Making match scheduling reliable under high pressure.

During the tournament, the referee schedules matches in real time in a room with 8 screens: player availability, weather, sporting constraints and TV rights. Media requests arrived as PDFs. Every scheduling error weighs on broadcasters and on the tournament. And the existing tool was 15 years old.

Client

French Tennis Federation

My role

Senior Product Designer and research

With

The 5 referees, the project manager and the FFT IT department

1. ImmersionDiscovery

   Scheduling criteria, TV constraints, weather, mapping of decision flows.

2. Live observationDuring the tournament

   Shadowing the referee: interactions, frictions, spontaneous workarounds.

3. Multi-screen reviewErgonomics

   Readability, information hierarchy, consistency across several screens.

4. Co-design & recsWorkshops

   Improvements prioritised by impact, compatible with the next tournament's calendar.

Why this approach

1. Observe during the tournament

   Only 5 users, often abroad at the other Grand Slams. Several days of shadowing in the scheduling room were the only way to see decisions under pressure.

2. Evaluate the multi-screen ergonomics

   Readability, hierarchy and field of view across 8 screens: where a badly placed piece of information costs a round trip at the worst moment.

3. Start with the team around him, then mock up fast

   The head referee was not available at first: the first workshops were with his collaborators and the project manager. As he found it hard to picture the tool, advanced mock-ups tested with him made the options concrete.

1. How does the referee really build a day's schedule?
2. What information is missing at the moment of deciding?
3. Where does the tool make them lose time or make mistakes?

1. 8
   The multi-court grid matches the mental model

   Courts in columns, time slots in rows: the overview works, even with 8 courts followed at the same time.

   • I can see everything at a glance. What's missing is when I have to make a quick decision on a specific court.Referee
2. !
   Conflicts are flagged afterwards, never before

   Nationalities, sponsors, TV slots: the referee handles these constraints from memory. The tool only flags a conflict after the action.

   • I have to remember all the political rules. The tool doesn't help me with that.Referee
3. 2nd screen
   Blind spots in the field of view

   Critical information is shown on a secondary screen, out of sight during intense decisions: costly back-and-forths.

4. Clicks
   Drag and drop exists but stays invisible

   Several users did not know a match could be moved with the mouse. Better affordance would cut the number of clicks per rescheduling.

1. P1Preventive alerts on conflicts

   Nationalities, sponsors, TV: warn before the action, not after.

2. P1Reorganise the critical areas

   Bring decision information back into the main field of view.

3. P2Make drag and drop obvious

   Clear visual cues to speed up rescheduling.

4. P2Prioritise by decision urgency

   What needs action now comes before the rest.

Every method has blind spots. Here are this study's, and how I accounted for them.

• Only 5 users.

  No quantification is possible. Prioritisation rests on impact on decisions and feasibility before the next tournament.

• Confidential constraints (revenue, TV rights).

  Impact is presented qualitatively, without figures.