5 key areas for effective ResearchOPs

We all know that building a robust information architecture (IA) can make or break your product. And getting it right can rely on robust user research. Especially when it comes to creating human-centered, intuitive products that deliver outstanding user experiences.

‍

But what are the best methods to test your information architecture? To make sure that your focus is on building an information architecture that is truly based on what your users want, and need.

‍

What is user research? 🗣️🧑🏻💻

‍

With all the will in the world, your product (or website or mobile app) may work perfectly and be as intuitive as possible. But, if it is only built on information from your internal organizational perspective, it may not measure up in the eyes of your user. Often, organizations make major design decisions without fully considering their users. User research (UX) backs up decisions with data, helping to make sure that design decisions are strategic decisions. 

‍

Testing your information architecture can also help establish the structure for a better product from the ground up. And ultimately, the performance of your product. User experience research focuses your design on understanding your user expectations, behaviors, needs, and motivations. It is an essential part of creating, building, and maintaining great products. 

‍

Taking the time to understand your users through research can be incredibly rewarding with the insights and data-backed information that can alter your product for the better. But what are the key user research methods for your information architecture? Let’s take a look.

‍

Research methods for information architecture ⚒️

‍

There is more than one way to test your IA. And testing with one method is good, but with more than one is even better. And, of course, the more often you test, especially when there are major additions or changes, you can tweak and update your IA to improve and delight your user’s experience.

‍

Card Sorting 🃏

‍

Card sorting is a user research method that allows you to discover how users understand and categorize information. It’s particularly useful when you are starting the planning process of your information architecture or at any stage you notice issues or are making changes. Putting the power into your users’ hands and asking how they would intuitively sort the information. In a card sort, participants sort cards containing different items into labeled groups. You can use the results of a card sort to figure out how to group and label the information in a way that makes the most sense to your audience. 

‍

There are a number of techniques and methods that can be applied to a card sort. Take a look here if you’d like to know more.

‍

Card sorting has many applications. It’s as useful for figuring out how content should be grouped on a website or in an app as it is for figuring out how to arrange the items in a retail store.You can also run a card sort in person, using physical cards, or remotely with online tools such as OptimalSort.

‍

Tree Testing 🌲

‍

Taking a look at your information architecture from the other side can also be valuable. Tree testing is a usability method for evaluating the findability of topics on a product. Testing is done on a simplified text version of your site structure without the influence of navigation aids and visual design.

‍

Tree testing tells you how easily people can find information on your product and exactly where people get lost. Your users rely on your information architecture – how you label and organize your content – to get things done.

‍

Tree testing can answer questions like:

• Do my labels make sense to people?
• Is my content grouped logically to people?
• Can people find the information they want easily and quickly? If not, what’s stopping them?

‍

Treejack is our tree testing tool and is designed to make it easy to test your information architecture. Running a tree test isn’t actually that difficult, especially if you’re using the right tool. You’ll  learn how to set useful objectives, how to build your tree, write your tasks, recruit participants, and measure results.

‍

Combining information architecture research methods 🏗

‍

If you are wanting a fully rounded view of your information architecture, it can be useful to combine your research methods.

‍

Tree testing and card sorting, along with usability testing, can give you insights into your users and audience. How do they think? How do they find their way through your product? And how do they want to see things labeled, organized, and sorted? 

‍

If you want to get fully into the comparison of tree testing and card sorting, take a look at our article here, which compares the options and explains which is best and when. 

Introduction

‍

User Experience (UX) research has always been about people. How they think, how they behave, what they need, and—just as importantly—what they don’t yet realise they need. Traditional UX methodologies have long relied on direct human input: interviews, usability testing, surveys, and behavioral observation. The assumption was clear—if you want to understand people, you have to engage with real humans.

‍

But in 2025, that assumption is being challenged.

‍

The emergence of digital twins and synthetic users—AI-powered simulations of human behavior—is changing how researchers approach user insights. These technologies claim to solve persistent UX research problems: slow participant recruitment, small sample sizes, high costs, and research timelines that struggle to keep pace with product development. The promise is enticing: instantly accessible, infinitely scalable users who can test, interact, and generate feedback without the logistical headaches of working with real participants.

