How to convince others of the importance of UX research

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. 

‍

It’s a chicken and egg situation when it comes to securing funding for a large transformation program in government. On one hand, you need to submit a business case and, as part of that, you need to make early decisions about how you might approach and deliver the program of work. On the other hand, you need to know enough about the problem you are going to solve to ensure you have sufficient funding to understand the problem better, hire the right people, design the right service, and build it the right way. 

‍

Now imagine securing hundreds of millions of dollars to design and build a service, but not feeling confident about what the user needs are. What if you had the opportunity to change this common predicament and influence your leadership team to carry out alignment activities, all while successfully delivering within the committed time frames?

‍

Meera Pankhania, Design Director and Co-founder of Propel Design, recently spoke at UX New Zealand, the leading UX and IA conference in New Zealand hosted by Optimal Workshop, on traceability and her learnings from delivering a $300 million Government program.

‍

In her talk, Meera helps us understand how to use service traceability techniques in our work and apply them to any environment - ensuring we design and build the best service possible, no matter the funding model.

‍

Background on Meera Pankhania

‍

As a design leader, Meera is all about working on complex, purpose-driven challenges. She helps organizations take a human-centric approach to service transformation and helps deliver impactful, pragmatic outcomes while building capability and leading teams through growth and change.

‍

Meera co-founded Propel Design, a strategic research, design, and delivery consultancy in late 2020. She has 15 years of experience in service design, inclusive design, and product management across the private, non-profit, and public sectors in both the UK and Australia. 

‍

Meera is particularly interested in policy and social design. After a stint in the Australian Public Service, Meera was appointed as a senior policy adviser to the NSW Minister for Customer Service, Hon. Victor Dominello MP. In this role, she played a part in NSW’s response to the COVID pandemic, flexing her design leadership skills in a new, challenging, and important context.

‍

Contact Details:

‍

Email address: meera@propeldesign.com.au

‍

Find Meera on LinkedIn  

‍

From funding to delivery: ensuring alignment from start to finish 🏁🎉👏

‍

Meera’s talk explores a fascinating case study within the Department of Employment Services (Australia) where a substantial funding investment of around $300 million set the stage for a transformative journey. This funding supported the delivery of a revamped Employment Services Model, which had the goal of delivering better services to job seekers and employers, and a better system for providers within this system. The project had a focus on aligning teams prior to delivery, which resulted in a huge amount of groundwork for Meera.

‍

Her journey involved engaging various stakeholders within the department, including executives, to understand the program as a whole and what exactly needed to be delivered. “Traceability” became the watchword for this project, which is laid out in three phases.

‍

• Phase 1: Aligning key deliverables
• Phase 2: Ensuring delivery readiness
• Phase 3: Building sustainable work practices

‍

Phase 1: Aligning key deliverables 🧮

‍

Research and discovery (pre-delivery)

‍

Meera’s work initially meant conducting extensive research and engagement with executives, product managers, researchers, designers, and policymakers. Through this process, a common theme was identified – the urgent (and perhaps misguided) need to start delivering! Often, organizations focus on obtaining funding without adequately understanding the complexities involved in delivering the right services to the right users, leading to half-baked delivery.

After this initial research, some general themes started to emerge:

1. Assumptions were made that still needed validation
2. Teams weren’t entirely sure that they understood the user’s needs
3. A lack of holistic understanding of how much research and design was needed

The conclusion of this phase was that “what” needed to be delivered wasn’t clearly defined. The same was true for “how” it would be delivered.

‍

Traceability

‍

Meera’s journey heavily revolved around the concept of "traceability” and sought to ensure that every step taken within the department was aligned with the ultimate goal of improving employment services. Traceability meant having a clear origin and development path for every decision and action taken. This is particularly important when spending taxpayer dollars!

‍

So, over the course of eight weeks (which turned out to be much longer), the team went through a process of combing through documents in an effort to bring everything together to make sense of the program as a whole. This involved some planning, user journey mapping, and testing and refinement. 

