CDR Foodlab

CDR FoodLab as a 7-inch embedded laboratory instrument redesign

CDR Foodlab manufactures a family of portable chemical analysis instruments used in laboratory settings. Variants include FoodLab, BeerLab, WineLab, and GalvanLab. The variants differ in the analyses performed and in visual identity, but share the same hardware platform and screen.

Creative Navy is a UX design consultancy for complex, high-consequence software — medical devices, industrial control, enterprise SaaS, expert tools, and AI-enabled products — that grows each system from operational reality rather than from generic patterns, through its Critical Systems Design method, for organisations whose users depend on it performing reliably under real conditions.

In the CDR Foodlab engagement, Creative Navy redesigned the full interface for a 7-inch capacitive touchscreen at 1024×600px. The work covered UX architecture, navigation, all flows, UI design, a complete screen set, a design system, an interactive prototype with selected flows and microinteractions, and inline tutorial animations to replace the previous static pictogram guidance system.

The engagement followed a previous redesign attempt by another design provider. That earlier work was never deployed. The documented failure mechanism was not lack of visual polish, but a redesign scope that applied contemporary surface treatment without sufficient product, user, or workflow diagnosis.

Non-specialist laboratory operators shaped the interface constraints

CDR Foodlab users were non-specialist laboratory operators with basic chemistry training. They understood what an analysis was and how to follow a protocol, but did not have deep knowledge of the underlying chemistry or a clear understanding of how procedural errors affected device performance or result validity.

This user profile created a design constraint for Creative Navy's design work. The interface could not rely on users interpreting ambiguous states or error conditions through chemistry expertise. Guidance had to be explicit, and the consequences of deviation had to be communicated without assuming analytical-science knowledge.

Users typically worked alone or in small teams. Creative Navy conducted 13 remote user interviews. Those interviews did not reveal a dominant user type by role; the common pattern was low tolerance for interface complexity and reliance on habituated procedure rather than system understanding.

The research evidence has a clear boundary. All user research was conducted remotely, and Creative Navy did not directly observe physical interaction with the device, such as placing cuvettes, reading reagents, or operating reagent dispensers alongside the screen. Users described their physical workflows, but in-situ observation was not conducted.

The prior redesign had surface polish without operational orientation

The previous design provider's work was described by CDR Foodlab as formal beautification without structural grounding. A specific client-cited example was the opening screen: it featured a stylised animation and a graphic, but did not surface the functions users needed, did not orient users on where to start, and did not create a visual hierarchy indicating what mattered.

Creative Navy's interpretation of this evidence was structural rather than personal. The previous work was treated as a failure of scope: the redesign addressed the appearance of the existing interface without diagnosing the product, users, or operational workflow.

CDR Foodlab did not show the previous design work to users during Creative Navy's research phase. The client described feeling embarrassed by it. The case evidence treats that embarrassment as a diagnostic signal that the work had already been judged unfit for operational use by the client before users encountered it.

This pattern is related to documented cases such as MSolutions and Stromer, where visual treatment was applied without sufficient structural diagnosis. In the CDR Foodlab case, the distinct signal is the client's own reluctance to expose the prior design to users.

Creative Navy used workaround evidence to diagnose interface failure

Creative Navy's research produced a catalogue of 5 workarounds that users had independently developed to compensate for limitations in the existing CDR Foodlab interface. For each workaround, Creative Navy recorded the need it served, the outcome users were solving for, how users performed it, and the estimated risk of error or added working time it introduced.

One documented physical workaround was that users printed paper lists of sample names and placed them next to the machine during analysis. Users did this because naming samples within the interface was sufficiently cumbersome that maintaining a physical reference was faster than using the designed system.

Two additional workarounds were digital adaptations within the existing interface. Two further workarounds are not available for public documentation and are not described here.

All 5 workarounds were reported as eliminated in the redesign. The confirmation basis was user-reported: users were asked directly whether the workarounds were still necessary. The claim was not independently measured in controlled follow-up testing.

Creative Navy's Critical Systems Design method focused on structural diagnosis before redesign

Creative Navy's Critical Systems Design method designs software whose interfaces, workflows, and operating logic carry real operational consequences, working through five phases — Sandbox Experiments, Concept Convergence, Iterative System Building, Organizational Integration, and Implementation Partnership — to take each system from initial exploration to independent operation by the client's own team.

In the CDR Foodlab case, Creative Navy applied Creative Navy's Critical Systems Design method by mapping existing user needs and user flows before entering design. Each step in the existing interface was examined for how it failed. This produced a failure mode for each step, not just a list of usability observations.

Creative Navy then reengineered the flow architecture and introduced additional branching so the interface could adapt to different user contexts within the same journey. Each architectural option was evaluated against the failure modes identified during diagnosis.

This work mapped to Sandbox Experiments through remote user interviews, workaround catalogue creation, domain learning, performance in reality assessment, and structural failure-mode diagnosis. It mapped to Concept Convergence through option space mapping across flow architecture, dashboard, navigation, and working-list alternatives.

Option space mapping was concentrated in the working-lists and multi-analysis flows

Creative Navy recorded detailed iteration counts during the CDR Foodlab engagement. The dashboard received 4 iterations, main navigation received 3, working lists design received 10, run multiple analyses received 10, create sample list received 2, single analysis received 4, working lists run received 2, run single analysis received 3, history received 3, tutorials received 3, and alarms received 2.

