. We avoided presenting uncertain information with the same confidence as a confirmed status. This protected customer trust and prevented the interface from implying accuracy the underlying systems could not guarantee.
Key Decisions and Execution
Turn the research into a cross-channel model
The team translated the findings into a three-state usage model. On Track emphasized reassurance and a concise summary. Warning surfaced the changing condition and provided context. Action Needed increased urgency and made the option to purchase additional data through Speed Pass prominent. Customers could scan their status quickly, investigate the detail and act before an overage occurred.
Keep the model consistent across channels
I reviewed the work across channels as a connected system. We aligned state definitions, terminology, hierarchy and action patterns, then allowed each platform to resolve responsive and native interaction details. I approved the overall direction and contributed ideas where the model needed to reconcile business requirements with the research.
Design for reuse
The reusable state logic separated the customer experience from any one screen composition. It supported multiple brands and platforms while remaining recognizable to customers moving between them. It also clarified where the Speed Pass action belonged in the hierarchy and which usage patterns required design-system consistency.
Outcomes and Impact
In pre-launch prototype testing in May 2019, participants rated the redesigned usage experience 8/10 for ease of use. The study also evaluated how they interpreted their usage status and identified when action was required.
The work also established a credible precedent for generative research at Rogers. UX used research to discover the customer problem, define the experience model and carry that model across multiple product surfaces. I later applied the same approach to other high-volume journeys, including Billing and Payments.
What This Changed
Speed Pass introduced a new purchase capability; the research-led model defined how it appeared within the wider usage lifecycle, rather than treating it as a standalone offer.
The work demonstrated a scalable leadership pattern: set a shared evidence base and cross-channel direction, while researchers and designers retain ownership of their specialist work.
Evidence and Attribution
The 8/10 ease-of-use rating is a participant-reported measure from pre-launch prototype testing conducted by Rogers UX Research in May 2019. The 2016 activation figure comes from Rogers’ Q3 2016 earnings transcript and refers to the earlier Data Manager initiative.