About This Case Study
This case study combines three related projects - Aspire 9.6, 9.7, and 9.8 developed during my time as a personal trainer at Fitness Together Fairfax. I chose to present these projects together because they represent an organic evolution of solving the same core problem: enabling efficient trainer collaboration and client progression tracking. While they were separate developments, each iteration built upon the lessons and limitations of its predecessor, all using Google Sheets as the platform.
At the time of creating these solutions, I had no formal training in design or software development. I was a personal trainer who happened to be interested in technology and problem-solving. My role was primarily to design and develop tools that would help our training team work more effectively together. This unique position - being both the developer and an end-user - gave me intimate knowledge of the problems we needed to solve.
Aspire 9.6
Context
On March 23rd, 2020, Fitness Together Fairfax faced a critical decision point when COVID-19 forced our doors closed. We had 48 hours to either develop a virtual training solution or pause operations indefinitely. The challenge extended beyond simply moving workouts online - we needed to preserve our personalized, progression-based training methodology that clients relied on.
Our studio operated under a unique model where clients worked with multiple trainers throughout the week based on scheduling availability. This flexibility was a core part of our service offering, but it required precise coordination between trainers. When a client worked with different trainers throughout the week, each session needed to build directly on previous progress. Without proper coordination, incorrect exercise progression or missed modifications could compromise client progress or, worse, risk injury.
Problem Space
The pandemic exposed a fundamental weakness in our studio's operations. Our training system, built for face-to-face sessions, relied heavily on paper workout logs and local Excel files. This worked effectively when trainers could physically hand off client notes and access the studio computer. However, in a virtual environment, this system would leave us effectively blind.
Our existing system, Aspire 8, was designed with assumptions of in-person training, where trainers could quickly reference physical files while engaging with clients face-to-face. The virtual environment would require trainers to simultaneously manage video calls, monitor client form, and navigate through client data - a complexity our current system wasn't built to handle.
My Role
As the lead trainer with technological expertise, I took on the responsibility of designing and developing our virtual training solution. The role encompassed analyzing our current system's limitations, conceptualizing a new virtual-first approach, and implementing a solution that could be deployed within our 48-hour window.
Solution Development
By fortunate timing, I had recently completed an advanced Google Sheets course that introduced me to the hyperlink function - a capability that would become the cornerstone of our solution. While this might seem trivial in today's context, in early 2020 implementing hyperlinks required working with specific formula syntax and was considered an advanced feature hidden behind the function menu.
Rather than simply converting Aspire 8 to Google Sheets, I recognized we needed a fundamentally different approach. The solution emerged as a three-component system:
Client Dashboard
The dashboard served as a centralized hub that provided trainers with comprehensive client information. It included contact details, preferred video platforms, notes, emergency contacts, and available equipment. Each client's name linked directly to their individual workout log, enabling quick navigation during virtual sessions.
Workout Log Structure
The workout log was designed with virtual training in mind, featuring:
Ever-visible client information section displaying essential details about the client's name, preferred virtual training platform, and available equipment
Workout identifiers including number, status with conditional formatting, date with an interactive calendar, and trainer signature for accountability
Structured sections for warm-up, main workout, and cool-down, each formatted to capture exercise details and volume metrics
Dedicated notes section for documenting observations and client feedback
Exercise and Volume Database
To streamline the workout documentation process, I implemented a typeahead function that displayed relevant exercises from a trainer's personal database. This standardized exercise naming across sessions and improved data entry efficiency during virtual training.
Technical Implementation
The system was built entirely within Google Sheets, leveraging the hyperlink function to create an interconnected network of client information. This approach allowed trainers to navigate between different sections seamlessly while maintaining video calls with clients.
Initially designed to handle 20 workouts per client, we later discovered this limitation as the pandemic extended beyond initial expectations. This constraint led to subsequent iterations and eventually the development of Aspire 9.7.
Impact
Aspire 9.6 proved instrumental in our transition to virtual training. The system enabled:
Successful adaptation to virtual training for the majority of our client base
Enhanced collaboration between trainers through standardized documentation
Streamlined workout documentation process
Reduced administrative overhead, allowing greater focus on client interaction
The success of the system was so significant that we permanently adopted this approach, replacing Aspire 8 even after resuming in-person training.
Key Learnings
The development of Aspire 9.6 reinforced the value of simplicity in design. Without formal training in design principles, the solution emerged from a deep understanding of trainer needs and operational constraints. The project demonstrated that an intuitive approach combined with clear goals can lead to effective solutions, especially when solving urgent, real-world problems.
Evolution
What began as an emergency response eventually evolved into a native iOS, Android, and web application. The journey from a spreadsheet application created in 48 hours to a comprehensive digital platform demonstrates the potential for innovation under pressure and the value of iterative development based on user needs.
Aspire 9.7
When Quick Fixes Aren't Enough
When the pandemic hit, we scrambled. Aspire 9.6 emerged as our emergency response - a bare-bones system for client data and session documentation. It kept us afloat, but as virtual training evolved from temporary solution to permanent offering, the cracks began to show. We needed more than just documentation; we needed a comprehensive system that could maintain excellence across both virtual and in-person training.
