Two compact records of how shared direction becomes usable work.
These engagements are concise by design. They show the situation, my contribution, approved evidence, and the limits of what that evidence can establish.
Reading these recordsThey are public supporting proofs, not expanded versions of the four full Case Studies. Each keeps its attribution and confidentiality boundary visible.
Portfolio coherence
Several products needed to feel like one Roima experience.
Roima IntelligenceUX Designer · November 2016–February 2018
Situation
Several products and custom software services, some brought together through acquisitions, needed shared foundations without erasing the differences that served their users.
My contribution
I led the UX work across page structures, interaction patterns, templates, and guidance. A colleague focused more on visual design; the work was collaborative.
Verified change
The One Roima Experience Guide was adopted. It gave UX, product, and development a clearer shared reference, and Roima later built an internal UX team around the approach.
Approved proof · recreated
From fragmented foundations to a guide the organisation could use
01 · AlignShared foundationsStyles, templates, page structures, and interaction patterns
02 · GuideOne Roima Experience GuideA common reference for UX, product, and development
03 · ContinueInternal UX teamRoima built its own team around the approach
What this shows
The contribution was a usable shared foundation, not a visual reskin.
The recreated diagram preserves the approved progression from visual and behavioural foundations to an adopted guide and clearer collaboration.
RecreatedBased on approved engagement evidence; no product screenshots or unverified product count are shown.
Result and limit
The guide was adopted. It does not prove that every product became identical or that a specific business outcome followed.
I do not state an exact number of products or name product types because those details are not corroborated here. The internal UX team and collaboration outcome belong to Roima, not to me alone.
Validated direction
A connected product idea needed to become a service grounded in laboratory work.
Connected laboratory service conceptService Designer · May–November 2019 Client and concept identity withheld
Situation
A cross-functional team needed to connect observed pipetting-workflow problems with a service concept, rather than treating a connected product as the whole answer.
My contribution
I worked with a business designer, technical architect, and illustrator across six work streams and three workshops, connecting observation findings to five use cases and three core scenarios.
Verified change
The team delivered a business plan and roadmap. After board consideration, the client chose to continue the concept internally with its own team.
Approved proof · recreated
Observation connected a workflow problem to a service proposition.
01 · ObservePipetting workflowDocumented practical problems in the work
02 · ShapeFive use cases, three scenariosA connected service concept with intended value
03 · Hand overBusiness plan and roadmapClient continued the concept internally
What this shows
The team made a service direction concrete enough to continue, not a measured market result.
The recreated diagram shows the approved concept logic without revealing the client, product identity, original visuals, or confidential project details.
RecreatedConcept-stage evidence. Intended benefits and the +25% cross-sell figure are not presented as realised outcomes.
Result and limit
Internal continuation followed board consideration. It does not establish adoption of the plan, realised revenue, or measured customer benefit.
The client and concept remain anonymized. The concept-stage +25% cross-sell potential is an estimate, not a forecast or realised revenue. Reduced error, traceability, quality assurance, and maintenance visibility were intended service value, not measured outcomes.
Continue exploring
Find a comparable challenge, or start a conversation about yours.