01
The grid matches the referee’s mental model.
Courts as columns, slots as rows: navigation stays fluid across 8 courts.
“I see everything at a glance. What’s missing is when I need a quick decision on one court.”Head referee
CASERoland-Garros (FFT) · Sport · Internal tool
Scheduling a Grand Slam from one screen
From an 8-screen scheduling room to a nomadic tool that flags conflicts before they happen.
- Role
- Senior Product Designer
- Team
- Head referee and team, developers, product manager
- Scope
- Match-scheduling tool used live during the tournament
- Duration
- Sept 2020 to Oct 2021
- What I did
- Field observation during the tournament, workflow and co-design workshops (6-to-1), prototypes, usability tests.
- screens to one tool
- 8 → 1
- courts tracked live
- 8
During the tournament the head referee schedules matches in real time (player availability, weather, TV broadcasts, court rotation) from a room with 8 screens. Critical constraints lived in his head; the tool only flagged a conflict after the action.
How I went to the field.
- 01
Shadowing
Sat next to the head referee during scheduling sessions to see how he really decides, not how the old tool says he should.
- 02
Live observation
Observed the scheduling room during the tournament: 8 screens, phone calls, last-minute weather and TV changes.
What the field told us.
02
Key constraints stay in the referee’s head.
Nationalities, sponsors, TV slots: the tool only warned after the action, never before.
“I have to remember all the political rules. The tool doesn’t help me with that.”Head referee
03
Multi-screen setup creates blind spots.
Critical information showed up outside the referee’s line of sight at decision time.
From evidence to screens.
- 03
Workflow mapping
Mapped the scheduling workflow and every constraint (players, TV, courts, sponsors) with the referee team.
- 04
Co-design workshops
Ran co-design workshops with developers and the product manager (6-to-1 method) to converge on one direction.
- 05
Prototypes
Prototyped the single scheduling board and the conflict warnings, iterating with the referee.
- 06
Usability tests
Tested the new version with the referee team before it was used live during the tournament.
What I chose, and what it cost.
01
Warn before, not after
- Options
- Error message after a move · or live constraint check while dragging
- Trade-off
- More rules to model up front
- Choice
- Conflicts are flagged before the action, on the match being moved.
02
Let stakeholders enter their own constraints
- Options
- Referee types everything · or media and teams input directly
- Trade-off
- New roles and permissions to design
- Choice
- Media and teams enter their constraints; the referee decides.
03
Design for movement
- Options
- Optimise the 8-screen room · or one nomadic, multi-device board
- Trade-off
- Denser information per screen
- Choice
- A single board that travels with the referee.
Outcome
The referee no longer needs the 8-screen room: scheduling became nomadic, and media constraints arrive directly in the tool.