Overview Challenge Approach Process Findings Recommendation Article

Case Study · 04 of 06

Tableau — Data & Business Strategy

A retrospective mixed-methods study on EDF Energy's Tableau-to-Power-BI migration — and the case for postponing a one-year timeline.

Client

EDF Energy

Role

UX Researcher

Methods

Mixed (qual + quant)

Sample

17 participants · NA

Stakeholders

50+ consulted

Stakeholder interviewsQuantitative surveysFeature comparisonCost-benefit analysisIndustry benchmarkingThematic analysisPersonas & journey mapsAsset inventory

My Role

Sole UX Researcher — designed the study, ran all interviews, built the asset inventory, scored reports on two axes, and packaged the recommendations for leadership.

Team

Coordinated with all Tableau developers, four department leads (GSP, AO, Corporate Finance, DT), and 50+ stakeholders across the business.

Scope

Retrospective decision audit paired with active research — three personas, three journey maps, and a redesigned migration timeline.

Isometric illustration of the EDF Energy Tableau-to-Power-BI migration — a Tableau dashboard window transforming into a Power BI dashboard, surrounded by bar charts, a pie chart, and a settings gear on a deep teal grid background.

The Challenge

A migration with no governance, no inventory, and a one-year clock.

EDF leadership decided to switch from Tableau to Power BI based on Tableau's annual cost. The decision was made without comprehensive analysis of the factors that could potentially make Power BI cost the business more.

Tableau developers were given roughly one year to complete the migration. That timeline caused significant stress — and surfaced a deeper problem: the decision had been made without consulting the people who'd have to execute it, or the users whose workflows depended on it.

Power BI supports 250,000+ organizations, including 97% of the Fortune 500. But what benefits other companies doesn't automatically benefit EDF.

The Approach

A retrospective, then a redesign of the plan.

I approached this as a retrospective analysis paired with active research. The goal: surface the rationale behind the original decision, understand workflow impact for Tableau developers and end-users, and build a defensible case for or against the timeline.

Methods included in-depth stakeholder interviews, a feature comparison between Tableau and Power BI focused on EDF-critical needs, a cost-benefit analysis covering licensing, training, migration, and productivity, and benchmarking against industry standards.

Participants across NA
(developers + end-users)

50+

Stakeholders consulted
across departments

Business departments
covered in the study

The Process

From decision audit to redesigned roadmap.

Survey-then-interview design

Quantitative surveys went out first, so the qualitative discussion guides could be tailored to each respondent's context. Surveys also gave a baseline to compare answers across the sample.

1:1 interviews, grouped by department

Interview snapshots organized into GSP (Grid-Scale Power), AO (Asset Optimization), Corporate Finance, and DT — each with their own values, workflows, and tolerance for change.

Consolidated thematic analysis

All interviews coded into a single spreadsheet with color-coding for overlapping values, pain points, needs, wants, and opportunities. The visual approach surfaced patterns single-interview reads would have missed.

Comprehensive Tableau inventory

Coordinated with all Tableau developers to compile asset inventory: user counts and identities, dashboard view counts for the past quarter, data sizes and source locations, ownership.

Prioritization on two axes

Each report scored on business criticality (importance to operations) and technical complexity (intricacy of queries and data sources). The matrix told us what to migrate first — and what could safely wait.

Personas and journey maps per department

Three personas and corresponding journey maps for Asset Optimization, Corporate Finance, and Grid-Scale Power — each capturing the diverse needs and emotional terrain.

Findings

The timeline wasn't the only thing missing.

Five preliminary challenges surfaced consistently across stakeholders:

Lack of comprehensive pre-decision analysis
Insufficient consideration of user needs
Underestimation of migration complexity
Inadequate communication strategies
Potential hidden costs (licensing, training, productivity loss)

The timeline gap was the most acute. The original plan didn't account for the absence of established data governance, the need for an asset inventory, or the time required for Tableau developers to learn Power BI and complete the migration.

Recommendation

Postpone. Keep users engaged. Migrate with evidence.

My strategic recommendation: postpone the migration timeline while maintaining a clear focus on fostering ongoing user engagement throughout the transition. The revised timeline meticulously accounted for each variable — governance, inventory, training time, departmental priorities — and gave the organization a roadmap it could actually execute against.

The framing matters: this wasn't a recommendation to stop the migration. It was a recommendation to migrate well, with the evidence in hand to defend each decision.

"This is only a projected timeline — things may change as research uncovers more insights."

The full EDF article.

A complete write-up of the methodology, findings, and recommendations was published as a long-form article.

Read the article (PDF)View original portfolio page

Tableau — Data & Business Strategy

My Role

Team

Scope

A migration with no governance, no inventory, and a one-year clock.

A retrospective, then a redesign of the plan.

From decision audit to redesigned roadmap.

Survey-then-interview design

1:1 interviews, grouped by department

Consolidated thematic analysis

Comprehensive Tableau inventory

Prioritization on two axes

Personas and journey maps per department

The timeline wasn't the only thing missing.

Postpone. Keep users engaged. Migrate with evidence.

The full EDF article.

Continue exploring