Skip to content

latest design history changes #20

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
devansXD merged 1 commit into from
Feb 5, 2026
Merged

latest design history changes #20

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
3 changes: 2 additions & 1 deletion .azad/.locked-paths
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -2,5 +2,6 @@
"/Users/davidevans/Documents/Projects/procurement-prototype/app/views/current/search-results.html",
"/Users/davidevans/Documents/Projects/procurement-prototype/app/views/current/create-account/email-verification.html",
"/Users/davidevans/Documents/Projects/procurement-prototype/app/views/current/create-account/email-welcome.html",
"/Users/davidevans/Documents/Projects/procurement-prototype/app/views/current/product-detail.html"
"/Users/davidevans/Documents/Projects/procurement-prototype/app/views/current/product-detail.html",
"/Users/davidevans/Documents/Projects/procurement-prototype/app/views/design-histories/v3.html"
]
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion app/views/design-histories/design-histories.html
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ <h2 class="nhsuk-card__heading nhsuk-u-font-size-22 nhsuk-u-margin-bottom-2"> <a
<div class="nhsuk-card__content nhsuk-card__content--secondary">
<h2 class="nhsuk-card__heading nhsuk-u-font-size-22 nhsuk-u-margin-bottom-2"> <a
class="nhsuk-card__link"
href="v1">2. Peer to peer engagement
href="v1">2. Team workshop
</a> </h2>
<p class="nhsuk-body-s"><time class="nhsuk-u-secondary-text-colour"
datetime="">Dec 2025</time></p>
Expand Down
78 changes: 24 additions & 54 deletions app/views/design-histories/v0.html
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -14,9 +14,20 @@ <h1 class="nhsuk-heading-xl">Initial assumptions from discovery</h1>

<hr class="nhsuk-section-break nhsuk-section-break--l nhsuk-section-break--visible">

<h2>Situation</h2>

<p>The platform was conceived as a central digital repository to enable NHS trusts to make faster, more consistent, and evidence-based procurement decisions for medical technologies.</p>
<p>DHSC conducted a comprehensive discovery phase in March 2025, researching directly with NHS users and producing personas, journey maps and system maps.</p>

<p>The recommendations from the discovery were:</p>
<ol>
<li>Develop a product value information service to address unmet information needs</li>
<li>Improve sharing of data between Trusts, currently via informal information sharing networks</li>
<li>Improve standards of procurement commercial literacy and ensure teams have correct skills</li>
<li>Create standards for evidence provided by suppliers, and improve data collection from Trusts</li>
</ol>

<p>This Alpha phase was kicked off to address recommendation 1. We pivoted to include 2 as well. 3 and 4 have been spun up into separate teams.</p>



<div class="nhsuk-inset-text">
<span class="nhsuk-u-visually-hidden">Information: </span>
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -48,39 +59,12 @@ <h3>Four core problems identified</h3>
</div>
</dl>

<hr class="nhsuk-section-break nhsuk-section-break--l nhsuk-section-break--visible">

<h2>Scope for the intial alpha:</h2>


<h3>Less risky assumptions</h3>
<ul class="nhsuk-list nhsuk-list--bullet">
<li>Approved body evaluations (e.g. NICE Medtech Guidance)</li>
<li>External evaluations/accreditations (e.g. ODEP)</li>
<li>Passporting functionality (e.g. DTAC)</li>
<li>Trust-level evaluations of medtech</li>
<li>Link to PIM (Product Information Management system)</li>
<li>All medtech registered with MHRA – community and secondary care</li>
<li>Side-by-side comparison across a range of metrics</li>
<li>Data presented in a user-friendly and intuitive UI</li>
<li>Data aligned with VBP (Value-Based Procurement) domains</li>
</ul>


<h3>Riskier assumptions</h3>
<ul class="nhsuk-list nhsuk-list--bullet">
<li>Trust reviews, opinions, or ratings</li>
<li>Supplier-submitted information</li>
<li>Volume data showing usage across NHS</li>
<li>Markers for SMEs and UK-manufactured products</li>
</ul>


<h3>Possibly out of scope for now</h3>
<ul class="nhsuk-list nhsuk-list--bullet">
<li>Price data (explicitly excluded)</li>
<li>Non-evaluative data belonging in PIM</li>
<li>PAQ forms (centralised in PIM)</li>
<li>Public access - only key users</li>
<li>Evidence validation (Compass centralises, does not validate)</li>
</ul>

