Back to Home

Labforward

Senior Product Designer

Workflow Editor | Design lab protocols

  • Laboperator by Labforward is a Lab Execution System (LES) where users run lab protocols (workflows) and connect instruments to steps.


  • Workflows must be created by writing and uploading JSON code, which is slow and inaccessible for most users.


  • This creates a major bottleneck that limits who can build, update, or scale workflows.


  • The Workflow Editor removes this barrier by letting any user visually create workflows that can be executed in Laboperator.

TL;DR

The Workflow Editor removes the need to code by letting any user visually create lab workflows for Laboperator

🫠

Our LES users need to know how to code (or know someone who does) to make workflows.

Hypothesis

If we remove the need to write JSON and allow users to visually create workflows, we will eliminate a key adoption bottleneck and increase customer acquisition for Laboperator.

Evidence to support hypothesis

Only 5–10% of workflows were created by customers, typically by 1–2 technical users per organization; the majority were created by our internal team.

100% of new customers required onboarding support to set up their first workflow.

Around 40–60% of potential customers were lost during sales due to the workflow creation bottleneck.

Starting point: How do scientists design lab protocols

We conducted 16 interviews across small labs to large-scale research organizations, focusing on users who create and manage protocols.

Senior level scientists or technicians who already create their teams protocols are our target user base.

Actual lab protocol design process -> Product structure

User insights

  1. Protocols are linear, but lack explicit representation of branching logic and dependencies

  1. Decision points are often implicit, requiring interpretation rather than being clearly mapped

  1. Translating intent into execution relies on manual structuring

Challenge 1.1

Translate high-level protocol intent into a structured workflow

Challenge 1.2

Provide an experience condusive with "transcribing" existing protocol structure into a workflow

Potential solution directions

Annotated Protocol Editor (Start from written protocol)

  • Highlight steps

  • Tag conditions

  • Define dependencies inline

Builds on familiar mental model (text)

Text-heavy, logic not easily traceable

Hierarchical / Tree-Based Workflow

  • Steps nested under conditions

  • Branches shown as hierarchy

Hard to follow cross-branch relationships

Becomes complex at scale

Structured Form-Based Builder

Option A

  • Define goal

  • Select method

  • Add steps sequentially

  • Add conditions via inputs

Forces explicit structure

Logic remains hard to visualize

Non-Linear Flow Builder

Option B

  • Steps as nodes

  • Conditions as branches

  • Explicit connections

Externalizes both structure + logic

Matches how users reason spatially about flows

Option A

Option B

User testing

Based on 6 user testing sessions, we chose the non-linear flow builder (Option B) over the linear form editor because users were able to more accurately interpret workflow logic and branching consistently across several different protocol use cases.

Option B trade-off

We gained clearer understanding of decision paths (fewer errors when structuring flows), while sacrificing some editing efficiency by separating structure from step content.

Add step -> Configure step

Quickly define the high level content of a step without opening the step editor

Defining conditional logic in the flow builder

Add condition -> Configure condition

Challenge 2

Support scalable workflow creation across teams

User insights

  1. Workflow creation is limited to 1–2 technical users per team

  1. Knowledge of workflows is not shared, making collaboration and handover difficult

  1. Teams rely on documentation or communication instead of a shared system

Potential solution directions

Modular Step Reuse

Highest prio

Users can reuse individual steps across workflows.

Enables reuse at a granular level

Reduces duplication and maintenance effort

Easier to scale workflows across teams

Grouped Workflow Blocks

Medium prio

Users can create and reuse groups of steps and conditions.

Supports more complex reuse patterns

[All advantages from Step Reuse]

Inline Workflow Collaboration

Low prio

Users collaborate directly on workflows through comments, annotations, and suggestions.

Addresses lack of shared knowledge

Doesn’t scale creation across teams

Adding an already-made step

Search for and reuse saved steps / steps in other workflows

Organize steps into groups for reusability

Challenge 3

Enable users to compose steps from content and configuration elements while supporting the full underlying schema

User Insights

  1. Steps combine multiple elements (instructions, inputs, parameters) but are defined as rigid units

  1. Schema capabilities exist but are not accessible without technical knowledge

Based on Laboperator's underlying workflow schema and a review of over 100 real-world lab protocols, we identified a broad set of potential step components and consolidated them into a structured set of building blocks that support the full range of workflow execution across several industries.

Step content building blocks consolidation

Instruction / Content

  • Text instruction

  • Rich text (formatted steps, warnings)

  • Notes / annotations

  • Tips / best practices

  • Images / diagrams

  • Video references

  • Text

  • Notes

  • Media

Inputs (User-provided data)

  • Text input

  • Numeric input

  • Unit-based input (e.g. µL, mg)

  • Date input

  • Time input

  • Boolean (yes/no)

  • Single choice

  • Multiple choice

  • Dropdown selection

  • Text

  • Number (with units)

    • Input

    • Counter

  • Choices

    • Single

    • Multiple

    • Dropdown

  • Date/time

Time based

  • Timer

  • Stopwatch

  • Delay / wait condition

  • Scheduled start

  • Timer

    • Conditional

  • Stopwatch

Data Capture / Output

  • Measurement input (manual entry)

  • Instrument data capture

  • File upload

  • Image capture

  • Result calculation

  • Derived values

  • Data visualization (charts, results, gauges from devices)

  • Data entry & capture

  • File / image upload

  • Calculations / transformations

  • Data visualization

Actions

  • Lab tasks (pipette, mix, incubate, measure)

  • Device operations

  • Buttons / triggers

  • Lab tasks

  • Device operations

  • User triggers

Step editor and component building blocks

Visualize the step content and flow together

Configuring each block is accessible via the right panel

User Insights

  1. Workflows are validated through execution, not beforehand

  1. Conditional logic makes behavior difficult to anticipate

  1. Errors are often discovered only during runtime

Challenge 4

Make workflow behavior predictable before execution

Preview the workflow, depicting how exactly it will look when executing on mobile and larger screens

Get a status report of your workflow in a linear view

An it was a smash hit!

jk... We wen’t through several iteration cycles of validation and UX re-iteration

Next Case