‍

Yet, as with any new technology, there are trade-offs. While digital twins may unlock efficiencies, they also raise important questions: Can they truly replicate human complexity? Where do they fit within existing research practices? What risks do they introduce?

‍

This article explores the evolving role of digital twins in UX research—where they excel, where they fall short, and what their rise means for the future of human-centered design.

‍

‍

The Traditional UX Research Model: Why Change?

‍

For decades, UX research has been grounded in methodologies that involve direct human participation. The core methods—usability testing, user interviews, ethnographic research, and behavioral analytics—have been refined to account for the unpredictability of human nature.

‍

This approach works well, but it has challenges:

‍

1. Participant recruitment is time-consuming. Finding the right users—especially niche audiences—can be a logistical hurdle, often requiring specialised panels, incentives, and scheduling gymnastics.
   ‍
2. Research is expensive. Incentives, moderation, analysis, and recruitment all add to the cost. A single usability study can run into tens of thousands of dollars.
   ‍
3. Small sample sizes create risk. Budget and timeline constraints often mean testing with small groups, leaving room for blind spots and bias.
   ‍
4. Long feedback loops slow decision-making. By the time research is completed, product teams may have already moved on, limiting its impact.

‍

In short: traditional UX research provides depth and authenticity, but it’s not always fast or scalable.

‍

Digital twins and synthetic users aim to change that.

‍

‍

What Are Digital Twins and Synthetic Users?

‍

While the terms digital twins and synthetic users are sometimes used interchangeably, they are distinct concepts.

‍

Digital Twins: Simulating Real-World Behavior

‍

A digital twin is a data-driven virtual representation of a real-world entity. Originally developed for industrial applications, digital twins replicate machines, environments, and human behavior in a digital space. They can be updated in real time using live data, allowing organisations to analyse scenarios, predict outcomes, and optimise performance.

‍

In UX research, human digital twins attempt to replicate real users' behavioral patterns, decision-making processes, and interactions. They draw on existing datasets to mirror real-world users dynamically, adapting based on real-time inputs.

‍

‍

Synthetic Users: AI-Generated Research Participants

‍

While a digital twin is a mirror of a real entity, a synthetic user is a fabricated research participant—a simulation that mimics human decision-making, behaviors, and responses. These AI-generated personas can be used in research scenarios to interact with products, answer questions, and simulate user journeys.

‍

Unlike traditional user personas (which are static profiles based on aggregated research), synthetic users are interactive and capable of generating dynamic feedback. They aren’t modeled after a specific real-world person, but rather a combination of user behaviors drawn from large datasets.

‍

Think of it this way:

‍

• A digital twin is a highly detailed, data-driven clone of a specific person, customer segment, or process.
• A synthetic user is a fictional but realistic simulation of a potential user, generated based on behavioral patterns and demographic characteristics.

‍

Both approaches are still evolving, but their potential applications in UX research are already taking shape.

‍

‍

Where Digital Twins and Synthetic Users Fit into UX Research

‍

‍

The appeal of AI-generated users is undeniable. They can:

‍

• Scale instantly – Test designs with thousands of simulated users, rather than just a handful of real participants.
• Eliminate recruitment bottlenecks – No need to chase down participants or schedule interviews.
• Reduce costs – No incentives, no travel, no last-minute no-shows.
• Enable rapid iteration – Get user insights in real time and adjust designs on the fly.
• Generate insights on sensitive topics – Synthetic users can explore scenarios that real participants might find too personal or intrusive.

‍

‍

These capabilities make digital twins particularly useful for:

‍

• Early-stage concept validation – Rapidly test ideas before committing to development.
• Edge case identification – Run simulations to explore rare but critical user scenarios.
• Pre-testing before live usability sessions – Identify glaring issues before investing in human research.

‍

However, digital twins and synthetic users are not a replacement for human research. Their effectiveness is limited in areas where emotional, cultural, and contextual factors play a major role.

