Responsibility
Research synthesis, concept selection, service flow, interaction design, and prototype testing under two Philips design leads.
Preventive heart care, made easier to act on.
The Cardiocare concept explored how Indian adults over 30 might turn distant heart risk into daily action.
60-second brief · Research case, at a glance
From knowing the risk to knowing what to do today
People did not need another explanation of heart risk. They needed one credible next action that could fit into an ordinary day.
The brief looked like an information problem. Interviews showed the missing layer was a credible next action inside an ordinary day.
Evidence18 interviews shaped the direction, moderated prototype testing produced an 82.1 System Usability Scale score, and the concept won an iF Design Award.
Research frame
Seven months to frame a connected-health concept across devices, a web application, an assistant, and WhatsApp.
Decision
Choose an action system rather than another information screen, using an explicit concept matrix.
Validation
18 interviews, moderated prototype testing, a reported 82.1 SUS score with sample limits, and explicit concept-selection criteria.
Chapter 01 · Framing
Turning an ambiguous risk into an actionable brief
Prevention has no natural trigger, so the open question was where to intervene. Literature named the risk factors; 18 interviews located the actual gap: action, not information.
- Literature review mapped known CAD risk drivers, not a single missing fact
- 18 semi-structured interviews traced daily routines, not recalled advice
- Inductive coding turned scattered transcripts into repeatable behavior themes
- Reframed brief: one next action inside an existing routine, not more content
Decision cost
The focused sample was designed to sharpen the behavioral brief; broader population validation would follow in product development.
Proof
Within the 18-person sample, every interviewee knew their risk factors; none had a standing next action. That gap became the brief.
Explore this decision's evidenceTurning an ambiguous risk into an actionable brief
Trace the research trail behind the reframeThe 141-source literature review and the affinity synthesis that produced it
Chapter 02 · Systems
Choosing the system, not the screen
SCAMPER opened 24 directions, from a single tracker to a full ecosystem. A Pugh matrix scored each against feasibility, viability, and four design principles, so the platform-level concept won on evidence.
- SCAMPER opened 24 directions across devices, apps, and services
- Shortlist of 12 kept only ideas feasible in the Philips design system
- Pugh matrix scored each concept on four principles, feasibility, and viability
- Concept 12 won by connecting learning, routines, tracking, guidance, devices, and WhatsApp
Decision cost
A matrix formalizes comparison, but the team wrote the criteria. It reduces bias; it doesn't remove judgment.
Proof
Concept 12 scored highest across all four criteria columns, not just on one axis.
Explore this decision's evidenceChoosing the system, not the screen
The four principles that scored the concepts
- 01Minimum intrusion for maximum motivation
- 02Involve major influencers for frictionless adoption of healthy habits
- 03Continuous guidance for heart-healthy living
- 04Personalization for integration and sustainable habit formation
Directions opened (SCAMPER)
24
Shortlisted as feasible
12
Selected by the Pugh matrix
1
Chapter 03 · Prototyping
What an 82.1 SUS score showed, and did not
Moderated prototype sessions tested the core loop: connect, learn, act. The concept scored 82.1 on the System Usability Scale.
- Sessions tested whether people understood risk, routines, and next actions unaided
- The concept scored 82.1 on the SUS; the sample size is not published here
- Task observations and the usability score tested comprehension from two angles
- The concept went on to win an iF Design Award in 2024
Decision cost
The usability score established concept clarity; clinical effectiveness would require a separate longitudinal study.
Proof
Moderated sessions tested comprehension, the SUS captured perceived usability, and the award recognized the team concept. None is presented as clinical impact.
Explore this decision's evidenceWhat an 82.1 SUS score showed, and did not
- Connect
Track syncs steps, stress, and heart rate from the wearable; a WhatsApp prompt pulls the user back in when the routine lapses.
- Learn
Learn surfaces a Mayo Clinic video and risk-factor articles; Health Wiz answers a specific question in plain language on demand.
- Act
Routine turns the risk data and learning into a tailored weekly plan, split into upcoming and completed activities.
What the concept was tested against
Evidence moved from behavioral research to an explicit concept funnel, moderated prototype testing, and external design recognition.
82.1
Prototype SUS score
A perceived-usability score from moderated prototype testing; the sample size is not published here.
18
Interviews
Semi-structured conversations that reframed the brief from information to action.
24 → 12
Concept funnel
Directions narrowed with a Pugh matrix, not chosen by preference.
Evidence boundaries
The usability score measures the prototype experience, while the iF Design Award recognizes the team concept. Neither is presented as a clinical outcome. Inspect the related decision
Poor
OK
Good
Excellent
What was mine, and the trade-off I'd defend
I owned synthesis, concept selection, service flow, interaction design, and prototype testing across a seven-month Philips graduation project under design leads Praveen G and Shaon S. The iF recognition went to the team.
