Kitman Labs

Information Architecture

Kitman Labs main product is a web based cloud offering for sports teams to manage player. The product grew without much thought and it was agreed by all departments the information architecture needed updating. The method we eventually decided on is detailed by Chris Nodder in his course, Information Architecture.


Fundamentally what we did was a set of exercises to identify the main tasks within the system, with a variety of personas across our user base. We then followed that up with a card sorting exercise to identify the grouping around the tasks, or what people intuitively think are clustered together. Each clustered was user titled. Following this we systhensized the findings, across the 13 users we met with and saw clear patterns. To double check our findings we conducted a reverse card sorting exercise with a different set of users. This involved users placing tasks into the predefined titles. This gave us a strong understanding of what our information architecture should be. we also gained valuable insights into terminology and developed a road map from this.

  1. Tasks identified
  2. Tasks grouped and named by test subjects
  3. Results synthesized
  4. Tasks sorted into new defined groups by user
  5. Results synthesised
  6. I.A. is determined.

Step 1.

Task Identification

We identified 42 tasks within our system. We wrote out these tasks from the perspective of our different users (sports scientist, S&C, physio, doctor, analyst, H.O.P.) using best practices around framing and naming them.

ai tasks listed

Step 2.

Internal Card Sorting

We recruited internal stakeholders, actual practitioners, to complete a card sorting exercise in an effort to trial our test and get internal buy in. Each stakeholder was individually asked to group tasks together based on intuition. Followed by naming these groups.

internal user card sorting

Step 3.

Users Card Sorting

We then recruited users, to complete the card sorting exercise. Similar to the internal stakeholder trial the users were asked to group tasks together based on intuition. Followed by naming these groups.

users card sorting

Step 4.

Refining Groups

After gathering feedback from users we looked over the findings to see any patterns. The variation was low, some outliers, but everything was consistent enough to give us confidence with a proposition for the next stage, shown above.

refining the groups

Step 5.

Reverse Card Sorting

We ran internal and external user testing with a reverse method. Asking the same users and stakeholders to identify the group a task is associated with. These were the same tasks and grouping names identified from the initial card sorting exercise.

Step 6.

Synthesis & I.A.

After assessing the results we proposed a new I.A. This was shared internally and externally, not in any rigorous way, but rather for communication and buy in. Keeping everyone aligned was important and kept momentum. This site map reflects the research and proposed I.A. We also added some style and navigation changes.

propsed site map and architecture

Site Map Invision proposed IA

propsed site map and architecture

Invision proposed IA prototype

Additional Changes (Low Fidelity)

side menu updates
desktop design enhancements
  1. First level navigation = Side bar/panel
  2. Second level navigation = Slide out menu
  3. Third level navigation = tabs
  4. Breadcrumb
  5. Page title
  6. Squad indicator
  7. User identification