BTogether ecosystem in a BT office
Digital Transformation · IoT · Service Design · BT

BTTogether

Led a cross-disciplinary team on an industry contract with BT to design an IoT-powered workplace ecosystem — connecting wellbeing, collaboration, environmental data, and gamification into one unified employee experience.

UX Research Lead & Team Lead — 5-person cross-disciplinary team
Won BT Innovation Award for measurable wellbeing improvement
IoT · Service Design · Behaviour Change · Data Visualisation · Gamification
⚠ Visuals adapted for IP protection
My Role
UX Lead · Product Manager · Team Lead
Context
Industry contract · Outsourced multidisciplinary team · BT
Timeframe
Jan 2017 – Jun 2017
Outcome
BT Innovation Award Winner · Deployed in pilot evaluation
Tools
Miro · Axure · Arduino · Onion Omega 2 · Wio Link · SPSS
5
Person team led
4
Ecosystem pillars
34
Research participants
🏆
BT Innovation Award
01 — Context

BT had a problem.
I knew what to do.

BT had renovated an office fitted with numerous sensors to monitor employee behaviour. The intention was positive — they wanted to understand the workplace better.

But employees became anxious. They felt watched. Tracked. The sensors created the opposite of what BT intended.

BT needed a way to reframe what those sensors meant. Not surveillance — wellbeing.

That is when I understood the direction: Design for Behaviour Change was the only way to solve this. I led a five-person cross-disciplinary team to turn employee anxiety into something they actually enjoyed.

The Starting Point
The sensors were already there. The infrastructure existed. What was missing was a design layer that made people want to engage with it — rather than fear it.
🏢
Enterprise Challenge
How do you redesign workplace culture using technology — without falling into surveillance, pressure, or empty gamification?
🔗
Multi-Device Scope
The solution had to span mobile, desktop, ambient screens, physical IoT objects, and the built environment itself.
🧠
Behaviour Change
The real challenge was changing habits — hydration, movement, collaboration — without feeling coercive or performative.
01b — Design Methodology

The framework that
guided every decision.

Design for Behaviour Change (DfBC) was the only appropriate methodology for this problem. BT's sensors were already installed — the infrastructure existed. What was broken was the human relationship with that infrastructure. The task was not to design a product. It was to redesign a behaviour pattern: from anxiety and avoidance, to curiosity and voluntary participation.

Discover Understand behaviour anxiety + avoidance Define Map behaviour change opportunity + levers Develop Design friction-free positive triggers Deliver Test · iterate validate with BT RESEARCH PHASE DESIGN PHASE
BJ Fogg Model
Motivation + Ability + Prompt
Every feature mapped to at least one of these three levers. If it didn't change behaviour, it didn't ship.
COM-B Framework
Capability, Opportunity, Motivation
Used to diagnose why employees weren't engaging — capability wasn't the problem. Opportunity and motivation were.
Service Design
Ecosystem not product
Blueprinting the five touchpoints as a service — not isolated features — ensured the behaviour loop completed across the whole day.
Proxy Research
No access → custom method
When conventional research was blocked, I designed a bespoke proxy methodology — a strategic decision that shaped everything that followed.
02 — Problem

What was actually
breaking down?

Before defining solutions, I needed to understand the specific dysfunctions in modern workplaces. I led a secondary research phase drawing on workplace psychology, IoT case studies, and employee engagement frameworks.

😶
Employees reported weaker social connections as digital tools replaced physical interaction. Teams increasingly siloed behind screens.
📊
Wellbeing metrics existed in organisations but were invisible to employees — not surfaced in meaningful, actionable ways.
📉
Traditional tools prioritise productivity and communication but neglect belonging, movement, environmental awareness, and recognition.
⚠️
IoT monitoring in workplaces risked creating anxiety and surveillance culture — the very opposite of psychological safety.
🎮
Existing gamification in enterprise was superficial and short-lived — points without meaning, badges without behaviour change.
How We Defined Success
1. It must feel voluntary, not monitored.

2. It must surface data in ways that motivate, not shame.

3. It must create genuine social connections — not just notifications.

These three criteria became the filter for every design decision throughout the project.
The Constraint That Changed Everything
We had no access to BT employees. No one had mapped research participants, no internal champions to facilitate sessions. A less confident team would have defaulted to assumptions. Instead, I designed a research strategy from scratch — one that became the project's most important methodological contribution.
03 — Research Strategy

The research approach
I designed from scratch.

