Writer Studio

Project


Clinical trial foundation platform

My role


Lead UX Designer and Researcher

Location & year


United States - 2026

Objective

Digitize fragmented pharma clinical trial workflows into a structured, role-based collaboration ecosystem with real-time visibility, traceability, and cross-functional alignment.

My Role
Senior UX Designer
Tools
Figma FigJam Miro Adobe Creative Suite Enterprise Design System (EDS)
Duration
October 2025 – April 2026 ~6 months

At MORAL, in partnership with Eli Lilly and Company, I led the UX design of an enterprise collaboration workflow designed to replace fragmented Word, email, and manual handoffs with a shared space for internal Lilly teams to create and review trial documentation.

The
Challenge

The Schedule of Activities (SoA) defines when key procedures and assessments happen throughout a clinical trial. But creating and reviewing it required several roles to work across a fragmented workflow. Writers edited through a Word-based process, feedback moved through email and other channels, designers reconciled changes separately, and Study Teams often reviewed a different copy of the same document. As the SoA evolved, context, ownership, and review status became increasingly difficult to track.

The real design problem wasn't editing the SoA. It was preserving context, ownership, and alignment as the work moved across roles.

01 Existing workflow
Editing and review were split across tools and manual handoffs
Feedback was separated from the content it referred to
Teams lacked a shared view of what had changed and where work stood
Version history and approval context were difficult to trace
02 What the system needed to make clear
What changed, and why
Who could edit, review, or approve
Where the work was in the review process
Which version represented the current source of truth

How do we preserve the familiarity of the existing workflow while making ownership, review, and change history explicit?

Exploring
the Solution

Clinical trial workflows relied on close collaboration between Medical Writers, Designers, and Study Teams. Each role had different responsibilities, priorities, and pain points, making it essential to understand how teams communicated, reviewed, and handed off work across the protocol lifecycle.

Research & discovery

Three roles, three different relationships to the same document

Understanding the breakdown required looking past "collaborator" as a single user type. Clinical Writers, Designers, and Study Teams worked on the same SoA, but each had different responsibilities and authority over it. Treating them as interchangeable was part of what made the existing workflow fragile.

Designer
Structures the Schedule of Activities based on the study design and prepares it for review.
Writer
Refines the protocol content, clarifies language, and works with the Designer to resolve changes and inconsistencies.
Study Team
Brings broader study expertise, reviews the proposed SoA, and provides final validation before the team aligns on the completed version.

Product direction

Familiarity
vs. Scale

Interviews with the people who'd actually use this, inside Lilly, surfaced something we hadn't planned for. They weren't attached to the current process because it worked, they had real problems with it. But their jobs were high-stakes, and learning a new tool on top of that wasn't something they had room for. That reframed the question from which experience is better to how much change someone in this role could actually absorb without it costing them.

MVP — Familiar first
Preserved the existing table structure and added the editing tools people already knew from Word, layering new capability onto something they didn't have to relearn.
AOP — Full redesign
Introduced a genuinely new collaboration workflow, built around what the research pointed to rather than constrained by what the old structure could support.

We put both in front of the same people and watched which one they could actually work in, not which one looked more finished. That's what decided it.

Meet,

Writer's Studio™

Digital Trial Foundations

"This isn't about replacing what worked — it's about building what's needed for the future of governed, collaborative medical writing."

Exploring the Two Directions

We decided to run an A/B usability test across two workflow directions. Since Clinical Designers were already familiar with Design Studio, Option A preserved familiar workflows and interaction patterns to reduce friction and support adoption. Option B explored a more modern and scalable collaboration experience. We then tested both directions to understand which approach users responded to more naturally.

Designing
for Trust

One of the biggest lessons from this project was that successful digital transformation in enterprise healthcare is not only about automation or efficiency. Users needed to feel informed, visible, and in control throughout the workflow. Trust became just as important as usability.

By preserving familiar interaction patterns while introducing more structured collaboration and traceable workflows, Writer Studio helped teams move toward a more connected and scalable clinical trial ecosystem without losing the clarity and confidence they relied on in their existing processes.