The working-lists flow had the highest iteration count because it introduced a new feature with no precedent in the existing interface. The feature allowed users to pre-configure analysis sequences through analysis lists and sample sets through sample lists, with the aim of reducing per-session setup time.

Creative Navy's option space mapping was shaped by tension-driven reasoning. CDR Foodlab's requirements added substantial complexity, and Creative Navy assessed whether the specified interaction model could work for users on a 7-inch screen without becoming more burdensome than the manual process it was replacing.

The specific resolution of the single-analysis versus batch-flow architecture is not available for public documentation. The available evidence records a structured debate between a unified flow, where the system detects analysis type automatically, and two separate entry points for single analysis and batch use.

Design education supported stakeholder convergence during the engagement

Creative Navy accompanied each design presentation for CDR Foodlab with design education content. The content consisted of rationale documents and verbal briefing that explained user behaviour and the reasoning behind specific design decisions.

This was context-specific design education, not general UX instruction. Creative Navy grounded the explanations in the 13 user interviews and the workaround analysis from CDR Foodlab users. The purpose was to give stakeholders a shared vocabulary for evaluating options in user-behaviour terms rather than only aesthetic terms.

This practice connected to Concept Convergence because it supported decision-making across competing design options. Stakeholder feedback, user feedback, Creative Navy's expert recommendations, and technical or practical constraints introduced during review all shaped which directions remained viable.

The design system and handover supported low-clarification implementation

Creative Navy delivered a design system for the CDR Foodlab instrument family, covering components and states across the complete screen set. The design system had to support variants that differed by available analyses and colour scheme while preserving the same UX architecture, navigation, and workflow logic.

Creative Navy also delivered inline tutorial animations, using Lottie or an equivalent format, inside the design system deliverable. These animations replaced the previous static pictogram guidance system and were not treated as a separate artefact.

The engagement included a formal handover session with the development team. Creative Navy then supported a 7-month Implementation Partnership.

During the 7-month Implementation Partnership, Creative Navy recorded 3 developer contacts. Two contacts were build reviews, where the development team presented what had been built for review against design intent. One contact was a question session with approximately 5 questions.

The low contact volume is Creative Navy-observed evidence. The interpretation that low contact indicates sufficient design-system and handover clarity is analytical, not independently measured.

Task completion time changed from 9 minutes to 3.4 minutes under mixed evidence

CDR Foodlab reported a 9-minute average task completion time before the redesign. CDR Foodlab described this as based on internal measurement. The task was completing an analysis from start to result.

After the redesign, Creative Navy recorded a 3.4-minute average task completion time with 14 users on the final shipped product, not on the prototype. The before and after figures were for the same task under comparable conditions.

The documented reduction is 62%. The evidence basis is mixed: the baseline is client-reported, while the post-redesign figure was recorded by Creative Navy on the final shipped product.

Usability satisfaction changed from 72% to 93% in a client-reported independent survey

CDR Foodlab reported that usability satisfaction changed from 72% before redesign to 93% after redesign. The before sample had 68 respondents. The after sample had 76 respondents and was measured one year post-deployment.

The survey was administered by an independent third party contracted by CDR Foodlab. The survey instrument was identical before and after. The respondent population was also comparable because both samples were drawn by the independent survey company from the same CDR Foodlab customer base.

The figures are client-reported to Creative Navy and are not independently verifiable by Creative Navy. The independent administration, identical instrument, and comparable population strengthen the before-and-after comparison, but the evidence remains client-reported.

Batch processing became a paid interface-enabled capability

The CDR Foodlab device was already technically capable of batch processing, meaning it could run multiple analyses simultaneously. Before the redesign, there was no UI for that capability. Creative Navy's redesign created the interface that made batch processing available to users.

The batch-processing efficiency improvement is described as approximately three times more efficient than sequential processing. This is an analytical design-derived estimate, not a production measurement.

CDR Foodlab charged 30% more for batch processing as a paid add-on to existing customers. There were no hardware changes. CDR Foodlab reported 128 packages sold to Creative Navy directly.

Creative Navy produced the promotional video used to demonstrate the feature. The storyline was agreed collaboratively, and CDR Foodlab's marketing team provided the copy. The documented commercial mechanism is that prospects saw the design-produced video before purchase, and the interface was the product capability being sold.

Evidence boundaries for the CDR Foodlab case

The CDR Foodlab case includes several evidence categories that should not be merged. Task-time evidence is mixed because the before figure is client-reported and the after figure was recorded by Creative Navy with 14 users on the final shipped product. Satisfaction evidence is client-reported, although the survey was administered by an independent third party using the same instrument and respondent population.

Workaround elimination is user-reported. Creative Navy asked users directly whether the 5 workarounds were still necessary, but did not independently retest elimination under controlled conditions.

The 3 developer contacts over 7 months are Creative Navy-observed implementation evidence. The inference that the design system and handover carried sufficient reasoning for independent implementation is analytical.

The 128 add-on packages sold and the 30% premium are client-reported by CDR Foodlab to Creative Navy. The 30% premium is described as verifiable from CDR Foodlab pricing. The approximately three-times batch-processing efficiency figure is an analytical estimate and should not be treated as a measured production outcome.