‍

‍

The Risks and Limitations of AI-Driven UX Research

‍

For all their promise, digital twins and synthetic users introduce new challenges.

‍

1. They lack genuine emotional responses.
   AI can analyse sentiment, but it doesn’t feel frustration, delight, or confusion the way a human does. UX is often about unexpected moments—the frustrations, workarounds, and “aha” realisations that define real-world use.
   ‍
2. Bias is a real problem.
   AI models are trained on existing datasets, meaning they inherit and amplify biases in those datasets. If synthetic users are based on an incomplete or non-diverse dataset, the research insights they generate will be skewed.
   ‍
3. They struggle with novelty.
   Humans are unpredictable. They find unexpected uses for products, misunderstand instructions, and behave irrationally. AI models, no matter how advanced, can only predict behavior based on past patterns—not the unexpected ways real users might engage with a product.
   ‍
4. They require careful validation.
   How do we know that insights from digital twins align with real-world user behavior? Without rigorous validation against human data, there’s a risk of over-reliance on synthetic feedback that doesn’t reflect reality.

‍

‍

A Hybrid Future: AI + Human UX Research

‍

Rather than viewing digital twins as a replacement for human research, the best UX teams will integrate them as a complementary tool.

‍

Where AI Can Lead:

‍

• Large-scale pattern identification
• Early-stage usability evaluations
• Speeding up research cycles
• Automating repetitive testing

‍

Where Humans Remain Essential:

‍

• Understanding emotion, frustration, and delight
• Detecting unexpected behaviors
• Validating insights with real-world context
• Ethical considerations and cultural nuance

‍

The future of UX research is not about choosing between AI and human research—it’s about blending the strengths of both.

‍

‍

Final Thoughts: Proceeding With Caution and Curiosity

‍

Digital twins and synthetic users are exciting, but they are not a magic bullet. They cannot fully replace human users, and relying on them exclusively could lead to false confidence in flawed insights.

‍

Instead, UX researchers should view these technologies as powerful, but imperfect tools—best used in combination with traditional research methods.

‍

As with any new technology, thoughtful implementation is key. The real opportunity lies in designing research methodologies that harness the speed and scale of AI without losing the depth, nuance, and humanity that make UX research truly valuable.

‍

The challenge ahead isn’t about choosing between human or synthetic research. It’s about finding the right balance—one that keeps user experience truly human-centered, even in an AI-driven world.

‍

This article was researched with the help of Perplexity.ai. 

‍

Hi, I’m Martin. I work as a UX researcher at Trade Me having left Optimal Experience (Optimal Workshop's sister company) last year. For those of you who don’t know, Trade Me is New Zealand’s largest online auction site that also lists real estate to buy and rent, cars to buy, jobs listings, travel accommodation and quite a few other things besides. Over three quarters of the population are members and about three quarters of the Internet traffic for New Zealand sites goes to the sites we run.

‍

Leaving a medium-sized consultancy and joining Trade Me has been a big change in many ways, but in others not so much, as I hadn’t expected to find myself operating in a small team of in-house consultants. The approach the team is taking is proving to be pretty effective, so I thought I’d share some of the details of the way we work with the readers of Optimal Workshop’s blog. Let me explain what I mean…

‍

What agile at Trade Me looks like

‍

Over the last year or so, Trade Me has moved all of its development teams over to Agile following a model pioneered by Spotify. All of the software engineering parts of the business have been ‘squadified’. These people produce the websites & apps or provide and support the infrastructure that makes everything possible.Across Squads, there are common job roles in ‘Chapters’ (like designers or testers) and because people are not easy to force into boxes, and why should they be, there are interest groups called ‘Guilds’.The squads are self-organizing, running their own processes and procedures to get to where they need to. In practice, this means they use as many or as few of the Kanban, Scrum, and Rapid tools they find useful. Over time, we’ve seen that squads tend to follow similar practices as they learn from each other.