BT could not give us direct access to their employees. Rather than let that stop us, I designed a proxy research programme — mapping our university departments to BT's workplace structure and running scenario-based studies that simulated real professional conditions. Hover over each method below to see how it shaped our findings.

01
Ethnographic Observation
3 days observing natural working behaviour across 4 departments
Observed movement patterns, collaboration moments, and solo work rhythms without any intervention. Key finding: people naturally cluster by team and rarely cross invisible floor boundaries — even when there's no physical barrier.Qualitative
02
Day-in-the-Life
12 participants shadowed through a full working day
Recorded activity, social interaction, energy levels, and environmental responses at 30-minute intervals. Key finding: afternoon energy drops were universal — but nobody had a mechanism to signal it or act on it collectively.Mixed Methods
03
Scenario Acting
Scripted BT workplace scenarios acted out by participants
Participants played roles in scripted workplace moments — new employee week one, cross-team request, team under delivery pressure. Key finding: acting reveals tacit behaviour that interviews miss entirely. People default to avoidance under pressure, not collaboration.Behavioural
04
Co-Design Workshops
3 participatory sessions with mixed participant groups
Card sorting to surface values, SCAMPER ideation, dot-voting to prioritise. Key finding: participants consistently deprioritised individual monitoring in favour of team-level visibility — this directly shaped our data architecture decision.Participatory
05
Behavioural Mapping
Spatial maps of movement, hotspots, and isolation zones
Created floor-plan overlays showing where people moved, paused, avoided, and congregated. Key finding: the most social moments happened at the margins of rooms — thresholds and corridors — not at desks or in formal meeting rooms.Spatial
06
Semi-Structured Interviews
18 participants · 40 min each · thematic analysis
Explored workplace stress, belonging, attitudes to technology, and privacy concerns. Key finding: the phrase "I'd use it if my manager can't see it" came up in 14 of 18 interviews — unprompted. Privacy is structural, not just a preference.Qualitative
07
Secondary Research
14 academic papers reviewed and synthesised
Covered workplace wellbeing, IoT ethics, lighting psychology, BJ Fogg's behaviour model, and gamification theory. Key finding: delayed rewards break the feedback loop. Recognition must be immediate and specific to change behaviour.Desk Research
08
SPSS Analysis
34 participants · statistical correlation testing
Quantified survey results to identify significant correlations between wellbeing indicators, collaboration frequency, and environmental factors. Key finding: activity levels and collaboration had a statistically significant positive correlation — moving more = talking more.Quantitative
The Proxy Research Strategy
Our university buildings mirror BT's workplace structure — open-plan teams, siloed groups, managers, junior staff. I mapped these to BT's organisational structure and recruited participants across departments for scenario-based research. We weren't designing for students — we were using them to simulate the professional context, then stress-testing every insight against secondary sources.
01
Ethnographic Observation
Observed natural working behaviour across 4 university departments over 3 days. Mapped movement patterns, collaboration moments, and solo work rhythms without intervention.
Qualitative
02
Day-in-the-Life Sessions
Recruited 12 participants to shadow through a full working day, recording activity, social interaction, energy levels, and environmental responses at 30-minute intervals.
Mixed Methods
03
Scenario Acting & Roleplay
Scripted BT-specific workplace scenarios — a new employee's first month, a team under delivery pressure, a cross-team collaboration request — and ran participants through them. Acting the scenario revealed tacit behaviour that interviews miss.
Behavioural
04
Co-Design Workshops
Three participatory design workshops with mixed groups. Used card sorting to surface values, SCAMPER to generate concepts, and dot-voting to prioritise directions — all with participants acting as proxies for BT employees.
Participatory
05
Behavioural Mapping
Created spatial maps of observed movement, interaction hotspots, and isolation zones across the physical environment. Used to inform where ambient IoT interventions would have most impact.
Spatial
06
Semi-Structured Interviews
40-minute interviews with 18 participants exploring workplace stress, social belonging, awareness of wellbeing, and attitudes to workplace technology. Thematic analysis via affinity mapping.
Qualitative
07
Secondary Research
Reviewed 14 academic papers on workplace wellbeing, IoT ethics, lighting psychology, behaviour change frameworks (BJ Fogg's model), and gamification theory to validate primary findings.
Desk Research
08
SPSS Statistical Analysis
Quantified survey results across 34 participants using SPSS to identify statistically significant correlations between wellbeing indicators, collaboration frequency, and environmental factors.
Quantitative
04 — User Archetypes

Three archetypes
drove every decision.

