My Career Path
2017
Designing a career mentorship platform from zero
Problem area
A market with high demand and near-zero satisfaction
Before a single screen was designed, the founder needed evidence the problem was real. A survey of early-career professionals and potential advisors made the case clearly: 80% rated existing career services 6 out of 10 or lower. The demand was there — the product wasn't.
What the survey revealed
WHO RESPONDED
Survey of early career professionals & mentors, 2017
THE MARKET SIGNAL
High demand. Near-zero satisfaction with existing options.
Paying students from day one
Platform launched live with real revenue. Two-sided marketplace operational — students and active advisors — from launch.
Friction designed out
Advisor video tutorials eliminated support calls. 48hr response SLA built into the platform structure. Students had a structured path for the first time.
Strong enough to rebrand
The platform and brand were solid enough for a full rebrand to Talent Diverse — and the founder could run it independently after handoff.
No follow-through
Advisors went quiet and students disengaged. There was no structure to sustain the relationship beyond the first session.
No personalisation
One service for every career stage. Nothing felt relevant to the individual's goals, industry, or level.
No visibility
No way to track progress or see the next step. Students had no path forward and no sense of momentum.
Research
User research before any wireframe
Research methods
Data analysis
Pinpointed the primary audience — under 35, career-changers — and validated the two-sided model. 50% advisor interest confirmed supply before any design began.
Competitor review
Reviewed 6 career-coaching platforms. Their shared failures — no follow-through, impersonal delivery, high price, no accountability — each became a design requirement.
Task analysis
Mapped end-to-end scenarios for both user types — Karen (student) and Sarah (advisor) — pinning every functional need to the platform element that serves it.
80%
Rated existing career services 6 out of 10 or lower — near-zero satisfaction with what already existed.
72%
Had already used career services — an active market with proven, existing demand.
50%
Were open to becoming advisors — validating the two-sided marketplace model.
90%
Were under 35 — a digital-first audience with high expectations of the product.
Research · Personas
Two real users, two distinct missions
Built from the survey data and the task analysis, two personas drove specific IA and design decisions — one on each side of the marketplace. Karen is the student who needs a path; Sarah is the advisor who needs structure.
Information architecture
Three surfaces, structured around real user needs
Three distinct surfaces — public website, student dashboard, and advisor dashboard — each built for one user type with no overlap confusion. Navigation was ordered by task frequency, not feature completeness: the advisor's review queue comes first because it is the primary daily job.
Navigation by surface
Public website
Home · About · Courses and Pricing · Career Quiz · Job Board · Become an Advisor · Login / Sign Up. Seven primary items, each mapped to a need identified in research.
Student dashboard
Overview · My Courses · My Advisor · Job Board · Orders · Notifications · Settings. Ordered by task frequency, not feature completeness.
Advisor dashboard
Overview · My Students · Review Queue · Session Management · Messaging · Onboarding · Settings. Review Queue takes the most prominent spot — it is the primary daily task.
Flows & journey maps
Two journeys, every step mapped
Journey summaries
Student journey
Sign up → Career quiz → Choose a plan → Matched with an advisor by field → First CV or portfolio review within 48 hours → Ongoing roadmap tracked on the dashboard.
Advisor journey
Apply via 'Become an Advisor' → Reviewed and approved by staff → Guided onboarding tutorial → Assigned students → Manage the review queue and book sessions.
Karen Osei — student journey
Sarah Mensah — advisor journey
Key design decisions
Five research-driven decisions
Every major decision traced back to a specific research finding. Each one names the insight that prompted it and the outcome it produced — the throughline from survey data to shipped product.
Each decision in detail
Personalised advisor matching
Research: students found existing services generic and impersonal. Decision: match each student to an advisor by field, and surface that advisor on the dashboard. Outcome: every relationship had a clear owner from day one.
48-hour response guarantee
Research: 'no follow-up' was the single biggest complaint about career services. Decision: build a 48-hour advisor response SLA into the product and show it to students. Outcome: accountability became a feature, not a promise.
Progress tracker and roadmap
Research: students had no visibility into progress and lost momentum. Decision: a goal-based progress tracker anchoring the student dashboard. Outcome: students could always see their next step and how far they had come.
Tiered, modular pricing
Research: services were seen as too expensive and not customisable. Decision: modular tiers, from a $12/month CV review up to a $120 package. Outcome: students paid only for what they needed, lowering the barrier to entry.
Structured advisor onboarding
Research: experts wanted to help but past mentoring 'had no structure.' Decision: an application to approval to guided onboarding flow, with a review queue at its core. Outcome: advisors could mentor efficiently, and the supply side could scale.
Outcomes
