Korea Institute of Green Climate Technology · October 2025–January 2026 · 4 months
Emissions target management
An administrator's workflow for surveying, designating and hearing appeals from regulated emitters, held in one system instead of spreadsheets and inboxes.
In short
The programme's steps ran on different rules and lived in spreadsheets, documents and one administrator's memory. I mapped the legal duties of each administrator role, separated what is reviewed from how it is handled, and designed one site where five survey types share a single receipt, correction and confirmation procedure. Designations and appeals stay linked to the survey they rest on.
Context
Korea assigns annual emission-reduction targets to companies above a threshold and tracks whether they meet them. This project sits on the administrator's side. The administrator distributes activity-data surveys, reviews what comes back, requests corrections, confirms results and passes a compiled file to the national energy agency. The system is a local web application reviewed with example records. Internal receipt and confirmation do not replace statutory submission or third-party verification.
- Role
- Project Manager / Service Designer
- Team
- Frontend and backend engineers at KGCT
- Organisation
- Korea Institute of Green Climate Technology
- Timeline
- October 2025–January 2026 · 4 months
- Tools
- Figma · AI-Figma MCP · Working local web application
What was built
- Pre-designation monitoring, designation and appeal unified in one administrator-facing site
- Five survey types sharing one receipt, correction and confirmation procedure
- Agency handoff absorbed as file generation, delivery and receipt records
The problem
The difficulty was not the number of steps. Each step follows a different rule. Watching a company before designation, designating it, and handling an appeal happen at different moments on different legal grounds, and the fields that matter change with the survey type. The process joined up only in the administrator's head. Data sat in spreadsheets, justification in documents, current status in memory. When the person changed, the thread broke.
What I was responsible for
I owned the workflow design from the legal framework down to the screens. I read the programme's statutory basis, mapped the duties of the operations administrator and the programme administrator, and turned that into the site's structure and a working local application built with AI-Figma MCP for engineers to extend. The constraint was that the system could record and confirm, but never decide statutory designation on its own.
Decisions that shaped the design
- Separate what is reviewed from how it is handled. Each of the five survey types keeps its own review fields, but receipt, correction requests and confirmation follow one shared procedure, so an administrator meets a familiar workflow whatever the content.
- Attach every decision to the record it rests on. A designation cites the confirmed survey and the snapshot version it was based on. An appeal is received as a record linked to the designation it contests, with its deadline and grounds kept there.
- Make the handoff part of the work record. Generating, delivering and confirming receipt of the file for the energy agency are logged in the system, so the next person can see what was passed on and which decisions were already settled.
What was built and verified
A working local application, reviewed against example records, in which survey material, review decisions, correction history and handoff records can be followed within one workflow. The grounds for each decision stay attached to the survey case as an operator works through the sequence. The operating scope and the agency's sharing format remained subject to agreement, so no processing-time or volume figures are claimed.