Why Our Legacy System Failed
With clients increasingly dependent on virtual training, we turned to our pre-pandemic system, Aspire 8, hoping it might offer solutions. Instead, what we found sent us back to the drawing board entirely. Not only was Aspire 8 unsuitable for virtual training - it had fundamental flaws that had been masked by the controlled environment of in-person sessions.
The system's rigid structure created artificial barriers, manifesting in a complex matrix of zones and levels that looked impressive on paper but crumbled in practice. A client scoring 46 points received drastically different programming than one scoring 45, despite negligible real-world differences in their capabilities. This arbitrary complexity turned trainers into administrators rather than coaches, forcing them to navigate byzantine rules instead of focusing on client progress.
The standardization that seemed so logical in theory backfired spectacularly in practice. Fixed six-week reassessment intervals ignored individual progress rates, while predetermined phase progressions forced trainers to either hold clients back or push them forward unnaturally. Meanwhile, the system's assumptions about consistent attendance and equipment access became impossible hurdles in the virtual training environment.
Most telling was how trainers responded - they simply worked around it. This widespread circumvention revealed a fundamental truth: even the most theoretically sound system fails if trainers won't use it.
Learning from the Trenches
The system's failure demanded more than just surface analysis - we needed to understand why trainers were actively working around it rather than with it. As someone who had faced disciplinary conversations about missed workout logs and documentation failures, I knew these weren't just minor inconveniences. They were symptoms of a deeper problem that threatened the quality of our client care.
Conversations with fellow trainers revealed a rich diversity in training approaches that Aspire 8 had failed to support. Some trainers devoted significant time to corrective exercises and mobility work, believing these foundational movements were crucial for long-term success. Others focused intensively on measurable strength and endurance gains, viewing any activity without clear performance metrics as inefficient. Each approach had merit, and each was fighting against a system that couldn't accommodate their expertise.
Looking Beyond Traditional Models
With our own system failing and trainers creating workarounds, we faced a critical question: Were we alone in this struggle? Our search for answers led us to examine established certification frameworks from NASM, ACE, and others. What we discovered was both validating and concerning.
These traditional models shared the same fundamental flaw - they prioritized theoretical consistency over practical application. While they looked comprehensive on paper, with neat progressions and standardized protocols, they failed to account for the dynamic nature of personal training, especially in a virtual environment.
We explored unconventional approaches from organizations like Barbell Medicine and Clinical Athlete, where physical therapists and doctors challenged traditional exercise prescription methods. Their evidence-based insights about adaptability and individual response to training proved valuable, though their methods were too radical for systematic implementation in our context.
Finding Inspiration Across Industries
With traditional fitness frameworks falling short and unconventional approaches proving too extreme, we faced a sobering reality: the solution we needed might not exist within the fitness industry at all. This realization pushed us to look beyond our field, and the breakthrough came from an unexpected source - project management's five basic phases.
The parallels were striking. Project management's progression through Initiation, Planning, Execution, Monitoring and Control, and Closing mapped perfectly onto the exercise prescription process we were trying to create. Software development principles, particularly Ruby on Rails' "opinionated software" approach, showed us how to balance structure with flexibility - providing clear guidance while maintaining room for expertise and creativity.
The Innovation: Five Phases Reimagined for Fitness
These cross-disciplinary insights led to Aspire 9.7's core innovation: a five-phase system that would maintain consistency while embracing adaptability.
Phase 1: Data Collection
The foundation of our system emerged through a carefully crafted intake process built on Google Forms. This wasn't just another questionnaire - it was a strategic tool that began with structured SMART goal-setting, guiding clients to transform vague aspirations like "get fit" into concrete, measurable objectives. We dove deep into psychological readiness, asking clients to identify potential obstacles and develop strategies before they became roadblocks. The system gathered crucial practical information about equipment access and scheduling constraints, ensuring programs would work in the real world, not just on paper. Most importantly, our comprehensive health profiling went beyond basic metrics to understand the full context of each client's life, from stress levels to sleep patterns, creating a complete picture that would inform every aspect of program design.
Phase 2: Exercise Prescription
Drawing from ACSM's FITT-VP principles, we developed a flexible template system that could adapt to any training environment. Training frequency became a dynamic variable, adjusting to both client availability and recovery capacity. Intensity mapping provided clear progression paths while remaining responsive to daily client readiness. Exercise selection expanded beyond traditional gym movements to incorporate whatever equipment was available, from resistance bands to household items.
Phase 3: Implementation
The Trainer Workflow dashboard emerged as the system's operational center, consolidating what had previously been scattered across multiple platforms. Calendar management integrated seamlessly with assessment tracking, while automated documentation reduced administrative burden without sacrificing detail. Real-time progress monitoring allowed quick adjustments to keep clients moving forward optimally.