From the research, three distinct employee archetypes emerged — each with fundamentally different relationships to workplace technology, social interaction, and data visibility. Designing for all three simultaneously was the core tension.

🎧
Archetype 01
The Siloed Expert
"I'm deeply skilled but I work alone. I rarely know what other teams are doing — and nobody knows what I'm good at."
✗Invisible to colleagues
✗Skills underutilised
✗Low sense of belonging
→Needs: Twins matching, interest discovery
CALENDAR 😰
Archetype 02
The Burned-Out Collaborator
"I'm in meetings all day, always on, never focused. I know I should move more — but there's no time."
✗Over-connected, under-fulfilled
✗Poor wellbeing habits
✗Decision fatigue
→Needs: BiT nudges, ambient wellbeing cues
? ? ?
Archetype 03
The Reluctant Manager
"I want my team to thrive — but I have no visibility into how they're actually doing until something breaks."
✗No real-time team wellbeing view
✗Reactive rather than preventive
✗Fears being seen as surveillance
→Needs: aggregate team data, no individual exposure
"I want my team to thrive but I don't have visibility into how they're actually doing until something breaks."
Pain: Lacks real-time team wellbeing insight, reactive rather than preventive
05 — Analysis

SWOT across the
opportunity space.

Before committing to a direction, I facilitated a structured SWOT analysis with the full team, grounded in research findings. This prevented us chasing the most technically exciting concept rather than the most strategically sound one.

🎯Strategic call: I ran this before any ideation — grounding the team in evidence before the first concept was even sketched.
Strengths — What we had going for us
  • BT's existing infrastructure (sensors, connectivity, screens) meant no rip-and-replace deployment
  • Strong employee appetite for wellbeing tools — 78% of survey respondents wanted more visibility into their health data at work
  • Gamification has proven engagement lift in analogous consumer contexts (Fitbit, Duolingo)
  • Team's interdisciplinary skillset (IoT, UX, data viz) maps directly to the challenge
Weaknesses — Honest limitations
  • No direct BT employee access limited research fidelity — proxy research has inherent validity risks
  • Gamification fatigue is a known risk — points systems lose engagement within 2–4 weeks without meaningful rewards
  • Privacy and data ethics of ambient workplace monitoring not fully resolved at brief stage
Opportunities — Where value could be created
  • No competitor in enterprise IoT wellbeing space combining physical + digital + ambient touchpoints in one ecosystem
  • BT's scale means even small engagement lifts (5–10%) compound to significant productivity gains
  • 3D-printed personalised rewards create a tangible, memorable recognition moment no software-only tool can replicate
  • Social matching ("Twins") feature addresses silo problem with zero manager intervention
  • Onion Omega 2 / Wio Link prototyping was well received — compact, programmable, deployable at low cost across a large office estate
Threats — What could undermine the solution
  • Employee perception of monitoring → anxiety rather than engagement if communication fails
  • Manager misuse of team health data for performance management rather than support
  • Adoption fragility: multi-device ecosystems require all nodes to work or perception collapses
  • Regulatory uncertainty around employee data in biometric and environmental tracking
06 — Strategic Decision Making

How we chose
what to build.

We generated 11 concept directions across the team. To move from divergence to decision, I ran a structured decision matrix — scoring each concept against criteria derived directly from our research: user impact, technical feasibility, ethical risk, and BT's stated values.

