Challenge
Liquid sensing validation relied on disconnected tools and manual operational processes that slowed testing workflows and increased dependency on human interpretation. Operators had to repeatedly switch systems, configure protocols manually, and process raw data through spreadsheets before determining validation results.
Understanding the workflow
To better understand the validation process, I conducted workflow mapping sessions and stakeholder interviews with the Production Team (Mas Yoppy), SQA (Mas Syahrul), and Backend Engineer (Mas Ilham) involved in liquid.
KEY FINDINGS
After mapping the workflow and analyzing operator behavior, several patterns became clear.
Operational complexity came from workflow coordination, not from the test itself.
Manual scoring introduced interpretation dependency.
Context switching fragmented workflow visibility.
Workflow inefficiency had become operationally normalized.
Operational Goals
We collect intentions from business and product stakeholders so that we can align with company's vision, while we get the user's intention by analyzing research data.
Design Principle
The redesign was guided by a set of principles derived from workflow analysis, operational constraints, and recurring validation issues observed during research.
Design Decision 1
Centralizing Protocol Setup & Execution
Protocol uploads were centralized into a single workflow where operators upload one protocol package while the system automatically maps configurations and distributes files through backend handling.
Updated User Flow (TO-BE)
Design decision 2
Instant Validation Feedback
Scoring and validation were integrated into the workflow so operators can review results instantly without spreadsheets, while keeping execution states clear and traceable.
Edge Cases
These scenarios became important design considerations to ensure the workflow remained dependable in real servicing environments.
Protocol Mapping Failure
Tests could not run when uploaded protocols did not match the required structure or naming convention, requiring clear validation before execution.
Interrupted Test Execution
Unexpected interruptions during runtime created challenges in keeping hardware execution and software status synchronized.
Partial Channel Failure
Some channels could fail validation while others passed, requiring more granular result visibility instead of a single binary outcome.
Manual Setup for Additional Tests
System needs manual configuration updates when additional tests are introduced before the software is updated.
Outcome
Unified protocol setup, execution, and scoring into a single workflow
Replaced spreadsheet-based validation with automated scoring
Improved execution visibility and validation traceability
Reduced repetitive operational handling during testing sessions
Impact
Made the liquid sensing validation workflow 1.8× faster by reducing manual setup and scoring steps.
Reduced manual dependency and minimized human error in recurring test workflows.
More consistent scoring improved confidence in validation results before deployment and shipment.
reflection
This project showed me that the real problem wasn’t the test itself, but the operational friction surrounding it. By simplifying setup and automating scoring, I learned how small workflow inefficiencies can compound into major time loss in internal tools.
Floi8 — From Fragmented to Unified Execution
Simplifying protocol execution and automated validation scoring for biotech operations.
Role
UX Designer
Industry
Biotechnology
Teams
UX Designer, Backend Engineer, SQA, R&D Team.
Year
2026
Challenge
Liquid sensing validation relied on disconnected tools and manual operational processes that slowed testing workflows and increased dependency on human interpretation. Operators had to repeatedly switch systems, configure protocols manually, and process raw data through spreadsheets before determining validation results.
Understanding the workflow
To better understand the validation process, I conducted workflow mapping sessions and stakeholder interviews with the Production Team (Mas Yoppy), SQA (Mas Syahrul), and Backend Engineer (Mas Ilham) involved in liquid.
KEY FINDINGS
After mapping the workflow and analyzing operator behavior, several patterns became clear.
Operational complexity came from workflow coordination, not from the test itself.
Manual scoring introduced interpretation dependency.
Context switching fragmented workflow visibility.
Workflow inefficiency had become operationally normalized.
Operational Goals
We collect intentions from business and product stakeholders so that we can align with company's vision, while we get the user's intention by analyzing research data.
Design Principle
The redesign was guided by a set of principles derived from workflow analysis, operational constraints, and recurring validation issues observed during research.
Design Decision 1
Centralizing Protocol Setup & Execution
Protocol uploads were centralized into a single workflow where operators upload one protocol package while the system automatically maps configurations and distributes files through backend handling.
Updated User Flow (TO-BE)
Design decision 2
Instant Validation Feedback
Scoring and validation were integrated into the workflow so operators can review results instantly without spreadsheets, while keeping execution states clear and traceable.
Edge Cases
These scenarios became important design considerations to ensure the workflow remained dependable in real servicing environments.
Protocol Mapping Failure
Tests could not run when uploaded protocols did not match the required structure or naming convention, requiring clear validation before execution.
Interrupted Test Execution
Unexpected interruptions during runtime created challenges in keeping hardware execution and software status synchronized.Partial Channel Failure
Some channels could fail validation while others passed, requiring more granular result visibility instead of a single binary outcome.
Manual Setup for Additional Tests
System needs manual configuration updates when additional tests are introduced before the software is updated.
Outcome
Unified protocol setup, execution, and scoring into a single workflow
Replaced spreadsheet-based validation with automated scoring
Improved execution visibility and validation traceability
Reduced repetitive operational handling during testing sessions
Impact
Made the liquid sensing validation workflow 1.8× faster by reducing manual setup and scoring steps.
Reduced manual dependency and minimized human error in recurring test workflows.
More consistent scoring improved confidence in validation results before deployment and shipment.
reflection
This project showed me that the real problem wasn’t the test itself, but the operational friction surrounding it. By simplifying setup and automating scoring, I learned how small workflow inefficiencies can compound into major time loss in internal tools.