LKQ Parts Finder
Introduction(Note: I am not affiliated with or associated with LKQ Corporation.)
LKQ is one of the largest remanufactures of automotive parts in the United States. While LKQ does direct to consumer sales, the online customer experience is not fully integrated. In order to learn more about or buy a specific part, users must contact LKQ directly. This adds friction to the purchasing process in the form of more time and the requirement to communicate via phone or email. Additional cost are also created because of the need to talk to a person. Revenue might also be lost with users becoming too impatient to communicate any further and instead leave the site to buy from a competitor. A new user self-service system would help reduce cost by circumventing the need to contact LKQ and therefore result in a better user experience.
Responsibilities: Competitive Analysis, User flows, Wireframes
Tools: Axure, Sketching, PowerPoint
To design a better user experience, I incorporated multiple UX methodologies and techniques such as performing a competitive analysis, reviewing current trends and best practices, sketching, wireframing, and developing a high-fidelity interactive prototype. This was part of an agile design process.
Current Part Selector Tool
Users are unable to select multiple different part types at once.
A competitive analysis is a comprehensive review of the strengths and weaknesses of competitors’ websites. A competitive analysis is a helpful resource to provide guidance an area one might be unfamiliar with or understand best practices. For this project, I performed a competitive analysis of 12 different companies (6 competitors and 6 retailers). Because of time constraints, not all part finders were able to be full analyzed; especially if a company has multiple different part finders.
- Fenix Parts
- Dorman Products
- US Auto Parts
- Discount Tire
- Advance Auto Parts
- O’Reilly Auto Parts
Sketches – Paper Prototype
An important part of an agile design process is to continuously iterate and improve upon your previous work. By seeking feedback and constructive criticism from others, I am able to improve upon my original design. Based off the competitive analysis, I decided to break the part finder process into two distinct steps: Select vehicle and Select part(s). Breaking up the part selection process into two steps allows users to focus on the automobile they are trying to find and then the user can research multiple parts at once instead of performing multiple difference searches.
Below are some wireframes created in Axure RP.
I built the interactive prototype in Axure RP. The product illustrates the process a user might go through to find parts for a 2012 Ford Focus SE. Click here to view the interactive product type.
Next Steps and Conclusion
Future steps could be to improve graphic design work. My proposal neither takes into account time or budget constraints nor does it account LKQ’s actual requirements. While LKQ might hypothetical budget for usability tests and participatory design sessions, they might just as easily only want a simple website redesign. In conclusion, future methodologies might include usability testing or a contextual inquiry. I might also test the design with a basic A/B test. An A/B test simply shows random users different versions of a feature hence A or B.