How We Evaluated No Cap’s Impact

Before finalizing the design, I wanted to understand whether No Cap’s guided maintenance requests could actually improve communication speed and clarity for real users. Working with 1904 Management Group, I ran a task-based usability test using an interactive Figma prototype to compare their current workflow (calls, emails, texts, and mixed portals) against the proposed No Cap flow.

Participants completed the same request twice under both conditions (existing workflow vs. No Cap prototype), and I measured how quickly they could submit or interpret a request, how many details were missing, and how many clarification messages were needed to understand the issue.

Participants:

• 3 tenants

• 2 property managers

• 1 maintenance technician

Task: Submit/interpret the same maintenance request using:

• Their current communication workflow (calls, email, text, mixed portal systems)

• The No Cap guided flow (Figma prototype)

Metrics Tracked

Task Completion Time
How long it took to submit or understand a maintenance request.

Clarification Issues
Number of missing details, unclear descriptions, or wrong categories in the request.

Interpretation Accuracy
Whether the technician could understand the issue without needing follow-up questions.

Results

Task Completion Time:

• No Cap prototype was 54% faster than current workflows.

Clarification Issues:

• Guided flow produced 63% fewer mistakes (missing or unclear information).

Follow-Up Questions Needed:

• Current workflow average: 3.2 follow-ups per request

• No Cap prototype average: 1.1 follow-ups per request