Executive summary
A fragmented mapping practice became one reusable product model.
The platform gives healthcare teams one structured way to create, adapt and enrich complex patient and professional journeys across markets.
Different teams had developed different ways of describing journeys, touchpoints, emotions and service gaps. That fragmentation made knowledge harder to reuse and decisions harder to align.
The designed response combined a shared hierarchy with local adaptation, layered evidence and an accessible component system. Confidential product names, client identity, original screens and operational data are intentionally excluded from this case study.
01 · Problem and audience
Teams needed consistency across markets without losing the reality of each journey.
Journey maps existed in different formats, used inconsistent language and were difficult to compare or extend. Valuable research could become trapped in isolated artefacts, while local teams repeated work that already existed elsewhere.
The challenge was not simply to digitise a diagram. The product had to support a common operating model while preserving differences between countries, audiences and healthcare contexts.
02 · Product model
One hierarchy connects shared structure, local variation and evidence.
Shared foundation
Universal journeys establish a reusable structure and common language across teams.
Local adaptation
Local teams can adapt the foundation to a country, audience and healthcare context without starting again.
Layered evidence
Interactions, emotions, pain points, insights, outcomes and sources remain attached to the episode they explain.
Controlled evolution
Draft, review and publishing states let a journey develop over time while preserving ownership and structure.
journeyStageEpisodeStep
03 · My role
UX/UI leadership from problem framing to implementation quality.
As UX/UI Lead and Team Leader, I shaped the experience architecture, interaction model and interface system while coordinating design work with research, product and engineering partners.
- Frame
Problem and scope
I translated fragmented practices and stakeholder needs into a coherent product challenge and experience direction.
- Research
Workflow and expectations
I used stakeholder workshops, interviews and competitive benchmarking to understand how teams created, stored and reused journey knowledge.
- Model
Information architecture
I defined the hierarchy, global-to-local relationship and content layers that made complex journeys navigable.
- Design
UX and UI
I led flows, prototypes, interaction states and detailed interface design across creation, editing, discovery and review.
- Lead
Team direction and reviews
I coordinated design work, allocated tasks, reviewed outputs and mentored contributors while keeping the experience coherent across research, UX and UI.
- Deliver
System and quality
I aligned the work with the organisation’s design system, accessibility guidance and developer handoff while supporting implementation reviews and QA.
04 · Research and design process
Each iteration reduced ambiguity in the model—not merely polish in the interface.
The work began with benchmarking established journey-mapping tools and mapping the organisation’s existing workflow. Interviews and workshops surfaced a need for fast editing, visual clarity, multi-perspective mapping and evidence that could evolve with the journey.
Low-fidelity structures tested the hierarchy first. Mid-fidelity prototypes then explored navigation, authoring and regional variation with cross-regional teams. Detailed prototypes covered interaction states and edge cases before implementation reviews with developers and QA.
Benchmark Smaply, Miro, UXPressia, Mural and Ajourney; interview stakeholders; map how journeys were created, stored and reused.
Define the hierarchy, terminology and relationship between universal and local journeys before optimising the canvas.
Test navigation, authoring and regional variation with teams from Europe, the United States and Latin America, then specify states and edge cases for delivery.
05 · Product experience
The interface turns a dense research artefact into a sequence of manageable decisions.
Find a relevant journey
Browse and filter existing journeys by audience, healthcare context, speciality and scope.
Read the shared structure
Move from the complete journey into meta journeys, stages, episodes and individual steps.
Start universal or local
Build a reusable foundation or adapt an existing journey to a country and audience context.
Keep evidence in context
Add interactions, channels, emotions, pain points, insights, outcomes, metrics and sources where they matter.
06 · Evidence and boundaries
The design record proves the system and delivery depth; confidential outcomes remain private.
- Verified design record
Complete product flows
The source design documents shared and local journey creation, discovery, editing, publishing and supporting dialogs.
- Verified system depth
Implementation-ready library
A dedicated handoff library covers components, states, accessibility guidance, icons and content patterns.
- Confidential boundary
No invented outcomes
Client identity, original screens, operational data and unverified adoption or business metrics are intentionally omitted.
The key design achievement was not a prettier journey map. It was a shared language that could hold global consistency and local truth at the same time.
07 · What this demonstrates
Leadership across research, systems thinking and detailed delivery.
Systems thinking
Translate a complex healthcare domain into a hierarchy that people can understand and extend.
Responsible simplification
Reduce cognitive load without erasing evidence, context or regional differences.
Delivery leadership
Connect research, UX, UI, accessibility, design-system practice and implementation review.