Making admission clearer for families, and lighter for staff.

Mapping how admission actually worked.

The work started as a broad study of the school as a whole, then narrowed to admission — the place where communication, paperwork and the school’s public image meet.

1. Interviews / 01

   9 staff · 4 parents

   Semi-structured interviews across leadership, administration, liaison and teaching, and with Thai and international families.

2. Parent survey / 02

   22 responses · Sept 2025

   A bilingual Thai–English survey on finding information, communication, registration and next steps.

3. Desk research / 03

   Forms & benchmarks

   The printed application and enrolment forms, the old website, and other schools’ admission practice.

4. Synthesis / 04

   Map, cluster, prioritise

   A current-state journey map and service blueprint, affinity mapping, challenge clustering and impact–effort prioritisation.

The interviews followed broad guides about work culture and choosing a school, so the evidence is strongest on the staff and organisational side.

What the research showed.

Four findings shaped the admission work directly. Each follows the same path: the evidence, what it meant, and the design response.

1. Finding / 01 · Information

   Evidence

   The old website had no admission section, and parents were unsure about documents and fees. A survey response: “All information was missing as the website has not been completed yet.”

   Insight

   Parents depended on personal contact because the website didn’t support self-service.

   Design response

   A bilingual website with admission as a top-level section: four clear steps, fees, places by year group and a year-group guide.

2. Finding / 02 · Communication

   Evidence

   Enquiries arrived through LINE chats and private phones. Staff described missed notifications and answering messages late into the evening. A survey response: “Many of foreigners don’t use Line… response was very late.”

   Insight

   An enquiry depended on one person’s phone and attention. There was no shared inbox or record anyone else could pick up.

   Design response

   One school-owned contact address on Google Workspace instead of personal phones — and “Ask PHS”, an AI assistant on the website that answers common questions and hands over to the team.

3. Finding / 03 · Process

   Evidence

   The application was fully paper-based, and families visited the school several times to collect, complete and return forms.

   Insight

   The manual process slowed things down and made the school look less professional than it is.

   Design response

   School Bright’s online registration form on a school iPad replaces the old PHS paper form — completed during the school visit or at a later appointment, keeping a personal step without the paper.

4. Finding / 04 · Duplicated work

   Evidence

   The registrar recorded each student in a paper registration book, entered the data into School Bright, then entered it again into the government system. School Bright itself was present but under-used.

   Insight

   Staff time went into repeated data entry, and the school’s own platform had no clear place in daily work.

   Design response

   One record from the first step: registration data goes straight into School Bright, and after admission it is sent to the government registration system in one click — instead of being typed in again, one student at a time.

Broader context

The wider organisational picture

The problem-space research surfaced issues well beyond admission. They explain why school-owned accounts and a single student record became part of the work.

• Unclear responsibilities and overlapping roles
• Fragmented communication across informal channels
• Inconsistent tools — often personal accounts
• Workflow bottlenecks and slow hand-offs
• Limited cross-team collaboration

From many problems to two directions.

Insights became five “How might we” questions. Ideas were then rated for impact and effort, and two directions were chosen — one for families, one for staff.

1. HMW 01How might we make the enrolment process clearer and easier for parents to follow from start to finish?
2. HMW 02How might we reduce manual paperwork and data duplication for staff?
3. HMW 03How might we improve communication so parents receive timely, consistent updates?
4. HMW 04How might we integrate School Bright and the government registration system to streamline registration?
5. HMW 05How might we create a digital self-service touchpoint that builds trust and reduces workload?

Designed as a system, in two languages

• Academic, editorial voicePlayfair Display headings with Inter for body and interface; Noto Sans Thai for Thai. Navy and gold from the school crest.
• Accessible by defaultColour pairs checked for contrast — white on navy 10.36:1, navy on gold 4.67:1 — and small gold text reserved for a darker accessible tone.
• One structure, two languagesThai and English share the same components and navigation destinations. Text boxes grow with Thai copy instead of being cut off.
• Built for parents’ questionsComponents such as the admissions step, year-group row, language switch, event listing and public form field come straight from the admission journey.

18 sections, from British-English content rules to motion, responsive and accessibility guidance.

Principles behind Ask PHS

• Honest about what it isLabelled “AI assistant · answers may be incomplete” — and when information isn’t on the website, it says so and points to the admissions team instead of guessing.
• Shortcuts for the usual questionsAdmissions, tuition & fees, which year group, booking a visit, lunch menu, school calendar and about the school — one tap each.
• A person is always one step away“Talk to our team”, plus the phone number and school email for anything urgent.
• Privacy by defaultFamilies are asked not to share their child’s personal details, and told that messages are processed by an AI service, with a link to the privacy page.