Cepheid- Evaluating the Architecture of a Design System
Cepheid, a molecular diagnostics company, part of the Danaher Corporation offers a range of products primarily focused on providing rapid and accurate diagnostic solutions for infectious diseases.. which is where we start our journey.
Summary
The FreshForm team was hired to assist in the creation of a Digital Design System MVP for Cepheid. In this project, I conducted qualitative and quantitative research to uncover the needs of Cepheid employees, then worked with the design team to develop an information architecture which we tested (validated) with users, to develop Cepheid’s MVP which was an essential step in the birth of a design system.
Example of Cepheid’s Diagnostic Testing System
The Problem
Cepheid approached FreshForm seeking a solution to their current design asset library, which was a scattered assortment of artifacts across their intranet. It was decided that to combat this a digital design system MVP would be created to provide all internal Cepheid teams a universal location for accessing artifacts.
However beyond that what Cepheid’s team was interested in was what would the design system look like, how would it be organized, and how would it be maintained, all that was unknown. That is where my team came in and where our story begins.
Goals
To understand the needs of Cepheid’s employees while navigating a design system.
To guarantee an effective design system architecture that is intuitive and effective.
To create a structure of maintenance so the Design System doesn’t unravel.
Teams
FreshForm Research Team
FreshForm Design Team
Cepheid’s Design Experience Team
Fully Remote Team
I was involved at all stages of the research process: from recruitment, testing, analysis, and finding recommendations.
Research Results
Through stages of need-finding research, specifically design workshops and qualitative stakeholder interviews, we were able to define recommendations for Cepheid’s design system.
The Design System must be
1. Consistent and Simple both are essential experience elements that cannot be ignored
2. The Design System must be accessible universally to every individual on the Cepheid team.
3. The inability to locate design standards, documentation, and frameworks is the biggest pain point that Cepheid Employees experienced.
From these recommendations, we worked cross-functionally with the design teams to develop several design system architectures and tested them with Cepheid employees, to find that the one Architecture design titled: B4, aligned best with Cepheid employees and their mental models.
These results offered a powerful glimpse into the users' world, proving critical in the development of the design system.
An Example of an Insights Presentation we presented to our clientelle.
Process
Workshop
Our team conducted a workshop to explore the current state of design artifact gathering at Cepheid and a high level understanding of user needs/pain points. The workshop involved 20 employees from Cepheid with five activities aimed at understanding design, identifying user pain points, and gathering needs.
From these activities, we collected 140 unique data points categorized into 32 distinct categories.
High-level findings revealed:
1. A lack of a standardized source for design information, leads to inconsistency and confusion in the customer's experience.
2. Users struggled to locate design standards, documentation, and frameworks, emphasizing the need for a dynamic design system that evolves with Cepheid’s asset development.
While these findings provided initial insights, they lacked detail. Subsequently, we initiated generative research through in-depth qualitative interviews to delve deeper into the identified problems.
Snapshot of the data gathering from the workshop
Qualitative Interviews
For our qualitative interviews, we delved deeper into workshop findings, allowing users to elaborate on the "Why" factor. We interviewed 10 Cepheid employees, all closely involved with design.
Working with Cepheid’s recruitment coordinator, we organized sessions, a crucial but often overlooked aspect of research. I conducted all sessions, supported by a seasoned notetaker. Our analysis of these sessions revealed key findings:
1. Ensure the DDS MVP aligns with the current UI/UX team and others' needs, maintaining a Universal Experience for Cepheid's digital brand.
2. Uphold consistency in the Cepheid experience. Simplicity and Ease of Use are vital elements.
3. Affirm Cepheid's leadership in the industry, emphasizing continued excellence.
These insights enhance and complement our workshop discoveries.
Snapshot of Key themes gathered from our interviews
A double Diamond, demonstrating the process we utilized.
Information Architecture Design
Armed with the findings from interviews and our collaborative workshop, our design and research team confidently initiated the creation of a design system architecture as a foundational framework. Collaborating with design we incorporated research insights, with a focus on simplicity, consistency, and ease of use.
After hours of deliberation, our cross-functional team designed two competing architectural structures. The first architecture, titled A1, was organized by medium (e.g., print, digital, hardware, etc.), while the second, B4, was organized by the atomic units of design (e.g., Foundational units, Components, Patterns, etc.). We decided to test both these architectures to determine which one was more easily learnable and efficient for users.
To do this we conducted a tree test, focused on testing both architecture designs.
In parallel the design team began creating the foundation for the actual Design System in the spirit of parallel design.
Example of an Architecture hierarchy like the one we used
Information Architecture Testing
To delve into specifics, the Research team devised a Tree Test and set up an environment on Usertesting.com. Participants, drawn from Cepheid's employee database, were randomly assigned a design system architecture and tasked with completing a series of tasks The research aimed to comprehend three key aspects: Navigation time and category intuitiveness, Duration for users to understand and accurately navigate interface, qualitative feedback, to explore user’s sentiment towards the architecture.
Three major qualitative findings refined by the team were:
1. Semantic Issues: Users struggled to decipher the meaning of certain category titles, such as Foundation, Component, and Guidelines, while navigating through the architecture.
2. Tracking Component Changes: Users expressed interest in tracking the evolution and changes of components over time, fostering a consistent understanding of design assets and their growth organization-wide.
3. Robust Governance Structure: Cepheid employees, in their endeavor to develop a design system, desired a governing organization to manage and control the system, ensuring individuals or a team were responsible for its upkeep.
On the quantitative side, the figures below provide a detailed breakdown.
Our results indicated that both A1 and B4 had their strengths, with A1 having a better success rate and B4 being easier to navigate through/click through. Upon further investigation, the client team decided to explore the data further and stratify it by users with design experience versus those without (who constituted the majority of design system users.). We discovered that B4, the design architecture, had a significantly higher success rate among users with design experience,
As a result, the second architecture, refined based on the sessions, was selected as the superior architecture. These insights offered a powerful glimpse into the users' world, proving critical in the development of the design system.
Average Task Duration and Success Rate
Data visualization demonstrating the success rates by type of tester, for the Second Architecture (Labeled internally as B4)
Results and Future Goals
Were we successful? Yes
Based on our findings, the research team collaborated with our client stakeholders and internal design team to proceed with the implementation of the B4 architecture structure. Together, we worked on creating the Design System through Zeroheight and establishing a governance system where Cepheid users would assume responsibility and ownership of the growing design system after the completion of our contract.
Adopting a RACI-style model, our goal was to establish a hierarchy of stakeholders involved in monitoring the design system, with their involvement tailored to their position and seniority. This document was published on the Cepheid Intranet and received positive feedback from their internal team.
Currently, the Information Architecture architecture has been handed off to Cepheid who have the opportunity to continue our progress, and take our insights and design assets to develop a robust design system.
What I Learned
How to improve blending qualitative and quantitative data effectively.
How to shape a design system poised for user success and long-term evolution through the journey.
What I Learned (2024 update)
How to improve blending qualitative and quantitative data effectively.
How to shape a design system poised for user success and long-term evolution through the journey.