SVigil v3
Client
Cyber Security - Third-Party Risk Intelligence
Year
2026
Overview
Enterprise companies depend on hundreds of third-party vendors. Every vendor introduces security risks—exposed assets, leaked credentials, outdated technologies, vulnerable servers, and much more.
SVigil helps organisations continuously monitor these vendors.
The problem was that the product had become very good at collecting security data, but not very good at helping users decide what to do next.
Customers were looking at thousands of findings every day, but they still struggled to answer simple questions like:
Which vendors are the biggest risk?
What should I fix first?
Which action will have the highest impact?
Our redesign focused on answering these questions instead of simply displaying more security data. This direction is also reflected in the product vision of shifting SVigil from "data-heavy monitoring" to an "insight-driven prioritisation and remediation platform."
Understanding the Users
Before starting the redesign, we worked closely with the product team to understand how different users interacted with SVigil.
Although everyone used the same product, they all had different goals.
The Problems We Found
After reviewing the existing experience, four major problems became clear.
Defining the Experience
Instead of redesigning individual screens, we redesigned the product around four principles.
—————-
Redesigning the Dashboard
The dashboard became the entry point for decision-making.
Instead of presenting isolated widgets, every section answered a specific question.
Overall Risk Score
The first thing users now see is the overall organisational risk score.
This provides an immediate understanding of security posture without reviewing hundreds of vendors.
Risk Trend
Showing historical movement makes it easy to understand whether the organisation's security posture is improving or declining over time.
Critical Vendors
Rather than forcing users to search through long vendor lists, the dashboard immediately highlights vendors requiring attention.
Technology Exposure
Instead of viewing vendors independently, users can understand which technologies create the highest shared risk across the ecosystem.
Recent Updates
Recent changes help users understand what's new since their last visit, reducing the need to manually search for changes.
Helping Users Prioritize
One of the biggest changes was shifting from listing findings to prioritising outcomes.
Instead of asking users to fix everything, we introduced a Score Improvement Plan.
Each issue now explains how much it can improve the vendor's security score if remediated.
This changes the conversation from:
"Here are 300 issues."
to
"Fix these five issues first."
For security teams, this dramatically reduces the time spent deciding where to begin.
Making Investigation Faster
Security analysts often need to investigate before taking action.
Instead of navigating through multiple pages, we introduced focused investigation views that progressively reveal information.
Every issue presents:
affected assets
supporting evidence
severity
remediation guidance
This keeps analysts inside a single workflow while reducing unnecessary context switching. The issue drawer requirements emphasise evidence-led investigation
Connecting Insight to Action
Finding problems is only half the job.
Teams still need to work with vendors to resolve them.
To close this gap, we designed an integrated remediation workflow.
Users can:
select issues
preview expected score improvement
choose vendor contacts
edit the remediation message
send the request directly from SVigil
Instead of ending at analysis, the workflow now continues through communication and remediation.
Outcome
The redesign fundamentally changed how users interacted with SVigil.
Instead of acting as a dashboard full of security metrics, the product became a decision-making tool.
The experience now helps users:
Understand overall business risk in seconds.
Identify which vendors need immediate attention.
Investigate issues with less context switching.
Prioritise remediation based on impact.
Start remediation directly from the product.
These outcomes directly support the goals defined in the PRD: improved dashboard engagement, better prioritisation, faster investigations, and greater remediation adoption.
I think we can make this much stronger
There's one important thing missing: your actual design decisions.
Right now, this case study is based mostly on the PRD, so it reads like "what the product does." The strongest portfolio case studies explain why you designed it the way you did.
Once you upload the redesigned screens (they didn't arrive in this chat), I can write a much stronger version where each screen is annotated with reasoning such as:
Why the Overall Risk Score is positioned first.
Why the dashboard uses progressive disclosure.
Why certain cards are grouped.
Why the vendor page is organised in a particular order.
What alternatives you explored and why you rejected them.
Scope of Work