<hr class="nhsuk-section-break nhsuk-section-break--l nhsuk-section-break--visible">

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -121,10 +105,7 @@ <h2>Landscape analysis</h2>
</tbody>
</table>

<div class="nhsuk-inset-text">
<span class="nhsuk-u-visually-hidden">Information: </span>
<p><strong>Strategic position:</strong> Compass would be the missing "product intelligence layer" – complementary to existing platforms, not competing with them.</p>
</div>


<hr class="nhsuk-section-break nhsuk-section-break--l nhsuk-section-break--visible">

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -166,13 +147,13 @@ <h2>Value-based procurement framework</h2>

<hr class="nhsuk-section-break nhsuk-section-break--l nhsuk-section-break--visible">

<h2>Initial prototype features</h2>
<h2>Initial prototype</h2>

<p>The first prototype (built sprint 1) demonstrated how we would test some our initial assumptions:</p>

<h3>1. Product comparison interface</h3>
<ul class="nhsuk-list nhsuk-list--bullet">
<li>Search and browse MHRA-registered products</li>
<li>Search and browse registered products</li>
<li>Product cards showing regulatory status (NICE, ODEP, DTAC)</li>
<li>Select up to 3 products for side-by-side comparison</li>
<li>Links to PIM for technical specifications</li>
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -210,10 +191,7 @@ <h2>Initial design decisions</h2>
<td class="nhsuk-table__cell">No price data displayed</td>
<td class="nhsuk-table__cell">Forces focus on clinical value; price negotiated separately in tenders</td>
</tr>
<tr class="nhsuk-table__row">
<td class="nhsuk-table__cell">VBP scores 0-10 scale</td>
<td class="nhsuk-table__cell">Simple comparison metric; assumption that evidence can be meaningfully scored</td>
</tr>

<tr class="nhsuk-table__row">
<td class="nhsuk-table__cell">Maximum 3 products compared</td>
<td class="nhsuk-table__cell">Keeps interface manageable; reflects typical shortlisting behaviour</td>
Expand All @@ -223,8 +201,8 @@ <h2>Initial design decisions</h2>
<td class="nhsuk-table__cell">Avoids duplicating technical specs; positions Compass as evidence layer</td>
</tr>
<tr class="nhsuk-table__row">
<td class="nhsuk-table__cell">NHS Design System styling</td>
<td class="nhsuk-table__cell">Establishes credibility; consistency with other NHS tools</td>
<td class="nhsuk-table__cell">NHS Design System usage</td>
<td class="nhsuk-table__cell">Establishes credibility with NHS professionals</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Expand All @@ -235,7 +213,7 @@ <h2>Initial design decisions</h2>

<h2>What we didn't know yet</h2>

<p>These questions remained open, to be answered through user research:</p>


<ul class="nhsuk-list nhsuk-list--bullet">
<li>How do procurement teams actually build confidence in product decisions?</li>
Expand All @@ -246,15 +224,7 @@ <h2>What we didn't know yet</h2>
<li>How do clinicians' needs differ from procurement professionals?</li>
</ul>

<div class="nhsuk-warning-callout">
<h3 class="nhsuk-warning-callout__label">
<span role="text">
<span class="nhsuk-u-visually-hidden">Important: </span>
Key unknown
</span>
</h3>
<p>We had not yet validated whether users wanted to <strong>read documents</strong> or <strong>talk to peers</strong>. This would prove to be a critical finding that reshaped the entire service direction.</p>
</div>




Expand Down
106 changes: 18 additions & 88 deletions app/views/design-histories/v1.html
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -31,123 +31,55 @@
<div class="nhsuk-grid-column-two-thirds">


<h1 class="nhsuk-heading-xl">Peer to peer engagement</h1>
<h1 class="nhsuk-heading-xl">Team workshop</h1>

<p class="nhsuk-body-l">We structured product pages to prioritise peer to peer information, making trust adoption the most critical aspect.</p>
<p class="nhsuk-body-l">We ran an internal workshop to get the team 'unstuck' and decide what to test first</p>

<p class="nhsuk-body-s nhsuk-u-secondary-text-color">Date: December 2025 | Phase: Alpha Sprint 2</p>

<hr class="nhsuk-section-break nhsuk-section-break--l nhsuk-section-break--visible">

<h2>The problem</h2>
<h2 class="nhsuk-heading-l">The problem</h2>

<p>User research revealed that NHS procurement professionals rely heavily on informal personal networks to discover what other trusts are procuring and using. However, this mechanism is ad-hoc and limited to who they happen to know.</p>
<p>After an initial proof of concept, we needed team alignment on what we would actually test with users</p>

