AP deployment: 30 min → 10 min. One dashboard to replace 4–20 vendor tools.
MSPs were forced to switch among vendor-locked systems for network health, device configuration and site layout.
MSPs needed one operational view, with spatial mapping that replaced access-point deployment guesswork.
“MSPs don't need more features in their dashboards. They need fewer dashboards. The real design problem was consolidation without oversimplification.
The technicians I shadowed spent thirty minutes per access point, much of it navigating between tools. Network health lived in one place, device configuration in another, and the physical site layout in a spreadsheet.
I started by following that workflow, including the calls they made to fill in the gaps.
The Problem MSPs Actually Had
Three weeks shadowing engineers: four tools, three context switches, one troubleshooting task. Nobody asked for a missing feature.
I spent the first three weeks shadowing MSP engineers at two partner companies. The pattern was consistent: a technician would start in Cisco Meraki to check network health, switch to a vendor-specific portal to troubleshoot an access point, open a spreadsheet to cross-reference the deployment map, then call a colleague to confirm the physical layout of the site.
When I asked what frustrated them most, nobody mentioned missing features. Every complaint was about fragmentation:
“"I know what's wrong. I just can't find the right screen to fix it."
The tools weren't bad individually. They were bad together, and no single solution covered the scope, so MSPs were forced to use all of them.
What I Found in Competitive Analysis
Meraki, UniFi and SolarWinds took 18 to 35 minutes on identical tasks. None addressed the actual workflow: see the site, place the APs, deploy, verify.
I audited three dominant tools MSPs were using: Cisco Meraki, Ubiquiti UniFi and SolarWinds. I ran identical tasks in each: deploy an access point, diagnose a connectivity issue, generate a client report.
Lower is better
| Response | Value |
|---|---|
| Cisco Meraki | 22 min |
| Ubiquiti UniFi | 18 min |
| SolarWinds | 35 min |
None of them addressed the core workflow: see the site, place the APs, deploy, verify.
Early Wireframes
Paper sketches and mobile wireframes explored floor selection, room capture and review in the context of the physical site.
View the early wireframes
The paper sketches and mobile wireframes explored how technicians would name rooms, choose a floor and capture the space they were standing in.
Notes on the wireframe
Left / paper sketch
Name the physical space
Room names and wall materials sit directly on the sketch. The starting point is the building, before any vendor configuration.
Centre / map
Keep the floor in view
A floor selector and a position marker give the technician a reference while moving around the site.
Right / scan
Connect the scan to the map
The room scan and floor overview appear together, linking the captured area to its place in the venue.
The next set shows three mobile states: editing a captured room, reviewing rooms against the floor plan, and checking scan progress before submission.
Notes on the wireframe
Left / room details
Correct the capture
The room name, dimensions and rescan action are available before the room is added.
Centre / room list
Check before moving on
The floor map stays above the room list, with an edit action on each room and a save-and-preview step.
Right / review
Make incomplete work visible
Progress and a labelled scan-status key show which areas still need attention before submission.
The Research That Shaped the Solution
Eight technicians across three companies, three findings: navigation mirrors buildings, deployment is spatial, status must be glanceable.
I ran contextual inquiry sessions with 8 MSP technicians across 3 companies. Every session followed the same format: watch them complete a real task, then ask what they would change.
Three findings redefined the scope:
- Navigation should mirror physical sites, not vendor menus. Technicians thought in terms of buildings and floors, not Cisco vs. Ubiquiti.
- Deployment is a spatial problem. Placing access points requires knowing the floor plan, signal coverage and cable routes, not just device specs.
- Status needs to be glanceable. Operators wanted a single screen showing site health, not a dashboard per vendor.
The Solution: One Dashboard, Every Vendor
Venue overview, LiDAR floor-plan capture, and drag-and-drop access points with IP ranges assigned automatically.
Navigate and Monitor Venues
The venue overview replaced the vendor-switching workflow. Every site appeared as a card with real-time health status (green, amber or red), and one tap drilled into the full topology.
Add Site Layout
The LiDAR-based layout tool let technicians upload a floor plan and auto-detect wall positions. From there, they could drag APs into position and see estimated coverage before deploying a single device.
Add Access Points
Once the layout was set, adding access points was a single drag-and-drop. The system automatically assigned IP ranges, suggested channel configurations, and flagged conflicts with existing hardware.
Outcomes
30 minutes per access point down to 10, a 50% cost reduction, and 7+ global enterprise clients.
The reported project outcomes show deployment time dropping from 30 minutes per access point to 10 minutes, a 3× improvement; costs 50% below the vendor-locked hardware baseline; and adoption by 7+ global enterprise clients within the first year. These are observed rollout outcomes, not results from a controlled study.
“"What used to take our team 30 minutes per access point now takes just 10 minutes. That's real efficiency you can measure."
— Operations Director, managed network services provider
The project taught me that the hardest design problems aren't about features. They're about consolidation: making five tools feel like one without losing the depth that made each of them useful.
