Our client is renowned for progressing students towards university degrees using innovative learning methods and strong educational content. But, their offering struggles to extend beyond static, in-person content. Meaning, students only see them as a bare necessity; rather than an integral part of their journey into medicine.

So, Designit’s challenge was to digitise their learning courses in a way that housed content effectively + provide contextual support, direction, reward, and relatability. Delivering a more ‘guided’ experience that had currently been difficult to replicate within their classrooms.

Centralising content

Currently, students find crucial content hard to locate. Now they have clear access to all the information and tasks they need to complete by the day. They can finally say goodbye to masses of scattered documents, making them feel like their institution is here for the long haul.

Providing contextual support

There’s no longer a reason to feel lost or unclear. Médisup’s digital companion will reach out during key moments in the student’s day-to-day. Whether it's checking in after the daily quiz, or connecting them with their mentor after a stressful day.

Visualising progress

Students may have once found it difficult to see value in the effort they were putting in. Adding a progress bar and celebratory screens gives a clear sense of “forward movement.” Encouraging them to engage with their institution on a deeper level.

A lot of the discovery had already been done

Initially, we had an in-person meeting with the client to gather as much context as possible. They shared with us the complexity of the French educational system, as well as key personas, and some of their current content.

This was all valuable information, but we still had many questions around how and what they were looking to design within the short time frame of 8 weeks. Would we design a single course? Who would we test with? How would it be built? These were all yet to be answered.

An early requirements session confirmed misalignments

In light of the first client meeting, we began standard UX procedure in preparation for the requirements session: starting with discovery + leaning heavily on co-creation.

This would include mapping out a student journey with key stakeholders. However, at a pre-emptive client call, we found out that this had already been done. So we pivoted, and centred the session around confirming the course structure + build needs (helping us prioritise output).

Output was now clear, but content was still a mystery

The client’s key content varied from videos, quizzes, summary documents, case studies, questionnaires etc.. It was static, and scattered; that was clear enough. But, we still weren’t exactly sure how it connected to the course we would be digitising. We assumed, however, that they had a good grip on their content and could break it down at a later point in the design phase.

What was crystal clear, however, was that co-creation would not be occurring from this point. The client was more solution focused, and so it made sense for us to be as well.

Moving quickly into design

In light of this, we started to be more proactive. So, within basic heroes that mirrored the chosen course, we started mapping out all the screens we needed to design. Whilst thw client had a clear idea of what functionality they were looking for, we wanted to show them how far we could push the experience beyond MVP. Opening up narrow perspectives, and building a stronger client relationship.

As these designs were only indicative, we had to take questions around build a little more seriously. This is where some of the build team came in. After speaking with the client, we realised that they needed a lot of support. Talks of an LMS cropped up, as well as content management, APIs, data hosting etc..

From this it was clear that a bespoke build was out of the equation. But, how did this all effect our client’s initial objectives for the app? Would we even be able to meet their feature-list?  In light of these constraints, we decided to push ahead with indicative designs, having LMS capabilities in mind.

Build created problems

The project got to the point where if we didn’t solve build, we may not meet the deadline for the design phase. Speaking with various providers" for an LMS brought up a whole other set of questions: Can we use third-party UI kits to enhance visuals? How far can we push the Moodle UI? Adobe’s LMS lacks functionality. IMC is for internal workplace education only.

At this point the client was getting worried as we were yet to come to a decision. So, again, we took initiative and sent video updates that gave them reassurance as to how we could quickly transition bespoke designs into the chose LMS design.

Who came out on top? Design, mostly…

After some higher level conversations with leads and investors, build was made a separate conversation. The focus was now on producing a POC that could be tested with students; providing valuable qual insights. So, we went back to a bespoke output, but designing with LMS functionality in mind in order to keep things realistic.

This brought old requirements to the forefront

Considering build as part of the output for the project meant content and course structure would HAVE to be funnelled into the capabilities of the LMS chosen. This meant that we wouldn’t have to worry so much about replicating the format of original content, as it may have ended up being heavily edited/ changed based on the LMS.

As this was no longer the case, we now had to go back to the content, figuring out what we would incorporate, how much of the course we would prioritise for testing, and whether we actually had all of the content itself.

So, many contingencies started cropping up that were eating into the deadline. E.G. Where was the video content for day 1, or quizzes for day 5? Direct client engagement was the only solution; which had been limited due to the language barrier.

The final output

Our solution brings to life course content, supporting learning and driving engagement. This means that our client now have a strong proof-of-concept to test. Providing a chance to pull out robust insights and feedback from their students. We made sure that within the app, the companion:

Advises — whether it’s to take a short break, or to remember to catch up on work. 

Propels — through energetic copy we’ve created a sense of ongoing movement and success. 

Adapts — personalising engagement means we don't leave anyone behind. E.g. being more direct or flexible based on the students progress. 

Incorporating brand

We also evolved the brand and expanded it to the digital experience by:

• Adapting the visual style so it spoke to students with energy and freshness.

• By marrying up the shapes with realistic photography, we could encapsulate key moments.

• This all came together into a tone of voice. Summed up in the the tagline: Celebrating Progression.

We really wanted to push the level of gamification that the app could offer by connecting it to the brand i.e. creating bespoke badges and progression bars. But the client was set on using their iconography; limiting gamification to mere badge allocation. This was a constraint that reduced the depth of the output, but we had to maintain client expectations.

Why this project matters

Within an insightful 8 weeks, we helped our client focus their vision. Paving the way for a strong digital counterpart to their in-person experience. As well as providing a chance to position themselves as a holistic educational institution. Taking into account all student needs, whilst maintaining high standards.

Through a robust proof-of-concept, they can stress test their digitised course. Taking the concept to its full potential. With this in mind, our client is in a secure position to pin down their mid-term strategy. Supporting continued growth, and serving the success of all those who dream of becoming the doctors of tomorrow.

What we learned

If you’re inheriting a vision, acquire content early -

A lot of the documentation around the discovery phase + content wasn’t given to us upfront. This meant that we were struggling at a later date to piece the overall ask together. If you want to be able to make an informed decision on design approach, you need to be able to know what you’re designing, and how it all fits together.

Consider language barriers more deeply -

A challenge of the project was its multi-lingual nature. As our client was international, we had to find ways to maintain communication + translate the designs. We only started finding our rhythm when we brought in a native speaker to the team. So, if you’re in a similar situation, find resource from the get go rather than when it becomes a need.

If the client hasn’t considered build, then it’s build-first -

A big blocker was build, simply because we didn’t have a clear view of the level of tech maturity of our client from day 1. As a preventative measure, bring build into the conversation early on, and, most importantly, whenever there is talk of an MVP, feature-sets, timelines etc..