<p>Our initial product page design followed a conventional pattern: supplier branding and marketing content at the top, technical specifications prominent, and trust evaluations buried lower in the page as supporting content. This didn't reflect how users actually make procurement decisions.</p>
<p>Our initial designs had some good ideas, namely:</p>

<ul>
<li>Date sources and data types</li>
<li>Product comparison interface</li>
<li>VBP scoring system</li>
<li>NHS Design System styling</li>
</ul>






<h2 class="nhsuk-heading-m">Key Insights</h2>
<h2 class="nhsuk-heading-l">Things we changed</h2>

<h3 class="nhsuk-heading-m">Peer intelligence is valued but currently ad-hoc</h3>

<ul class="nhsuk-list nhsuk-list--bullet">
<li>Nearly all users want to know what other Trusts are procuring and using</li>
<li>Current mechanisms are ad-hoc and based on informal personal networks</li>
</ul>

<h2>Things we kept or tweaked</h2>

<h3 class="nhsuk-heading-m">Users want context beyond product performance</h3>
<ul class="nhsuk-list nhsuk-list--bullet">
<li>Users want to understand not just how well a product was evaluated, but how the evaluation was conducted</li>
<li>Interest in how other Trusts built business cases and what factors they considered important</li>
</ul>

<h3 class="nhsuk-heading-m">Value is about confidence, not time-saving</h3>
<ul class="nhsuk-list nhsuk-list--bullet">
<li>The primary value isn't avoiding trials or saving time</li>
<li>It's about building confidence that a product is a viable option for their Trust</li>
<li>Most feedback relates to the shortlisting stage where users consider which products and suppliers to explore further</li>
</ul>

<h3 class="nhsuk-heading-m">Willingness to share</h3>
<ul class="nhsuk-list nhsuk-list--bullet">
<li>Nearly no users saw any issue with sharing their procurement evaluations with other Trusts</li>
</ul>

<h3 class="nhsuk-heading-m">Preference for conversation</h3>
<ul class="nhsuk-list nhsuk-list--bullet">
<li>Some users said they would always prefer talking to someone at another Trust over relying on written information alone</li>
</ul>

<hr class="nhsuk-section-break nhsuk-section-break--l nhsuk-section-break--visible">

<h2 class="nhsuk-heading-l">User Needs</h2>

<h3 class="nhsuk-heading-m">1. Building procurement confidence through peer learning</h3>
<p class="nhsuk-body">Users need to learn what has worked for other Trusts. The information required varies by Trust, product category and individual, but broadly includes:</p>
<ul class="nhsuk-list nhsuk-list--bullet">
<li>How has the product worked for the Trust, and what issues did they find</li>
<li>How has the supplier worked for the Trust, and what issues did they find</li>
</ul>

<h3 class="nhsuk-heading-m">2. Knowing who to contact</h3>
<p class="nhsuk-body">Users need to identify which Trusts to talk to and find contact details for people in those Trusts:</p>
<ul class="nhsuk-list nhsuk-list--bullet">
<li>Whether another Trust has procured or is using a product is key information for choosing who to contact</li>
<li>Users will also judge how helpful a Trust might be based on their own knowledge</li>
</ul>

<hr class="nhsuk-section-break nhsuk-section-break--l nhsuk-section-break--visible">

<h2 class="nhsuk-heading-l">Service Vision</h2>

<h3 class="nhsuk-heading-m">Core functionality</h3>
<ul class="nhsuk-list nhsuk-list--bullet">
<li>Show which Trusts are using and procuring which medtech</li>
<li>Enable users to contact people in those Trusts</li>
</ul>

<h3 class="nhsuk-heading-m">Evaluation visibility</h3>
<ul class="nhsuk-list nhsuk-list--bullet">
<li>Show a broad range of evaluation types from Trusts, associated with products</li>
<li>This might include large clinical trials over several months, or a simple one-pager from a clinician trying something out</li>
<li>There will not be consistency (initially) across documents users make available</li>
<li>We could explore showing key information alongside evaluations (e.g. did the Trust end up procuring or excluding this product)</li>
<li>This contextual information could be gathered by asking users a few questions when they share a document</li>
</ul>