Hardest trade-off
The ecosystem connects devices, a web app, an AI companion, and WhatsApp, but keeping the routine going stayed the user's job, spread across surfaces they had to link themselves. I'd default those connections today.
Where I'd tighten it next
Product development would extend this work with broader task validation, explicit consent architecture, and longitudinal health-behavior evidence.
What this case demonstrates
Ambiguous framing
Turned a literature review and 18 interviews into one reframed brief: action over information.
Systems thinking
Chose a platform, not a screen, using a Pugh matrix to make the trade-offs explicit.
Prototyping rigor
Tested the prototype and now reports the SUS score with explicit limits instead of presenting it as product impact.
Evidence discipline
Separated prototype usability, external concept recognition, and future clinical validation into distinct evidence layers.
Appendix
The fuller record
The decision story above carries the core case. The full retrospective, work outside the brief, and additional product surfaces sit below as supporting evidence.
Work nobody asked for
Two things here were outside what I was asked to do. One sharpened the work. The other mostly sharpened me.
I ran the interviews nobody had scoped
Why it matteredSecondary research left gaps about life at home, so I wrote the objectives, recruited participants, and ran the interviews myself.
Evidence boundaryThe interviews supplied the behavioral evidence used to reframe the product brief.
I learned the product from the people who were not designers
Why it matteredConnected health spans hardware, clinical claims, and software, so I worked beside developers and usability specialists to frame the interface as one part of the service.
Evidence boundaryThe collaboration connected interface decisions to the wider hardware, service, and usability system.
In hindsight
What I would do differently
This project won an iF Design Award and a strong usability score, and I still see four places where I claimed more than I had proven or left the user to carry work the system should have.
I reported one SUS score as proof of usability
The A/B Test Is Not the Truth Machine You ThinkWhat I shippedThe concept scored 82.1 on the System Usability Scale, and I presented that single number as evidence the system was usable. The sample was small and self-reported on a prototype, so the score had a wide margin I did not show.
What I would do nowAgree the target and minimum sample before testing, observe task success alongside the survey, and report a confidence interval next to the score instead of one clean figure that hides how few people it came from.
Product surfaces
Learn and Routine: the risk-information screen and the tailored plan it hands off to.
Learn
Routine
Inspect the accessibility and consent decisionsTwo implementation records behind these primary product surfaces
SupersededTwo-way door
Accessible was a compliance claim, not a tested one
Decision
I described the interface as accessible because it matched the system.
Outcome
The claim has been narrowed. The next method starts with critical tasks and participants at the edges, then fixes failures at the token and flow levels.
Tradeoff
Conformance became a proxy for usability. I had no evidence that older adults, people with low vision, or people with low health literacy could complete the critical tasks.
Inspect the full decision recordContext, drivers, consequences, alternatives
Context and problem statement
The intended users included adults over thirty with heart risk, but the accessibility claim came from using the Philips design system rather than testing the experience with people at the edges.
Decision drivers
- Reuse established system guidance
- Keep the prototype consistent
- Make risk results legible
Positive consequences
The system supplied consistent tokens and interaction patterns.
Negative consequences
Conformance became a proxy for usability. I had no evidence that older adults, people with low vision, or people with low health literacy could complete the critical tasks.
Kill criterion
If the target users were not represented in task-based testing, the work could claim conformance properties but not accessibility.
Considered options
- Rely on design-system conformance
- Test critical tasks with older and low-vision participants
- State only the accessibility properties that were directly verified
Road not taken
Recruiting edge-case participants would extend the study, but it would test the people most likely to reveal whether the risk information worked.
SupersededOne-way door
I designed health tracking before consent
Decision
I designed the connected tracking experience without designing how people grant, inspect, or withdraw access to each source.
Outcome
The concept won recognition, but the portfolio now records the missing consent model as a core product gap rather than fine print.
Tradeoff
The design asked people to trust an AI system with personal medical data without giving them meaningful control. That omission affects the legitimacy of the whole service.
Inspect the full decision recordContext, drivers, consequences, alternatives
Context and problem statement
The concept connected devices and apps, sent WhatsApp prompts, and used an AI companion to help adults manage heart-risk routines.
Decision drivers
- Reduce the work of maintaining a routine
- Connect fragmented health signals
- Make guidance available between clinical visits
Positive consequences
The concept made a fragmented service feel continuous and easier to act on.
Negative consequences
The design asked people to trust an AI system with personal medical data without giving them meaningful control. That omission affects the legitimacy of the whole service.
Kill criterion
No sensitive source should connect until a user can understand its purpose and revoke it as easily as they granted it.
Considered options
- Treat consent as terms accepted during setup
- Design granular consent per data source
- Keep all sensitive processing on-device and reduce the feature scope
Road not taken
Granular opt-in would add setup work, but it would make data use comprehensible and keep refusal from breaking the entire service.