Turning a complex returns process into a blueprint for service improvement
SERVICE BLUEPRINTING
UX RESEARCH
STAKEHOLDER ALIGNMENT
WHAT ARE STORE INVENTORY RETURNS?
Inventory Isn’t Supposed to Move Backwards
The supply chain is designed to move product from distribution centers to stores, not the other way around. A store inventory return reverses that flow, sending excess, incorrect, or misdelivered inventory from a store back to the DC to be received back into inventory and credited to the store.
THE OPPORTUNITY
A gap between Kroger’s legacy and new inventory systems prevented some store returns from being processed, putting store credits and budget accuracy at risk.
THE OUTCOME
Team & stakeholder alignment on the current returns experience, its operational gaps, and the highest-impact opportunities for a more efficient future state outlined in a service blueprint
Understanding the Process Behind the Problem
The team had identified a technical gap to solve, but lacked a detailed understanding of the end-to-end returns process surrounding it. Joining a new team, I started by building that shared understanding, working through a project canvas with Product Management and aligning with dependent team leads on goals, constraints, and existing knowledge. This gave me the foundation to define clear research objectives and a primary deliverable: a current-state service blueprint.
Objective 1
Map the End-to-End Returns Process
Objective 2
Compare Related Operational Processes
Identify similarities and differences with workflows like claims.
Objective 3
Understand Roles & Responsibilities
Identify key stakeholders, ownership, and handoffs throughout the process.
Building on Existing Discovery
At the time, the closely related store claims process (used for damaged, missing, or otherwise problematic inventory) was already further along in discovery. I leveraged existing findings related to returns, along with conversations with subject matter experts, to establish a strong qualitative foundation and identify where deeper research was needed.
Initial Findings
Resistance to Store Returns
DC teams questioned the financial value of accepting inventory back and often felt stores should resolve excess inventory themselves.
A Highly Manual Process
Return information wasn’t managed in a single system, with much of the process relying on paper documentation and manual communication.
A Common Form, With Local Variations
A physical “Form 40” was commonly used to capture return information, though its name and format could vary by location.
Inconsistent Return Standards
Each DC had its own rules for what inventory it would accept, creating variation in how returns were handled.
Building Toward the Blueprint
With an initial understanding of the returns process, I continued discovery with distribution center and financial teams, focusing on the layers needed to map how the service operated behind the scenes.
INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS
4 Inventory Control Leads
2 Finance & Accounting Associates
1 Asset Protection Business Partner
Exploring the Service Ecosystem
Actions & Workflows
What happens at each stage of a return
Roles & Handoffs
Who is involved and where ownership shifts
Systems & Tools
Technology supporting the process
research GAP
Stores were an important part of the service, but were significantly harder to recruit within the project timeline. Store-side research was therefore scoped as a future phase, with the current-state blueprint documenting the DC perspective and creating a foundation that could be expanded as additional perspectives were uncovered.
FINDINGS & SYNTHESIS
A Simple Return Exposed a Fragmented Service
Research revealed that inventory returns followed the same general journey: request, approval, preparation, handoff, and credit. But how that journey happened varied significantly across distribution centers. Teams relied on different forms, tools, approval standards, and undocumented tribal knowledge to move returns through the process.
handoff
credit
approve
I synthesized the research into four systemic challenges:
Inconsistent processes
Each division developed its own documented and undocumented rules for determining which returns were acceptable.
Fragmented data
Return information was tracked across Excel, Access, internal applications, screenshots, and local files.
Limited visibility
Stores had little visibility into a return after handoff until credit appeared, leaving DC teams to investigate questions manually.
Costly exceptions
Unplanned or incorrect returns created additional transportation, receiving, investigation, and shrink costs.
Adapting the Blueprint to the Journey
Confidentiality Note: This service blueprint has been intentionally obscured to protect proprietary business processes, systems, and operational details. The structure and overall complexity are shown to demonstrate the scope of the work while respecting organizational confidentiality.
What the Blueprint Revealed
Outcome
What began as an investigation into a specific inventory system gap ultimately revealed challenges that extended far beyond the technology. The current-state service blueprint aligned the team and stakeholders around the broader returns experience, exposing inconsistencies in processes, standards, communication, and data. This created foundation to prioritize opportunities for a more efficient future state.
Explore More Work