Phase 3: Implementation
The Trainer Workflow dashboard emerged as the system's operational center, consolidating what had previously been scattered across multiple platforms. Calendar management integrated seamlessly with assessment tracking, while automated documentation reduced administrative burden without sacrificing detail. Real-time progress monitoring allowed quick adjustments to keep clients moving forward optimally.
Phase 4: Evaluation
Building on our existing metrics system, we created new tools for tracking client progress. Direct access to assessment profiles eliminated the friction in data updates, while countdown timers for key milestones kept everyone focused on upcoming evaluations. Systematic outcome tracking provided clear evidence of program effectiveness, allowing for data-driven adjustments.
Phase 5: Optimization
The final phase closed the loop through a structured reflection process that transformed individual experiences into system-wide improvements. Trainers documented not just what worked, but why it worked, creating a growing knowledge base of effective practices. Pattern identification across multiple clients revealed broader insights about program design and client adaptation.
When Reality Hits: Learning from Failure
Despite its innovative framework, Aspire 9.7's launch revealed critical flaws we hadn't anticipated. Lead trainers found themselves performing redundant work, duplicating efforts between planning and logging phases. Our development in isolation, though thorough, had left actual user needs unaddressed. The very complexity we'd created to solve problems had instead become a problem itself.
The True Victory: Lessons in Product Development
Through this failure, we gained invaluable insights about product development. We learned that user testing isn't an optional step to validate decisions - it's an essential part of the development process itself. We discovered that technical sophistication often needs to yield to practical simplicity. Most importantly, we understood that good design isn't measured by its complexity, but by its ability to solve real problems for real users.
These lessons continue to guide my approach to product development today. The story of Aspire 9.7 reminds me that success often looks different than we expect, and that our greatest learning opportunities often come disguised as failures.
Aspire 9.8
The Culmination of the Aspire Journey
Aspire 9.8 represents the resolution of a problem that began with Aspire 9.6 and deepened in Aspire 9.7. Born out of necessity, Aspire 9.6 embraced simplicity during a time of crisis, demonstrating the power of practical, user-focused design. Aspire 9.7, by contrast, aimed to innovate but collapsed under its own complexity. Aspire 9.8 was not just a course correction; it was the synthesis of lessons learned, merging usability and efficiency into a cohesive solution.
The Problem: Relearning Old Lessons
Aspire 9.8 represents the resolution of a problem that began with Aspire 9.6 and deepened in Aspire 9.7. Born out of necessity, Aspire 9.6 embraced simplicity during a time of crisis, demonstrating the power of practical, user-focused design. Aspire 9.7, by contrast, aimed to innovate but collapsed under its own complexity. Aspire 9.8 was not just a course correction; it was the synthesis of lessons learned, merging usability and efficiency into a cohesive solution.
The Solution: Merging Planning and Implementation
The key innovation in Aspire 9.8 was the unification of planning and implementation into a single, streamlined workflow. Rather than treating these phases as distinct, Aspire 9.8 allowed trainers to specify workout parameters, select exercises, and document sessions—all in one place.
This redesign eliminated the need for trainers to repeat the exercise selection process and ensured that all critical client data was visible at a glance. By integrating information from the data collection phase directly into the workout log, Aspire 9.8 gave trainers immediate access to client history, goals, and health considerations. This not only saved time but also improved the flow of sessions, enabling trainers to stay present with their clients.
However, achieving this simplicity required sacrifices. Some of Aspire 9.7’s advanced features, such as detailed progression tracking, were removed. While this trade-off might seem like a step backward, it reflected a critical shift in priorities: usability over theoretical completeness.
The Results: Practicality Wins
Aspire 9.8 succeeded where Aspire 9.7 faltered. Trainers quickly adopted the system, finding it intuitive and easy to integrate into their daily routines. The unified design reduced the mental effort required to navigate the system, freeing trainers to focus on their clients. Aspire 9.8 also reaffirmed the central insight of Aspire 9.6: a well-designed tool enhances the user’s work rather than complicating it.
Still, Aspire 9.8 was not without its limitations. The streamlined approach came at the cost of certain features that had been present in Aspire 9.7, and onboarding new clients still required manual input. These challenges highlighted opportunities for future iterations but did not overshadow the system’s core success.
Synthesis: The Aspire Journey
The evolution from Aspire 9.6 to 9.8 was not just about building better tools—it was about understanding what makes a system work. Aspire 9.6 demonstrated the power of simplicity and speed, providing a lifeline during a crisis. Aspire 9.7 revealed the risks of overcomplicating a design without proper user testing, teaching the importance of listening to users. Aspire 9.8 balanced these lessons, creating a tool that prioritized usability while retaining the ambition of its predecessors.
By synthesizing the best aspects of Aspire 9.6 and 9.7, Aspire 9.8 became a blueprint for thoughtful design. It showed that progress is not always about adding more—it is about refining what already works.
As the Aspire series moves forward, tools like Flutter offer opportunities to revisit features lost in Aspire 9.8, integrating them in ways that preserve its simplicity. The Aspire journey has been one of iteration, reflection, and growth—a process that continues to shape my understanding of design and its role in solving real-world problems.