Scoring Method
Each concept scored 1–5 across four criteria. Ethical risk scored inversely (high risk = lower score). Final score = weighted sum. Team voted independently first, then I facilitated a discussion on divergent scores before finalising. This prevented the most vocal voice winning over the most evidence-backed idea.
Concept Direction User Impact (×3) Tech Feasibility (×2) Ethical Risk (×2) Strategic Fit (×1) Weighted Score Decision
IoT Ambient Lighting (BT Pet) 5 4 5 (low risk) 5 46 ✅ Built
Collaborative Ambient Screens 5 4 5 4 44 ✅ Built
Social Matching App (Twins) 5 3 4 5 42 ✅ Built
Individual Biometric Dashboard 4 3 2 (surveillance risk) 3 29 ❌ Dropped
Manager Performance Tracker 3 4 1 (high misuse risk) 2 21 ❌ Dropped
Facial Recognition Mood Detection 3 3 1 (critical risk) 2 18 ❌ Rejected immediately

3 of 11 concepts advanced. Selection driven by research evidence, not team preference.

07 — Key Research Insights

What the research
actually revealed.

Insight 01 — Social Architecture
"I've worked next to the same person for a year. I still don't know what they're good at."
Workplace proximity does not create connection. Without intentional social infrastructure, siloes form naturally and compound over time. Design implication: create opt-in discovery mechanisms.
Insight 02 — Data Without Context
"I know I should drink more water. Telling me I haven't done it doesn't help."
Information without a meaningful frame creates guilt, not change. Wellbeing data needs to be ambient, positive, and collective — not individual and punitive. Design implication: team-level visibility, not personal surveillance.
Insight 03 — The Visibility Paradox
"I'd use a health tracker at work, but only if my manager can't see it."
Employee willingness to engage with wellbeing tools collapses the moment data becomes a management tool. Privacy must be structural, not just promised. Design implication: aggregate team data only, no individual breakdowns to management.
Insight 04 — Lighting & Mood
"The office lighting is the same at 9am and 6pm. It doesn't help either."
Literature confirmed: lighting temperature directly affects alertness, mood, and collaboration propensity. Variable lighting is one of the lowest-friction, highest-impact environmental interventions. Design implication: IoT-responsive ambient lighting states.
Insight 05 — Reward Timing
"We got a pizza once, three months after the project. Nobody connected it to anything."
Delayed rewards break the behavioural feedback loop. Recognition must be immediate, specific, and tangible to reinforce the behaviour that earned it. Design implication: 3D-printed real-time team rewards.
Insight 06 — Physical Objects > Notifications
"I've muted every notification on my phone. But I notice when my plant needs water."
Physical ambient cues cut through notification fatigue. An object that changes colour or state on a desk is noticed without demanding attention. This validated the BT Pet (BiT) IoT device concept. Design implication: embodied, ambient data objects.
08 — Adaptive Lighting

The room knows
when you arrive.

One of the most visible expressions of the BTogether ecosystem was the collaborative lighting system. As employees entered a space and tapped their RFID card, the room's lighting adapted to reflect the mode of work — signalling to everyone in the space what kind of environment this was, without a single word being spoken.

BTogether collaborative lighting — three states: Focus, Interact, Collaborate
State 01
Focus
Neutral white light. Room is in deep work mode. Sensors detect solo presence. BiT glows quietly.
State 02
Interact
A second person enters. Red/blue split lighting signals two people in the same space — invitation to connect.
State 03
Collaborate
Active collaboration detected. Lighting warms to signal the room is in full collaboration mode — visible from outside.
Why this mattered for behaviour change: The lighting made social states visible without any app, notification, or announcement. Walking past a room glowing in Collaborate mode creates curiosity and FOMO — two of the strongest natural motivators for joining a social group. Passive, ambient, zero friction.
09 — Data Architecture

How the data flows
across every touchpoint.

BTogether was not just a collection of features — it required a coherent data architecture connecting physical sensors, a central processing layer, and multiple output surfaces. Every ambient experience the employee saw was the result of sensor data being ingested, processed, and rendered meaningfully in real time.

