The exploring phase consisted of a series of “sub-phases”: discovering – mapping – educing. These three activities were applied to two distinct layers of the project in the same manner: the context and the existing concept (fasTest).

LAYER #1: The Context

During the discovering phase, the goal was to gain a deeper understanding of the problem or situation that was being addressed and its wider context, including factors such as infectious diseases, testing options, and wider impacts.

To achieve this, desk research was conducted on more general topics that were then funneled into a selection specific to COVID-19. In the mapping phase, the results of a survey were elaborated and integrated with the information gathered during the initial research to create multiple "testing experience maps."
These maps were visual representations of the "old" object-behavior-narrative drafted as a starting point. The maps captured the people's perceptions, behaviors, and feelings related to multiple experiences linked to the testing process.
Finally, in the educing phase, a further layer of analysis was added to the testing experience maps, showing pain and pleasure points. This layer of analysis helped to extract insights and ideas from the data, which could be used to inform and guide the design process.

LAYER #2: fasTest

In parallel with user research, a thorough exploration of the existing idea was carried out. The project proponent had, in fact, already autonomously drafted a rough product for implementing the technology, in a draft called “fasTest”.

As a closure to the exploration phase I presented my findings as a counterbrief in an alignment meeting with the start-up and proposed new possible directions.

Despite this many points were still undefined, for example regarding motivations and some touchpoints, but especially the "testing stations" themselves and critical journey steps, such as the testing procedure.
To face these open issue points the Service Design, human-centered approach called for codesign activities so to build directly with users on the existing proposals. This (officially) opened the ideation and design phase.

The second phase included seven co-design sessions, which involved a total of 16 people who were identified among the possible user categories, the latter defined in collaboration with the project proponents and their vision for the project in previous discussions, despite the fact that, in this particular case, the user could virtually be “anyone”

Following the co-design sessions, I was able to outline a comprehensive experience map/customer journey map, based on the insights obtained during the discussions concerning the service system.

Furthermore, I transformed the knowledge gathered about the physical product (i.e., the booth) into actual architectural requirements to use as a base to draft a more defined and functional structure, that actually matched with user needs and behaviours.

As a closure to the ideation and design phase, I presented this codesign outcome to the engineering team, along with 3 different structure proposals, various way finding systems. and four brand identity options,

Through stakeholder deliberation, one of the proposed concepts was designated as the preferred solution based on specific criteria: building complexity, forecasted cost (structure materials and construction),accessibility and aesthetics. 

The co-design session produced a vision for this procedure based on a very simple and straightforward sequence of steps. Unfortunately it required a complex backstage automation system that was still far from the existent and available technologies.

In trying to find a trade-off between the user and the machine, we discussed two new procedures, both compatible with the current version of the technology.

The first prototyping session involved 21 users and focused on the sample collection procedure, using an experience prototyping technique.

During these sessions, each participant was subjected to a simulation of all three procedures, in order. I recreated all the machine functionalities and background systems with voice and movements.
I created props and mock-ups keeping a low-fidelity and involving both everyday objects and real biomedical products, adapted to fit my goals and needs.

The insights gleaned from this session were subsequently analysed and integrated into the existing knowledge base, thus guiding the next stage of prototyping.
‍
After the sessions I compared the recorded time spent on task and recognized patterns in errors and their causes.
This allowed me to pin-point the optimal procedure that entailed an automation level achievable in short term but also entailed minimal and simple steps for the user.

A total of 14 prospective users were involved, spanning from 21 to 34 years old. This session was very complex and it entailed different layers of action, as the technique used was the service walkthrough.

It involved the simulation of the most important service moments of the journey, the interactions, the touchpoints and their relationships in time for the user to «live through» and experience as they were actually living the service itself. It therefore involved the creation of multiple set ups and environments.

This process took around three month and entailed drafting multiple versions, sourcing materials, building and documenting processes.

Then I created multiple props and mock-ups, both physical and digital, that could act as elements or touchpoints. Examples are the sample collection procedure artefacts, like the swabs and the simulation of automation parts, which I 3d modelled and 3d printed.
I developed also functioning digital artefacts, such as the website, and the booth interfaces with real interactive elements and audio instructions.

In the end, a complex analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data recorded was made. Observations gathered were crucial as they allowed to create a set of recommendations to implement in the final solution.