I am a designer specialised in designing use cases for AI systems themselves, from multi-agent architectures and vector databases to conversational avatars. But the building is never the point. What interests me is the moment technology meets someone’s life. A person with dementia starting a music session on their own. A caregiver hearing a life story they never knew was there.
I call this position the Technology Orchestrator. I am technically fluent enough to build complex systems while remaining human-centred enough to ask what they are for. Unlike designers who engage with technology primarily at the interface level, I work inside the technological system itself, shaping use cases, data flows, agent interactions, and experiences simultaneously. This allows me to influence technological decisions before they become fixed constraints for users.
My main developed expertise areas are Technology & Realization and Business & Entrepreneurship. Together they allow me to move between creating technology and creating the conditions for it to succeed. I enjoy identifying opportunities, reframing challenges, and translating research into solutions that personal healthcare can actually implement, sustain, and create value from.
This position emerged throughout my development. I came to TU/e from creative technology, a maker and engineer at the core, focused on digital technologies. Aqua-morph taught me that research and design are about creating questions and arguing for potential impact. The helmet project pulled me far outside my technical comfort zone into behaviour, participation, and societal change. Het Ritme brought both sides together through warm technology and dementia care, and that is where I found my place.
Three beliefs run through everything I make. It must be functional: it has to work, technically and in practice. It must be achievable: grounded in what can realistically be built and adopted. And it must be meaningful: creating genuine value for the people it is designed for and with. Care technology is where these three principles are constantly in tension and none of them can be sacrificed. That is exactly why I work there.
In teams I often take the bridging role, translating between specialists who do not share a language and stepping forward when direction is unclear. I have learned to voice my ideas instead of holding them back to preserve harmony, a habit I first identified in my master reflections and have deliberately worked on ever since.
My aesthetic practice has developed through movement and sound. Aqua-morph built a vocabulary of bio-inspired motion as design expression. Sound of Smart Things showed me how sonic rhythm and timing carry meaning without visual cues. OpMaatje applied both: the warmth of a conversation comes as much from voice pacing as from the avatar’s visual design, and the era-styled living rooms were chosen specifically to trigger reminiscence through atmosphere. Visual form-giving is where I continue to grow deliberately. Throughout my studies I noticed that I could articulate technical architectures and interaction concepts more readily than communicate them through visual form. To address this I rely on prototyping, storyboarding, and iterative testing to externalise ideas early, and the design of this portfolio is the most considered visual work I have produced.
My approach to design is strongly shaped by Research through Design. I build working prototypes early and use them as research probes, not to validate concepts but to discover things that could not have emerged from interviews or assumptions alone. Prototypes are instruments for generating knowledge: by putting artefacts into the world, I uncover insights that shape both the design and the research. The recurring tension is the pull toward deep technical exploration. I learned to keep it purposeful by treating those investigations as deliberate probes with a clear design question at their centre.