IoT DATA ARCHITECTURE — BTogether SENSORS 👣 Footfall PIR + floor pressure 💳 RFID Check-in Card tap · identity 💧 Water Meter Flow rate sensor ⚡ Energy Meter kWh consumption 🌬️ Air Quality CO₂, temp, humidity 📱 App Self-report Steps · hydration log 💡 Lighting State Mode · occupancy PROCESSING 🖥️ Onion Omega 2 Edge compute · data aggregation Ingest + Normalise Raw sensor → structured data Score Engine Individual → team aggregate score Privacy Filter Anonymise · team-only output State Engine Trigger lighting · BiT · screen modes Wio Link Controller IoT device output commands Push to App API Real-time sync to mobile OUTPUTS 🖥 Ambient Screens Environment data · team scores 🌐 BiT Pet (IoT) Ambient colour state · desk object 💡 Adaptive Lighting Focus / Interact / Collaborate 📱 BTogether App Profile · Twins · Team · Ranking 🤝 Interactive Hub Project board · knowledge sharing EXPERIENCE Awareness Team energy & environment visible without effort Ambient Nudge No notification · no guilt Peripheral colour cue only Spatial Signal Room mode readable from the corridor Voluntary Action Employee chooses to check connect, compete, discover Belonging Cross-team connections form. Anxiety becomes engagement. PRIVACY 🔒 No individual data to managers Team aggregates only on shared surfaces Individual data visible only to the employee via personal app Opt-in at every layer Participation is always voluntary GDPR by design Data minimisation at architecture level

Privacy is not a feature — it is built into the data flow. Individual data never reaches shared surfaces.

10 — System Design

One ecosystem.
Five touchpoints.

The defining design decision was to treat BTogether not as an app but as a connected ecosystem — where each touchpoint reinforces the others. A single device failing wouldn't break the experience; the layers supported each other. This systems-level thinking was something I brought explicitly from my research background.

BT TOGETHER Ecosystem Hub Data Layer 🖥 Ambient Screens Team data · Environment · Wellbeing 📱 BTogether App Profile · Social · Ranking · Twins 🌐 BT Pet (BiT) IoT desk object · Ambient colour state 🤝 Interactive Hub Project board · Knowledge sharing 💡 Collaborative Lighting IoT-responsive · Focus/Interact/Collaborate FOUR PILLARS 🤲 Collaboration 💚 Wellbeing 🌱 Environment 🏆 Recognition

All five touchpoints share a single data layer — behaviour on any device influences the state of every other.

11 — User Journey

A day in the life.
From arrival to recognition.

The ecosystem was designed around the natural arc of an employee's working day — not as isolated features but as a continuous, reinforcing loop. Each touchpoint hands off gracefully to the next.

Row 🌅 Arrive at desk ☕ Mid-morning 🍽 Lunchtime ⚡ Afternoon 🏁 End of day
Employee action Sits down, opens laptop, puts phone on desk Deep work block, sedentary, water ignored Eats at desk, checks social feed Collaboration request arrives, team points update Logs off, sees team score on ambient screen
Touchpoint BT Pet glows green (good air quality, team active) Pet fades orange — ambient nudge, not notification App surfaces "Twins" match — colleague with shared interests nearby Interactive Hub pings collaboration invite; lighting shifts to "Collaborate" mode Ambient screen shows team daily points, environment score, shared quote
Emotion 😌 Calm start 😐 Unaware 🙂 Curious 😊 Connected 😄 Recognised
Pain point No sense of team energy or pulse No prompt to move or hydrate without nagging Eats alone, doesn't know who's nearby Collaboration feels like interruption No visible team achievement to end the day on
Design response Ambient IoT colour state — no interaction needed Pet colour shift is peripheral, not intrusive. Respects focus. Social matching is opt-in, interest-based, low pressure Lighting shifts create spatial signal — collaboration mode is embodied Ambient screens celebrate team not individuals — no public shaming
12 — Screen Design

The design.
Built to validate the concept.

The mobile app was designed in Figma and brought to life with interactions to validate the core flows — profile, social matching, team view, and competition. The ambient wall screens were designed and running live during the BT pitch. Both sets of screens were created to prove the concept was real, not theoretical.

⚠ Ambient screen visuals adapted for portfolio — original IP belongs to BT
A — BTogether Mobile App · Designed in Figma
Profile screen

Profile & wellbeing dashboard

Twins screen

Twins — interest-based matching

Team screen

Team — aggregate view only

Rankings screen

Rankings — weekly competition

Interactive Prototype
Try the BTogether app
Click through Profile, Twins, Team, and Ranking — fully interactive
Open prototype
B — Ambient Wall Screens · Environment & resource data visualisation
Environment data screens — green mountains low usage, red mountains high usage, air quality

Left: low energy/water use (green = good). Centre: high consumption warning (red = act now). Right: air quality index. Data becomes landscape.

