Vendor Compliance Disputes Tool.
Helping suppliers contest chargebacks before dispute windows close.
Home Depot's vendor compliance program assesses automatic chargebacks against suppliers for shortages, routing violations, pricing discrepancies, and labeling errors. Dispute windows are strict and non-negotiable — miss the deadline and the deduction stands. As UX designer, I partnered with Home Depot's Supply Chain team to design a supplier-facing dispute workflow that surfaced violations, documentation requirements, dispute reasoning, and time remaining before the window closed.
This was a cross-functional effort with Home Depot's Supply Chain team. Together, we mapped the existing dispute process, identified where suppliers lost time or submitted incomplete packages, and translated operational requirements into a workflow that supported both supplier action and internal review.
The dispute window doesn't wait. The system had to make every step clear, fast, and documented — because a missed deadline isn't a UX failure, it's a financial one.
A structured dispute workflow that helped suppliers submit complete, timely dispute packages.
Replaced a fragmented process with a step-by-step dispute flow — from violation review through evidence submission, dispute reasoning, document upload, and activity tracking.
Vendor portal within Home Depot's Supplier Hub. Built for suppliers managing compliance obligations, documentation, and dispute deadlines.
Shortages (POD + signed BOL), pricing discrepancies, and routing violations — each with distinct documentation requirements.
Home Depot processes disputes only above $25. This threshold surfaced clearly to avoid wasted effort on auto-rejected submissions.
Submissions past the dispute window are not reviewed — the deduction stands. Time-awareness was a core design requirement, not a feature.
Financial penalties that are automatic, strict, and time-limited.
Home Depot's Supplier Expectation Rating (SER) program automatically assesses chargebacks for compliance failures — fill rate misses, unauthorized carriers, labeling errors, missing EDI ASNs. These aren't negotiated penalties. They're system-generated deductions with published rules and fixed dispute windows.
A shortage dispute without a signed Proof of Delivery is rejected regardless of its validity. A dispute filed past the window isn't reviewed at all. For high-volume suppliers, uncontested chargebacks accumulate into significant quarterly revenue loss. The design had to make the right action the easiest action — at every step.
Common violation types
- SER violations — fill rate or on-time delivery failures below threshold
- Routing violations — unauthorized carriers or missing EDI Advance Shipping Notices
- Labeling errors — pallet configuration, missing physical labels, packaging failures
Required documentation by type
- Shortage disputes — signed Proof of Delivery (POD) + Bill of Lading (BOL) + carton counts
- Routing disputes — carrier authorization evidence
- Pricing disputes — invoice documentation and pricing agreement
- Missing any required document = automatic rejection
A workflow that matches the decision sequence, not the database structure.
The dispute process had a natural order: find the violation → understand what it requires → confirm you have the documentation → select the right dispute reason → submit evidence → communicate if needed → track status. The design followed that sequence exactly.
Rather than a free-text field for dispute rationale, suppliers selected from categorized reasons aligned with Home Depot's review criteria. This reduced rejections caused by reasoning mismatches and gave the supply chain team structured, comparable data for evaluating dispute patterns over time.
Workflow principles
- Inbox as triage — violations surfaced in deadline order, most urgent first
- Summary before commitment — full violation details, docs required, threshold check before entering submission flow
- Progressive disclosure — one decision at a time, reducing cognitive load on a complex domain
- Document upload at point of requirement — embedded in the flow where each document was needed, not deferred to a separate step
Auditability
- Every action timestamped — submission, status change, document upload, AP team response
- Communication log within the tool — replaced back-channel email with structured, dispute-attached threads
- Status trackable without calling — suppliers could follow resolution without contacting Home Depot directly
- Verifiable record if a dispute escalated or required follow-up
Nine screens mapped to one complete dispute decision flow.
Each screen was designed around a specific decision moment — surfacing only what was needed at that step.
Inbox & Violation Detail
Inbox surfaced violations in deadline order — most urgent first. Violation detail showed type, amount, documentation requirements, and the $25 threshold check before suppliers committed to the dispute flow.
Dispute Reason & Document Upload
Dispute reasons presented as structured categories aligned with Home Depot's review criteria — reducing rejection risk from reasoning mismatches. Document upload embedded at point of requirement, with required/uploaded status tracked before submission was allowed.
Activity Log
Activity log — the source of truth for the full dispute lifecycle. Every action timestamped, every AP team response logged. Suppliers could track resolution without contacting Home Depot directly.
Supporting wireframe artifacts
What This Shaped
The workflow created a structured dispute model that aligned suppliers and Home Depot reviewers around the same evidence, deadlines, dispute reasons, required documentation, and audit trail.
At Home Depot's supplier scale, even small improvements in dispute submission quality — more complete documentation, fewer missed windows, clearer status tracking — represent meaningful financial recovery across the vendor base.