ZEOS One:
Information Architecture


🚧 Note: This case study is currently a work in progress. I am actively finalizing the tree testing synthesis and preparing the final taxonomy for engineering handover.

Brief

The rapid growth and optimization for time-to-market of ZEOS One, Zalando’s B2B multi-channel fulfillment portal, led to a fragmented user experience. Features were being shipped by 11 independent teams without anyone responsible for the holistic experience, resulting in a disconnected and scattered navigation that confused merchants.

I led the end-to-end strategic redesign of ZEOS One's navigation and information architecture. My objective was to break down internal silos, audit over 70 current and upcoming capabilities, and establish a scalable, merchant-centric taxonomy. I delivered a unified architecture and sign-off process that now guides all future product development across the ZEOS ecosystem.

Team

Design & User research: Alecio Calixto, Liang Hiah, Nina Jurcic, Lekan Isaac, Wyndham Mead, Oscar Fredriksson.

Product & Engineering: Daniele Vitali.

Main project mockup
Jump to TL;DR

The Invisible Architect

The problem wasn’t just that merchants couldn’t find information. The real problem was that the organization had no alignment, nor a holistic perspective of how information should be structured in a scalable manner.

In alignment with Conway's Law, the legacy navigation wasn't designed for user flows—it was a byproduct of the ZEOS org chart. The interface had fragmented into isolated silos, perfectly mirroring the distributed engineering teams that built them. To fix the UX, we first had to break the mental link between "Team Structure" and "Site Structure."

Organization
ZEOS
Partner Tech
Wholesale
Navigation

Architecting the Long-Term Vision

It is important to note that a complete architectural overhaul of an enterprise platform doesn't happen overnight. We needed a "North Star" — a long-term vision to guide our immediate design decisions and pave the way for the future, even if fully realizing this architecture will take significant time.

We established four cornerstones to act as the foundation for the new portal structure proposal:

Project Timeline

Q4 2025
  1. Competitor Analysis

  2. Feature Audit
    (current + future)

  3. Sacrificial Information Architecture

  4. Stakeholder Workshops

  5. End-user Tree Testing

  6. Synthesise & Revise

  7. Draft Roll-out Plan

  8. Sitemap & Handover

Q2 2026

The Feature Audit

We cataloged over 70 unique feature requirements from legacy systems, creating a "sacrificial" backlog to identify grouping patterns.

74 Features
26 Product Managers
11 Teams
Notifications Billing info Liquidation requests Stock snapshot Stock return history Network Simulation tool Alerts Refurbishment history Article management User accesses Inbound announcement Automation management Packaging materials AI content creation tool Support tickets Sustainability report Customer return trends Shipment tracking Order configuration Liquidation invoicing ICM reports VAS selection Contracts Reporting platform VAT settings
Notifications Billing info Liquidation requests Stock snapshot Stock return history Network Simulation tool Alerts Refurbishment history Article management User accesses Inbound announcement Automation management Packaging materials AI content creation tool Support tickets Sustainability report Customer return trends Shipment tracking Order configuration Liquidation invoicing ICM reports VAS selection Contracts Reporting platform VAT settings
Categories Recognition

Accelerating Validation with AI

Traditional wireframing is too static to evaluate a complex navigational overhaul, especially when anchors and relationships are key aspects of the concept. Building an interactive, high-fidelity prototype manually in Figma would have delayed the project by weeks.

To bypass this bottleneck and keep momentum, I leveraged AI-assisted prototyping to rapidly generate a functional, clickable portal that could be iterated on quickly. This allowed stakeholders across all product teams to actually experience the new architecture, instantly shifting the conversation from theoretical taxonomy debates to practical, unified alignment.

[ Hover to Generate ]
Ask Lovable...
Preview (React)
Open in new tab ↗
Writing components...

Simplifying the Top Level

The interactive component below demonstrates the ruthless auditing of our main navigation. We removed redundant technical features, surfaced new core objects and aligned the terminology with merchant expectations.

DashboardHome
Articles
FulfilmentInventory
OrdersOrders & Returns
Lifecycle Management
Analytics & Insights
Integrations
Applications
Finance & Legal
SettingsBusiness Admin
My profile
Documentation
API Clients
Event Subscriptions
Task 6 of 7

You need some of your stock currently stored at ZEOS to be sent back to your own warehouse. Where would you go to request these items back?

  • Articles
    • PerformanceSelect
    • CatalogSelect
    • Size & FitSelect
  • Inventory
    • PerformanceSelect
    • Stock LevelsSelect
    • ForecastsSelect
    • InboundSelect
    • Stock ReturnsSelect
  • Orders & Returns
    • Customer OrdersSelect
    • Customer ReturnsSelect
    • ShipmentsSelect
  • Recovery
    • RefurbishmentSelect
    • LiquidationSelect
  • Analytics & Insights
    • TrendsSelect
    • ReportsSelect

Selection Recorded

You chose: ...

In our actual tree testing survey, much like now, users didn't receive feedback on whether their choice was "correct" or not. The purpose was simply to tap into their mental model.

Validating with Tree Testing

To validate our proposed architecture, we conducted a quantitative tree test with active merchants. Stripping away the UI to force reliance on category labels revealed three pivotal insights:

  • Importance of Anchors: Merchants overwhelmingly preferred initiating actions in-context, directly from an object's view (e.g., triggering liquidation from "Stock Levels") rather than from the dedicated Liquidations sub-page.
  • Decentralizing Analytics: 73% of merchants found high value in breaking apart the monolithic "Analytics" hub into dedicated "Performance" landing pages for the main object sections.
  • Course-Correcting Terminology: Our attempt to rebrand stock returns as "Withdrawals" failed, proving that descriptive, legacy naming conventions aligned much closer to merchant mental models.

Relying on this behavioral data, rather than internal stakeholder preferences, helped ground our changes and proposal.

Milestone 1

To manage the transition towards the long-term vision and revised navigation without breaking legacy workflows, we established a phased roadmap. For Milestone 1, we prioritized immediate UX wins: renaming and cleaning up the top-level sections to match the merchant mental model. For highly specialized legacy features that couldn't yet fit the new object model, we established temporary "bridge" patterns to keep them accessible until they are fully absorbed.

The Road Ahead

Milestone 1 successfully stopped the bleeding, but realizing the full Object-Oriented UX vision is a marathon, not a sprint. We are currently working closely with domain PMs and engineering teams to incrementally transition legacy pages into the new architecture, ensuring we reach our North Star without disrupting the daily operations of our merchants.

TL;DR

I co-led the strategic overhaul of the Information Architecture for ZEOS One, uniting 11 fragmented product teams under a single, merchant-centric mental model to prepare the platform for massive scale.

Continue to explore