Single Use Mixing Systems
Please note: As most of my work in this section is currently protected, I am not able to share all the details of my design work. Please kindly reach out to me for more details.
| Role | Lead UX Designer |
| The Team | 1 Software PM 1 System Tech Lead 1 PM 1 PO 1 UX Researcher 2 Lead Developers 5 Developers 1 Scrum Master |
| Duration | 6 Months | 6 Months |
| Timeframe | June 2022 – Jan 2023 | June 2023 – Jan 2024 |
| Tools Used | Figma, Microsoft Teams, MS Channels. |
CONTEXT: The single-use mixing system is designed to prepare media through mixing solutions. It is used in every step of upstream and downstream processes.
During Phase I development, a common ready-to-connect control box was developed along with mixing carriers. The system contained no human-machine interface and no automation. A standalone proof-of-concept software interface was concurrently developed to demonstrate viability and usability of basic control modules.
During Phase 2, Jan 2022, the Design Team of Process Automation and Delivery was tasked to not only enable control procedures through a graphical user interface (GUI), but now introduce automation capabilities.
Initial UX
- Local Displays – No GUI, all user interaction was experienced through separate panel boxes, system requires separate set-up and configuration by Service Teams
- No automation – all processes are manually operated and controlled, hence no ability to create and manage recipes templates
- DCS communication – communication with distributed systems done through ethernet IP cable
- Data Recorder – a hefty and expensive solution for data management
- Fixed IO configurations – customers will have no ability to further customize sensor and actuator parts
Design Thinking Process
- Research – Understand product offerings | User Testing | Alpha trials
- Define – Workshops with the team | Align on technical feasibilities
- Ideate – Concept Ideation | Wireframes | Mockups | High Fidelity Mockup | Prototypes
- Test – User Testing | Qualitative & Quantitative Interviews
- Iterate – Based on User Feedback
- Deliver – Specifications with PO | Developer Handoff | Quality Assessment
1.1 Research – Understanding Product Offerings
Given the transition period of the project from different project teams, I first spent 2 weeks to meet with prior and existing stakeholders to collect historical data about the system.
Stakeholder Interviews: Together with the Tech Lead, Upstream Process Manager, and Software Design Lead, I interviewed stakeholders to learn about the current product offerings.
I reviewed the user requirement specifications (as a result from Phase 1 control platform proof of concept), and worked with a library of existing Foundation features developed in other platform products.
1.2 Research – Alpha Trials and Interviews
5 large biopharmaceutical companies interviewed ( 12 individual across 4 companies) including production scientists and manufacturing managers. We sought to answer the following questions:
- What qualities, designs, and utilities do businesses value in mixing applications they use already
- What are the factors that might motivate customers to use SmartMixer over our competition’s products? What are their current paint points?
- What are the key workflows expected by the end users
1.3 Research Outcome
Customer Journey Map: I created customer journey map to identify end-to-end hardware and software interactive touchpoints, and also developed and verified the primary personas of key workflows.
I identified most critical personas, workflows, pain points and opportunities to differentiate the product from functionality / usability perspectives, the research outcome revealed key understanding of competitive landscape for the mixing system.
2. Define Problem Statement
I identified a series of problem statements for the software team based on the user input, the problem statements were framed in “how might we” framework.
3. Ideate: Software Design & Delivery
- Subsequently, I proceeded to ideate working prototype for the software delivery
- Aligned prototype with ACE platform (Industry 4.0-based digital architecture), next generation control and monitoring software for bioprocessing
- Leverage Bio4C UI kit and design patterns and standards enabling us to deliver end-to-end prototype:
- Basic monitoring functions reflecting hardware requirements
- Interactive designs for process control interactions
- Layout and Navigation between sub-modules, settings and the main screen
- Collaborate with system teams and hardware experts to develop new UI assets reflecting hardware requirements
- I created the visual designs of two lines of mixers with 5 total scales, flowpaths for instrumentation diagrams
- Hardware installation and removal workflows
- In total, prototyped 200+ screens over 8 design iterations in 3 Program Increments.
4. Test – Summative User Testing
I conducted user testing with 12 participants to test end-to-end prototype, collected open feedback, and observed users achieving common tasks of the interface. For a few selected prototypes, I ran A/B Testing to confirm the clarity of monitoring process, the final ease output of the user testing demonstrated effectiveness in design iterations. We observed
- Visual improvements: process control and monitoring scheme, color palette
- Ease of use: control loop standardization, bag setup and removal
- Understandability: control loop standardization
I also obtained ease of use grading (out of 5) between-modules comparison, and determined the least usable modules (create recipe, report management, main screen) with greatest improvement areas.
5. Iterate
- Based on user feedback, we identified a few feature enhancements to introduce into the scope. These updates were discussed closely with Product team to ensure that the teams had capacity to complete these features prior to anticipated launch date. I identified the following areas of improvement:
- Clarity of sensor and control display
- Read-out card usability (grouping of elements)
- Hardware installation and removal
- Interactive design of flowpath direction
- Case study: Hardware installation + removal
- Graphic designs created to reflect hardware components
- Tested the workflows with an engineer outside of product team
- The workflow underwent a few design iterations so that we can ensure a novel user can use it without any additional support
6. Deliver
To facilitate the handoff for developers, I rearranged the high-fidelity mockups and documented specific behavior in Figma. I scheduled a few synchronization meetings to ensure that the mockups understood In order to ensure quality of UI assets, we introduced two additional steps into the process:
- Included additional reviewer from UIUX team member prior to handoff
- Attended the demonstration review meetings where I identified visual discrepencies, and provided the feedback to development team to ensure components were coded in the right way.
7. Beta Trials
As product development is close to completion, I supported the Product Management Team in developing a Beta Test Plan. The purpose of the Beta trials is to validate the GUI user experience with real customers, and to ensure usability of the system workflows and software functionalities. I also enacted as the moderator to execute the test plan, interviewing customers and collecting their feedback on 6 key functionalities identified on ACE.
Feedback on the beta trials output was generally positive, the feedback confirmed that ACE software was usable and users were able to achieve most of the tasks we asked them to complete. In fact, results also demonstrated persistent increase in SUS score from the last Beta trials from 38.5 to 75. However, we were mindful of the limitations of remote-testing, as this meant that the interaction and feedback were limited to using mouse and keyboard, where instead the real use-case should’ve accounted for touch usability with users wearing gloves.
Lessons Learned
Real-time review with agile development teams enabled built in quality – additional peer reviews were helpful in catching inconsistencies early on, especially with engaging a more senior member who can provide useful tips and guidance on component build.
What would I have done differently?
- Onboarded developers to Figma earlier on so they can contribute to Figma designs and the design process
- Advocate for an in-person beta trials test to confirm and verify the usability of certain installation workflows