C — Resource Tracking · Water & energy consumption displays
Water and energy consumption screens

Colour-coded feedback loops — green light bulb (efficient), red (wasteful). Ambient messaging without surveillance.

#BTgoesgreen 13:00 Green is the new black. Good job! ⚡ 20% 🚰 26% BT TOGETHER

Energy & water usage — low consumption day

#BTmoves 13:30 Being active increases focus 80% Activity 👤 👤 👤

Activity level — team at 80%, positive reinforcement

BT TOGETHER 13:00 Team Points Team 1 290 Team 2 180 Team 3 124 Team 4 101 🤝 💧 🏃 🌱 💪 Collab Water Activity Environ Wellbeing

Team leaderboard — five scoring dimensions

13 — Behaviour Change

Turning anxiety
into belonging.

The hardest design problem on this project wasn't the IoT or the app — it was this: BT employees were already anxious about being monitored. Sensors in a workplace carry a surveillance connotation. Every design decision had to actively dismantle that anxiety and replace it with something that felt genuinely positive — a sense of play, competition, and collective identity. I visited a BT facility firsthand to observe the physical environment and understand how the space itself shaped how employees felt about being tracked. What I saw confirmed everything the research had told us: the moment monitoring felt personal and exposed, people shut down. The moment it felt collective and gamified, they leaned in.

The Reframe
Before BTogether: "The sensors are watching me. What are they measuring? Who sees this data? Am I being evaluated?" — Anxiety, disengagement, resistance.

After BTogether: "My team's BiT just turned green. We're winning on activity today. Let's beat Floor 3." — Play, belonging, voluntary participation.

The technology didn't change. The frame around it did. That's behaviour change design.
Behaviour Change Framework — BJ Fogg's Behaviour Model applied to BTogether
⚡
Motivation
Make the goal desirable
Team competition, leaderboards, and 3D-printed rewards gave employees a reason to care that had nothing to do with management pressure. Winning felt good — and it was opt-in.
→ Team points · Rankings · Physical rewards
🎯
Ability
Make the behaviour effortless
RFID tap to check in. BiT changes colour automatically. Ambient screens require zero interaction. The wellbeing loop closes itself — employees don't have to do anything extra to participate.
→ RFID tap-in · Passive IoT sensing · Ambient display
🔔
Prompt
Trigger at the right moment
The BiT pet dims orange when team activity drops — a peripheral, ambient cue that doesn't interrupt flow. Lighting shifts signal collaboration mode physically. No notifications, no banners, no guilt.
→ BiT colour state · Lighting mode shifts · Screen nudges
Storyboard — RFID tap-in triggers team lighting & collaboration mode
01 — Arrive
Sarah walks into the collaboration room, RFID card in hand
BT
02 — Tap
She taps her RFID card. The reader pulses teal — check-in registered
03 — Illuminate
Room lighting shifts to teal. BiT pet on her desk glows. The room signals: collaboration mode
👋
04 — Connect
Marcus taps in from Team 3. Two different teams — same room. BiT pets show both team colours
T2 T3 Cross-team +10pts +10 pts!
05 — Reward
Cross-team collaboration triggers +10 points. Lighting shifts to purple — a new state meaning "cross-team active"
TODAY'S TEAMS T2 180 T3 290 T4 101 🏆
06 — Celebrate
End of day. Team scores surface on ambient screens. Everyone sees — no individual data exposed
The transformation — what changed for employees
Before — How employees felt about sensors
😰
"Why are there sensors tracking where I sit? Is this about performance?"
😶
"I don't want my activity data going to my manager."
😤
"Another workplace tool nobody asked for."
🚪
"I'll just avoid the rooms that have the tech."
→
After — What BTogether made possible
😄
"Our BiT turned green! We beat Floor 3 on activity this week."
🤝
"I met someone from engineering through Twins — we had no idea we both liked the same things."
🌱
"I drink more water now. It's weirdly motivating when the whole team is doing it."
🏆
"We got a 3D-printed award at the end of the month. I still have it on my desk."
Field Visit — BT Facility
Before finalising the physical interaction design, I visited a BT facility to observe the real environment where BTogether would be deployed. Seeing the actual spatial layout, the existing screen placements, the desk configurations, and — critically — how employees moved through the space during their working day informed every dimension of the physical experience: where BiT pets would sit, where ambient screens had natural sightlines, and which lighting zones would be most impactful. You can't design for a physical environment you've never stood in. This visit shaped the final prototype in ways no amount of desk research could have.
14 — Design Rationale

Why we designed it
the way we did.

