Ericsson Private 5G
Project Overview
Ericsson Private 5G is a
wireless network management platform that
allows network administrators to configure,
monitor, and operate private cellular networks.
This case focuses on designing configuration workflows within the Network Management Portal, where network administrators set up and manage network components across a complex system.
Problem
Configuring private 5G networks required network administrators to manage multiple interdependent parameters and system constraints, making the setup process difficult to understand and error-prone.
Without a clear structure or guidance:
-
Administrators struggled to identify the correct configuration sequence.
-
Increasing the risk of misconfiguration and impacting system reliability.
My Role
I worked as a UX/UI Designer within a cross-functional Agile team, focusing on designing configuration workflows in the Network Management Portal.
I was responsible for structuring complex configuration processes, translating system dependencies into clear interaction flows, and ensuring that designs aligned with technical constraints and implementation requirements.
This involved close collaboration with frontend and backend developers, radio engineers, and documentation teams to ensure the designs aligned with how the system actually works.
Key Design Challenges
Understanding a Complex and dependent system
The configuration logic involved multiple interdependent technical elements (baseband, channels, spectrum, radio), where changes in one component directly impacted others.
Understanding how these components interacted required close collaboration with engineers and stakeholders.
Simplifying complexity within system constraints
The challenge was to simplify a complex technical configuration process, while still working within the system’s constraints and dependencies without breaking the underlying logic.
Limited access to real users
I didn’t have direct access to end users, so I had to rely on input from stakeholders and technical teams to understand workflows and user needs.
Design Process in Practice (vs. Theory)
While the project followed a user-centered design approach in theory, in practice design decisions were primarily shaped by system constraints and close collaboration with engineers and stakeholders.
Due to limited access to end users, understanding the problem relied on discussions with engineers and stakeholders to map system behavior and dependencies.
Design validation was driven by continuous feedback during implementation, where solutions were iterated based on what was technically feasible and aligned with system constraints.
User-Centered Design
Process in Practice
Design Case : Baseband Configuration
The system is structured around four main stages:
Setup, Configuration, Activation, and Operation.
This case focuses on one specific part of the configuration stage:
the Baseband Configuration, in the Network Management Portal, where administrators configure baseband settings as part of the initial network setup.
The highlighted section shows a part of the flow I focused on in this case.
User Context: Installer
The system supports users across Ericsson, partner, and enterprise organizations, each with different roles, responsibilities, and levels of access.
This case focuses on the installer, who is responsible for setting up the system during site activation, including configuring components such as the baseband.
The installer works on-site, handling both physical hardware installation and system configuration simultaneously.
This requires frequent context switching between hardware setup and software configuration, making the process time-sensitive and increasing the need for a smooth, low-friction workflow.
Design Decisions
Structuring the flow step by step
To handle the complexity of the configuration, I structured it into a step-by-step flow, where each step focused on a specific part of the setup, reducing cognitive load.
Defining the order based on dependencies
The order of the steps was defined by technical dependencies.
Early selections (like baseband and band) constrained what was possible later, so they were placed first to ensure valid configuration.
Supporting review and correction
Since configuration often required changes, the flow allowed users to go back and adjust earlier inputs without restarting the process.
Supporting editing after configuration
After the baseband setup was completed, I designed a separate edit interface where users could modify configured components individually, without repeating the full setup.
Solution
The solution translated complex system dependencies into a structured, step-by-step configuration flow, making it easier for network administrators to understand what to do and when. By defining the correct sequence based on system logic, the design reduced confusion and supported more reliable configuration.
The ability to review, adjust, and edit configurations both during and after setup provided flexibility, allowing users to recover from errors without restarting the process.