‍

How our UX team fits in

‍

Our UX team of three sits outside the squads, but we work with them and with the product owners across the business.How does this work? It might seem counter-intuitive to have UX outside of the tightly-integrated, highly-focused squads, sometimes working with product owners working on stuff that might have little to do with what’s being currently developed in the squads. This comes down to the way Trade Me divides down the UX responsibilities within the organization. Within each squad there is a designer. He or she is responsible for how that feature or app looks, and, more importantly, how it acts — interaction design as well as visual design.Then what do we do, if we are the UX team?

‍

We represent the voice of Trade Me’s users

‍

By conducting research with Trade Me’s users we can validate the squads’ day-to-day decisions, and help frame decisions on future plans. We do this by wearing two hats. Wearing the pointy hats of structured, detailed researchers, we look into long-term trends: the detailed behaviours and goals of our different audiences. We’ve conducted lots of one-on-one interviews with hundreds of people, including top sellers, motor parts buyers, and job seekers, as well as running surveys, focus groups and user testing sessions of future-looking prototypes. For example, we recently spent time with a number of buyers and sellers, seeking to understand their motivations and getting under their skin to find out how they perceive Trade Me.

‍

This kind of research enables Trade Me to anticipate and respond to changes in user perception and satisfaction.Swapping hats to an agile beanie (and stretching the metaphor to breaking point), we react to the medium-term, short-term and very short-term needs of the squads testing their ideas, near-finished work and finished work with users, as well as sometimes simply answering questions and providing opinion, based upon our research. Sometimes this means that we can be testing something in the afternoon having only heard we are needed in the morning. This might sound impossible to accommodate, but the pace of change at Trade Me is such that stuff is getting deployed pretty much every day, many of which affects our users directly. It’s our job to ensure that we support our colleagues to do the very best we can for our users.

‍

How our ‘drop everything’ approach works in practice

‍

‍

We recently conducted five or six rounds (no one can quite remember, we did it so quickly) of testing of our new iPhone application (pictured above) — sometimes testing more than one version at a time. The development team would receive our feedback face-to-face, make changes and we’d be testing the next version of the app the same or the next day. It’s only by doing this that we can ensure that Trade Me members will see positive changes happening daily rather than monthly.

‍

How we prioritize what needs to get done

‍

To help us try to decide what we should be doing at any one time we have some simple rules to prioritise:

• Core product over other business elements
• Finish something over start something new
• Committed work over non-committed work
• Strategic priorities over non-strategic priorities
• Responsive support over less time-critical work
• Where our input is crucial over where our input is a bonus

‍

Applying these rules to any situation makes the decision whether to jump in and help pretty easy.At any one time, each of us in the UX team will have one or more long-term projects, some medium-term projects, and either some short-term projects or the capacity for some short-term projects (usually achieved by putting aside a long-term project for a moment).

‍

We manage our time and projects on Trello, where we can see at a glance what’s happening this and next week, and what we’ve caught sniff of in the wind that might be coming up, or definitely is coming up.On the whole, both we and the squads favour fast response, bulleted list, email ‘reports’ for any short-term requests for user testing.  We get a report out within four hours of testing (usually well within that). After all, the squads are working in short sprints, and our involvement is often at the sharp end where delays are not welcome. Most people aren’t going to read past the management summary anyway, so why not just write that, unless you have to?

‍

How we share our knowledge with the organization

Even though we mainly keep our reporting brief, we want the knowledge we’ve gained from working with each squad or on each product to be available to everyone. So we maintain a wiki that contains summaries of what we did for each piece of work, why we did it and what we found. Detailed reports, if there are any, are attached. We also send all reports out to staff who’ve subscribed to the UX interest email group.

‍

Finally, we send out a monthly email, which looks across a bunch of research we’ve conducted, both short and long-term, and draws conclusions from which our colleagues can learn. All of these latter activities contribute to one of our key objectives: making Trade Me an even more user-centred organization than it is.I’ve been with Trade Me for about six months and we’re constantly refining our UX practices, but so far it seems to be working very well.Right, I’d better go – I’ve just been told I’m user testing something pretty big tomorrow and I need to write a test script!