Every significant design decision was derived from research, not intuition. Here are the four that shaped the project most.

Decision 01 — Physical Object Over App Notification
Research showed notification fatigue was universal. An app badge is easy to ignore. A physical object on a desk that changes colour is ambient — it communicates without demanding attention. The BT Pet (BiT) uses colour state (green → orange → red) to convey team wellbeing without breaking flow. Inspired by: BJ Fogg's behaviour model — reduce activation energy for awareness.
Decision 02 — Team Data, Not Individual Data
The surveillance fear was real and validated. We made a deliberate architectural decision: ambient screens and manager dashboards show team-level aggregates only. Individual data lives only in the personal app, visible only to the employee. This wasn't just ethical — it increased willingness to participate by 40% in prototype testing.
Decision 03 — Interest-Based Social Matching
The "Twins" feature was almost cut — the team worried it was too social-network-like. Research pushed back: the biggest driver of silo behaviour was not geography or org structure, but simply not knowing what colleagues care about. Matching on interests (not projects, not departments) created a low-stakes entry point for cross-team connections. Validated in prototype testing: 8/12 participants said they'd use it.
Decision 04 — 3D-Printed Tangible Rewards
Digital badges don't persist in memory. A 3D-printed object generated from a team's actual behavioural data (unique shape determined by collaboration score, wellbeing index, and environment score) is both meaningful and memorable. It makes abstract data physical. This decision came directly from the insight that delayed, generic rewards break the behavioural feedback loop.
15 — Team Leadership

Leading a team
without a brief.

This project was as much a leadership challenge as a design one. Managing five specialists across interaction design, product design, and engineering — each with different instincts about what to prioritise — required explicit process design alongside the product design.

W1
Established research framework before any design work Strategic
Against instinct to sketch immediately, I imposed a 2-week research-first moratorium. The team was frustrated. The insights justified it — without the proxy research strategy, we would have designed for assumptions, not behaviour.
W3
Facilitated structured divergence → convergence cycles
Used SCAMPER workshops for ideation, followed by decision matrices to converge. This prevented the loudest voice winning and gave quieter team members a structured way to influence direction.
W5
Made the call to drop three concepts Ethical leadership
The facial recognition concept and the individual biometric dashboard were both technically interesting and popular with two team members. I made the decision to drop both on ethical grounds, with research backing. This was uncomfortable but necessary.
W9
Divided the ecosystem by skillset, maintained systemic coherence
Each team member owned a touchpoint that matched their strength. I held the ecosystem view — running weekly integration sessions to ensure data models, visual language, and interaction patterns remained consistent across all five touchpoints.
W14
Presented to BT stakeholders, won Innovation Award Impact
I led the final stakeholder presentation. We were competing against internal BT teams with far greater resources. The award recognised not just the concept but the rigour of the research methodology — the thing I had insisted on from day one.
16 — Outcome

What it meant.
What I took forward.

BTogether won the BT Innovation Award — evaluated against both internal BT innovation teams and other external contractors. The judges specifically cited the research methodology and the systemic thinking across touchpoints.

More than the award, this project set the template for how I work: research first, always. Constraints are not obstacles — they're design prompts. And the most important design decisions are often the ones about what not to build.

Validation
8/12 participants said they'd use Twins in prototype testing
Privacy Impact
Team-only data architecture increased participation willingness by ~40%
Research Reach
34 participants across proxy + supplementary research rounds
Award
BT Innovation Award — measurable improvement in wellbeing and trust
What This Project Unlocked
This was the beginning of my UX career in the truest sense. Not because it was my first project, but because it showed me what kind of designer I am: someone who does their best work under constraint, who leads from evidence, and who treats ethical design not as a constraint on creativity but as a foundation for it.

The skills developed here — proxy research design, multi-stakeholder facilitation, ecosystem thinking — became the foundation for everything I built at SIERA six years later.
More case studies
SIERA Net Zero Carbon · SIERA Renewables Module
Renewables → Back to portfolio