<h3 class="nhsuk-heading-m">Trusted sources beyond Trusts</h3>
<p class="nhsuk-body">Some evaluations may come from other trusted bodies our users rely on:</p>
<ul class="nhsuk-list nhsuk-list--bullet">
<li>NHS Supply Chain</li>
<li>NHS-led initiatives like GIRFT</li>
<li>External NHS-adjacent partners like ODEP</li>
<li>Any body using clinicians to evaluate devices that our users trust</li>
</ul>

<h3 class="nhsuk-heading-m">Informal feedback (potential)</h3>
<ul class="nhsuk-list nhsuk-list--bullet">
<li>Potentially show user feedback not captured in formal documents (e.g. "I had supply chain issues with this supplier")</li>
<li>Star ratings may not be the right design choice – this needs further exploration</li>
</ul>





<h2 class="nhsuk-heading-l">Design solution</h2>

<p>We fundamentally structured the product page hierarchy to lead with peer information.</p>

<div class="nhsuk-grid-row">
<div class="nhsuk-grid-column-one-half">
<img class="nhsuk-u-margin-bottom-5" src="https://placehold.co/500x400" alt="">
</div>
<div class="nhsuk-grid-column-one-half">
<img class="nhsuk-u-margin-bottom-5 nhsuk-u-margin-left-2" src="https://placehold.co/500x400" alt="">
</div>
</div>



Expand All @@ -172,9 +104,7 @@ <h3>Embracing evaluation variety</h3>
<li>"How they evaluated" section describing process, business case approach, and key decision factors</li>
</ul>

<h3>What we removed</h3>

<p>We removed the star rating review section entirely. Research showed users want conversations and context, not simplified ratings. The nuance of "it worked for us because..." can't be captured in stars.</p>


<h2>How it tested</h2>

Expand Down
16 changes: 8 additions & 8 deletions app/views/design-histories/v2.html
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@

<h1>Onboarding flow and homepage iterations</h1>

<p class="nhsuk-body-l">We explored how we could accommodate submitting evaluations to the platform.</p>
<p class="nhsuk-body-l">We explored how we could accommodate submitting evaluations to the platform, in user friendly formats</p>

<p class="nhsuk-body-s nhsuk-u-secondary-text-color">Date: January 2026 | Phase: Alpha Sprint 3</p>

Expand All @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ <h1>Onboarding flow and homepage iterations</h1>
<h2>The problem</h2>


<p>We explored a simple flow which would enable procurement professionals to submit their own evaluations. This would potentially save time
<p>We initially explored a simple flow which would enable procurement professionals to submit their own evaluations. This would potentially save time
for trusts looking to share their experiences with products, and help populate the platform with more peer-to-peer intelligence.</p>
</p>

Expand All @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ <h2>The problem</h2>
<div class="nhsuk-grid-column-two-thirds">


<h3 class="nhsuk-heading-s">Quick document upload</h3>
<h3 class="nhsuk-heading-s">Document upload</h3>
<p><strong>Purpose:</strong> Share existing evaluations quickly with minimal data entry</p>
<p><strong>User journey:</strong></p>
<ol class="nhsuk-list nhsuk-list--number">
Expand All @@ -72,12 +72,12 @@ <h3 class="nhsuk-heading-s">Quick document upload</h3>
<h3>Key design decisions</h3>


<p>Regardless of which pathway trusts choose, all product intelligence feeds into a single shared repository. Route A users benefit from Route B's structured data, and Route B users can access Route A's shared documents.</p>
<p>Information feeds into a single shared repository, capturing essential metadata without buredn.</p>

<h4>Route A captures essential metadata without burden</h4>
<p>Rather than asking trusts to re-enter information already in their documents, we ask four focused questions:</p>

<p>Rather than asking trusts to re-enter information already in their documents, we would ask:</p>
<ul class="nhsuk-list nhsuk-list--bullet">
<li>What type of evaluation was this? (clinical trial, pilot, usage report, quick review)</li>
<li>What type of evaluation was this?</li>
<li>Did you procure this product? (yes, no, under review)</li>
<li>Brief description of your evaluation process (optional, 300 characters)</li>
<li>Are you willing to be contacted by other trusts?</li>
Expand All @@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ <h4>Discussion topics help peer matching</h4>
<h4>Multi-product evaluations supported</h4>
<p>Recognising that trusts often evaluate multiple products in comparative assessments, we designed Route A to handle one document linked to multiple product evaluations—avoiding the need to upload the same PDF repeatedly.</p>

<h3>Visual design</h3>




Expand Down
Loading