‍

Documenting Key Artifacts

‍

Numerous artifacts and documents played a crucial role in shaping decisions. Meera and her team gathered and organized these artifacts, including policy requirements, legislation, business cases, product and program roadmaps, service maps, and blueprints. The team also included prior research insights and vision documents which helped to shape a holistic view of the required output.

‍

After an effort of combing through the program documents and laying everything out, it became clear that there were a lot of gaps and a LOT to do.

‍

Prioritising tasks

‍

As a result of these gaps, a process of task prioritization was necessary. Tasks were categorized based on a series of factors and then mapped out based on things like user touch points, pain points, features, business policy, and technical capabilities.

‍

This then enabled Meera and the team to create Product Summary Tiles. These tiles meant that each product team had its own summary ahead of a series of planning sessions. It gave them as much context (provided by the traceability exercise) as possible to help with planning. Essentially, these tiles provided teams with a comprehensive overview of their projects i.e. what their user needs, what certain policies require them to deliver, etc.  

‍

Phase 2: Ensuring delivery readiness 🙌🏻

‍

Meera wanted every team to feel confident that we weren’t doing too much or too little in order to design and build the right service, the right way.

‍

Standard design and research check-ins were well adopted, which was a great start, but Meera and the team also built a Delivery Readiness Tool. It was used to assess a team's readiness to move forward with a project. This tool includes questions related to the development phase, user research, alignment with the business case, consideration of policy requirements, and more. Ultimately, it ensures that teams have considered all necessary factors before progressing further. 

‍

Phase 3: Building sustainable work practices 🍃

‍

As the program progressed, several sustainable work practices emerged which Government executives were keen to retain going forward.

Some of these included:

‍

• ResearchOps Practice: The team established a research operations practice, streamlining research efforts and ensuring that ongoing research was conducted efficiently and effectively.
• Consistent Design Artifacts: Templates and consistent design artifacts were created, reducing friction and ensuring that teams going forward started from a common baseline.
• Design Authority and Ways of Working: A design authority was established to elevate and share best practices across the program.
• Centralized and Decentralized Team Models: The program showcased the effectiveness of a combination of centralized and decentralized team models. A central design team provided guidance and support, while service design leads within specific service lines ensured alignment and consistency.

‍

Why it matters 🔥

‍

Meera's journey serves as a valuable resource for those working on complex design programs, emphasizing the significance of aligning diverse stakeholders and maintaining traceability. Alignment and traceability are critical to ensuring that programs never lose sight of the problem they’re trying to solve, both from the user and organization’s perspective. They’re also critical to delivering on time and within budget!

‍

Traceability key takeaways 🥡

‍

• Early Alignment Matters: While early alignment is ideal, it's never too late to embark on a traceability journey. It can uncover gaps, increase confidence in decision-making, and ensure that the right services are delivered.
• Identify and audit: You never know what artifacts will shape your journey. Identify everything early, and don’t be afraid to get clarity on things you’re not sure about.
• Conducting traceability is always worthwhile: Even if you don’t find many gaps in your program, you will at least gain a high level of confidence that your delivery is focused on the right things.

‍

Delivery readiness key takeaways 🥡

‍

• Skills Mix is Vital: Assess and adapt team member roles to match their skills and experiences, ensuring they are positioned optimally.
• Not Everyone Shares the Same Passion: Recognize that not everyone will share the same level of passion for design and research. Make the relevance of these practices clear to all team members.

‍

Sustainability key takeaways 🥡

‍

• One Size Doesn't Fit All: Tailor methodologies, templates, and practices to the specific needs of your organization.
• Collaboration is Key: Foster a sense of community and collective responsibility within teams, encouraging shared ownership of project outcomes.

‍

‍

Ahead of her talk at UX New Zealand 2016, Lana Gibson from Lanalytics writes about a project she worked on with Te Papa.Te Papa (a museum in Wellington, New Zealand) created audience personas based on user research, and I used these as a basis to create audience segments in Google Analytics to give us further insight into different groups. By regularly engaging with our audience using both qualitative and quantitative user insight methods, we’re starting to build up a three-dimensional picture of their needs and how Te Papa can serve them.

