Prototyping & Usability Testing
Rapid prototypes and real-world testing that de-risk decisions before they become expensive.
Scroll down
The perspective
In healthtech, the cost of getting it wrong is high - wasted funding, missed timelines, products that don't get adopted. Yet too many teams build first and validate later, discovering problems when they're expensive to fix.
Prototyping changes that equation. It lets you test assumptions early, learn from real users fast, and make decisions based on evidence rather than hope. Done well, it's the difference between launching something that works and launching something that looked good in a slide deck.
Usability testing takes it further - putting work in front of the people who'll actually use it, in contexts that reflect reality. Not stakeholders in a boardroom, but clinicians between patients, carers juggling responsibilities, patients navigating unfamiliar systems.
This isn't about ticking a box for governance or gathering quotes for a funding application. It's about building conviction that what you're creating will actually work - and catching the things that won't before they cost you.
Prototyping changes that equation. It lets you test assumptions early, learn from real users fast, and make decisions based on evidence rather than hope. Done well, it's the difference between launching something that works and launching something that looked good in a slide deck.
Usability testing takes it further - putting work in front of the people who'll actually use it, in contexts that reflect reality. Not stakeholders in a boardroom, but clinicians between patients, carers juggling responsibilities, patients navigating unfamiliar systems.
This isn't about ticking a box for governance or gathering quotes for a funding application. It's about building conviction that what you're creating will actually work - and catching the things that won't before they cost you.
what this looks like
Where great ideas meet reality
Low-fidelity prototyping
Rough, rapid concepts that test ideas before investing in polish. Quick to make, cheap to throw away, invaluable for learning.
High-fidelity prototyping
Interactive, realistic models that simulate the real experience - for deeper testing, stakeholder buy-in, and funding conversations.
Usability testing
Structured sessions with real users - patients, clinicians, carers - observing how they interact, where they struggle, and what we need to change.
Remote and in-context research
Testing in the environments where products will actually be used - clinics, homes, wards - not just labs and meeting rooms.
Accessibility & inclusive testing
Ensuring what you build works for everyone, including those with additional needs, lower digital confidence, or assistive technology requirements.
Insight synthesis & recommendations
Clear, actionable findings that tell you what to do next - not a 100-page report that sits in a drawer.
featured
case study
Prototyping a wearable with the people who'd actually use it
challenge
A medtech startup developing a needle-free wearable drug delivery device came to us at a critical stage. The concept was ambitious - a non-invasive alternative to traditional insulin delivery for people living with diabetes. But before committing to tooling, manufacturing, and full development, they needed to understand how real users would respond to different design directions.
The question wasn't just "does this work?" - it was "which version of this works best, and why?"
The question wasn't just "does this work?" - it was "which version of this works best, and why?"
approach
We worked across five design archetypes, each representing a different balance of form, function, and technological complexity - from purely mechanical operation through to smart-enabled devices with digital interfaces.
Starting with industrial design sketches, we explored ergonomics, wearability, and interaction models - how the device would sit on the body, how users would engage with it, and where friction might occur. From there, we developed detailed CAD models for each archetype, refining geometry, button placement, and surface treatment.
Each design was then 3D printed at 1:1 scale using materials selected to approximate the weight and feel of a production device. We incorporated functional elements - tactile buttons, moving parts, and adhesive - so participants could experience something close to reality, not just a static model.
Starting with industrial design sketches, we explored ergonomics, wearability, and interaction models - how the device would sit on the body, how users would engage with it, and where friction might occur. From there, we developed detailed CAD models for each archetype, refining geometry, button placement, and surface treatment.
Each design was then 3D printed at 1:1 scale using materials selected to approximate the weight and feel of a production device. We incorporated functional elements - tactile buttons, moving parts, and adhesive - so participants could experience something close to reality, not just a static model.
study
We conducted in-person usability sessions with participants living with diabetes - the people who would actually wear this device day to day. Each session explored:
Wearability and comfort - how the device felt on the body across different placements and durations
Interaction and usability - how intuitive each archetype was to operate, from first glance to repeated use
Design perception - emotional response, trust, and willingness to adopt
Supporting materials - packaging, instructions, and onboarding experience
Sessions were structured to capture both behavioural observation and direct feedback, giving the team quantitative comparison across archetypes alongside rich qualitative insight into user needs and concerns.
Wearability and comfort - how the device felt on the body across different placements and durations
Interaction and usability - how intuitive each archetype was to operate, from first glance to repeated use
Design perception - emotional response, trust, and willingness to adopt
Supporting materials - packaging, instructions, and onboarding experience
Sessions were structured to capture both behavioural observation and direct feedback, giving the team quantitative comparison across archetypes alongside rich qualitative insight into user needs and concerns.
outcome
The research gave the startup clear, evidence-based direction on which archetype to pursue - and why. Design decisions that had been debated internally were resolved by real user response. Assumptions about feature complexity and smart-tech appetite were tested and, in some cases, overturned.
Most importantly, the team moved into the next phase of development with confidence - knowing the direction they'd chosen was grounded in how people actually responded, not how stakeholders imagined they would.
Most importantly, the team moved into the next phase of development with confidence - knowing the direction they'd chosen was grounded in how people actually responded, not how stakeholders imagined they would.
results
5
Archetypes
12
Participants
accepting engagements
get in touch
Let's Talk
Projects typically start from £5,000.
Got something in mind? Let's talk it through.
Got something in mind? Let's talk it through.