‍

Personas based on user research

‍

At Te Papa the digital team created six audience personas to inform their site redesign, based on user research:

• enthusiast
• tourist
• social
• educator
• volunteer
• Wellingtonian

‍

These formed a good basis for understanding why people are using the site. For example the educator persona wants fodder for lesson plans for her class — trustworthy, subject-based resources that will excite her students. The tourist persona wants practical information — what’s on, how to plan a visit. And they want to get this information quickly and get on with their visit.We’ll follow the tourist persona through a couple more rounds of user research, to give an example of what you can find out by segmenting your audience.

‍

Interpreting tourist needs with data

‍

Te Papa holds information for the Tourist audience in the Visit and What’s on sections of the site. I created a segment in Google Analytics which filters the reports to show how people who visit pages within these two sections interact with the whole site. For example the keywords they search for in Google before arriving on Te Papa, what they search for when on the site, and how many of them email us.Deeper digging revealed that the Tourist audience makes up about half of our overall audience. Because the content is useful to everyone wanting to visit the museum, and not just tourists, we broadened the scope of this persona and called the segment ‘Museum visitor’.

‍

Why segment by site category — what if the audience goes beyond these pages?

‍

Google Analytics segments allow you to see all the pages that a particular audience visits, not just the ones you’ve filtered. For example over 2,000 people who visited a page within the Visit and What’s on sections also visited the Kids and families section in July 2016. So, the audience segment allows us to expand our concept of our audiences.You can segment by a lot of different behaviors. For example you could segment visitors by keyword, isolating people who come to the site from Google after searching for ‘parking’ and ‘opening hours’ and seeing what they do afterwards. But segmenting by site category tests the information architecture of your site, which can be very useful if you’ve got it wrong!

‍

Visit persona wants opening hours information

‍

What did we learn from these personas? One example is that the most searched term on the site for the Visit persona was ‘opening hours’. To help fix this, the team put the opening hours on every page of the redesigned site:

‍

‍

This resulted in a 90% drop in searches that include ‘hours’ (May 2016 compared with May 2015):

‍

‍

Developing personas with Matariki

‍

After the re-design the team ran a project to increase the reach and engagement of the Te Papa Matariki audience. You can read more about this in "Using data to help people celebrate Matariki". Te Papa holds Matariki events in the museum, such as the Kaumātua kapa haka, and this event in particular enhanced and challenged our ideas about this audience.

‍

Experiencing Kaumātua kapa haka performances online

‍

The Kaumātua kapa haka is the biggest Matariki event held at Te Papa, and this year we had 4,000 unique page views to the two Kaumātua kapa haka event pages. Traffic spiked over the event weekend, particularly from Facebook and mobile devices. We assumed the traffic was from people who were planning to come to the event, as they sit in the What’s on section. But further analysis indicates that people were visiting for the live streaming of the event — we included embedded Youtube videos on these pages.The popularity of the videos suggests that we’re taking events held within the museum walls out to people on the move, or in the comfort of their own homes. Based on this insight we’re looking into live streaming more events.

‍

We’ve taken Te Papa personas through three iterations, based on user research, analytics, then a practical application of these to the Matariki festival. Each user research method has limitations, but by regularly using qualitative and quantitative methods we’re engaging with a  three dimensional view of our audience that’s constantly evolving. Each user research piece builds that view, and allows us to plan projects and site changes with greater clarity about what our users need. It means we can plan projects that will have real and measurable impact, and allow people to engage with Te Papa in useful and meaningful ways.

‍

Want to hear more? Come to UX New Zealand!

‍

If you'd like to hear more about how Lana and Ruth redesigned the Te Papa website, plus a bunch of other cool UX-related talks, head along to UX New Zealand 2016 hosted by Optimal Workshop. The conference runs from 12-14 October, 2016, including a day of fantastic workshops, and you can get your tickets here. Got some questions you'd like to ask Lana before the conference? You can Tweet her on @lanalytics00!