Moderated vs unmoderated research: which approach is best?

User experience research is super important to developing a product that truly engages, compels and energises people. We all want a website that is easy to navigate, simple to follow and compels our users to finish their tasks. Or an app that supports and drives engagement.

‍

We’ve talked a lot about the various types of research tools that help improve these outcomes. 

‍

There is a rising research trend in 2021.

‍

Mixed method research - what is more compelling than these user research quantitative tools? Combining these with awesome qualitative research! Asking the same questions in various ways can provide deeper insights into how our users think and operate. Empowering you to develop products that truly talk to your users, answer their queries or even address their frustrations.

‍

Though it isn’t enough to simply ‘do research’, as with anything you need to approach it with strategy, focus and direction. This will funnel your time, money and energy into areas that will generate the best results.

‍

Mixed Method UX research is the research trend of 2021

‍

With the likes of Facebook, Amazon, Etsy, eBay, Ford and many more big organizations offering newly formed job openings for mixed methods researchers it becomes very obvious where the research trend is heading.

‍

It’s not only good to have, but now becoming imperative, to gather data, dive deeper and generate insights that provide more information on our users than ever before. And you don't need to be Facebook to reap the benefits. Mixed method research can be implemented across the board and can be as narrow as finding out how your homepage is performing through to analysing in depth the entirety of your product design.

‍

And with all of these massive organizations making the move to increase their data collection and research teams. Why wouldn’t you?

‍

The value in mixed method research is profound. Imagine understanding what, where, how and why your customers would want to use your service. And catering directly for them. The more we understand our customers, the deeper the relationship and the more likely we are to keep them engaged.

‍

Although of course by diving deep into the reasons our users like (or don’t like) how our products operate can drive your organization to target and operate better at a higher level. Gearing your energies to attracting and keeping the right type of customer, providing the right level of service and after care. Potentially reducing overheads, by not delivering to expected levels.

‍

What is mixed method research?

‍

Mixed methods research isn’t overly complicated, and doesn’t take years for you to master. It simply is a term used to refer to using a combination of quantitative and qualitative data. This may mean using a research tool such as card sorting alongside interviews with users. 

‍

Quantitative research is the tangible numbers and metrics that can be gathered through user research such as card sorting or tree testing.

‍

Qualitative research is research around users’ behaviour and experiences. This can be through usability tests, interviews or surveys.

‍

For instance you may be asking ‘how should I order the products on my site?’. With card sorting you can get the data insights that will inform how a user would like to see the products sorted. Coupled with interviews you will get the why.

‍

Understanding the thinking behind the order, and why one user likes to see gym shorts stored under shorts and another would like to see them under active wear. With a deeper understanding of how and why users decide how content should be sorted are made will create a highly intuitive website. 

‍

Another great reason for mixed method research would be to back up data insights for stakeholders. With a depth and breadth of qualitative and quantitative research informing decisions, it becomes clearer why changes may need to be made, or product designs need to be challenged.

‍

How to do mixed method research

‍

Take a look at our article for more examples of the uses of mixed method research. 

‍

Simply put mixed method research means coupling quantitative research, such as tree testing, card sorting or first click testing, with qualitative research such as surveys, interviews or diary entry.

‍

Say, for instance, the product manager has identified that there is an issue with keeping users engaged on the homepage of your website. We would start with asking where they get stuck, and when they are leaving.

‍

This can be done using a first-click tool, such as Chalkmark, which will map where users head when they land on your homepage and beyond. 

‍

This will give you the initial qualitative data. However, it may only give you some of the picture. Coupled with qualitative data, such as watching (and reporting on) body language. Or conducting interviews with users directly after their experience so we can understand why they found the process confusing or misleading.

‍

A fuller picture, means a better understanding.

‍

Key is to identify what your question is and honing in on this through both methods. Ultimately, we are answering your question from both sides of the coin.

‍

Upcoming research trends to watch

‍

Keeping an eye on the progression of the mixed method research trend, will mean keeping an eye on these:

‍

1. Integrated Surveys

‍

Rather than thinking of user surveys as being a one time, in person event, we’re seeing more and more often surveys being implemented through social media, on websites and through email. This means that data can be gathered frequently and across the board. This longitude data allows organizations to continuously analyse, interpret and improve products without really ever stopping. 

‍

Rather than relying on users' memories for events and experiences data can be gathered in the moment. At the time of purchase or interaction. Increasing the reliability and quality of the data collected. 

‍

2. Return to the social research

‍

Customer research is rooted in the focus group. The collection of participants in one space, that allows them to voice their opinions and reach insights collectively. This did used to be an overwhelming task with days or even weeks to analyse unstructured forums and group discussions.

‍

However, now with the advent of online research tools this can also be a way to round out mixed method research.

‍

3. Co-creation

‍

The ability to use your customers input to build better products. This has long been thought a way to increase innovative development. Until recently it too has been cumbersome and difficult to wrangle more than a few participants. But, there are a number of resources in development that will make co-creation the buzzword of the decade.

‍

4. Owned Panels & Community

‍

Beyond community engagement in the social sphere. There is a massive opportunity to utilise these engaged users in product development. Through a trusted forum, users are far more likely to actively and willingly participate in research. Providing insights into the community that will drive stronger product outcomes.

‍

What does this all mean for me

‍

So, there is a lot to keep in mind when conducting any effective user research. And there are a lot of very compelling reasons to do mixed method research and do it regularly. 

‍

To remain innovative, and ahead of the ball it remains very important to be engaged with your users and their needs. Using qualitative and qualitative research to inform product decisions means you can operate knowing a fuller picture.

‍

One of the biggest challenges with user research can be the coordination and participant recruitment. That’s where we come in.

‍

Taking the pain out of the process and streamlining your research. Take a look at our Qualitative Research option, Reframer. Giving you an insight into how we can help make your mixed method research easier and analyse your data efficiently and in a format that is easy to understand.

‍

User research doesn’t need to take weeks or months. With our participant recruitment we can provide reliable and quality participants across the board that will provide data you can rely on.

‍

Why not get in deeper with mixed method research today!

In UX research we are told again and again that to ensure truly user-centered design, it’s important to test ideas with real users as early as possible. There are many benefits that come from introducing the voice of the people you are designing for in the early stages of the design process. The more feedback you have to work with, the more you can inform your design to align with real needs and expectations. In turn, this leads to better experiences that are more likely to succeed in the real world.It is not surprising then that paper prototypes have become a popular tool used among researchers. They allow ideas to be tested as they emerge, and can inform initial designs before putting in the hard yards of building the real thing. It would seem that they’re almost a no-brainer for researchers, but just like anything out there, along with all the praise, they have also received a fair share of criticism, so let’s explore paper prototypes a little further.

‍

What’s a paper prototype anyway? 🧐📖

‍

Paper prototyping is a simple usability testing technique designed to test interfaces quickly and cheaply. A paper prototype is nothing more than a visual representation of what an interface could look like on a piece of paper (or even a whiteboard or chalkboard). Unlike high-fidelity prototypes that allow for digital interactions to take place, paper prototypes are considered to be low-fidelity, in that they don’t allow direct user interaction. They can also range in sophistication, from a simple sketch using a pen and paper to simulate an interface, through to using designing or publishing software to create a more polished experience with additional visual elements.

‍

‍

‍

Showing a research participant a paper prototype is far from the real deal, but it can provide useful insights into how users may expect to interact with specific features and what makes sense to them from a basic, user-centered perspective. There are some mixed attitudes towards paper prototypes among the UX community, so before we make any distinct judgements, let's weigh up their pros and cons.

‍

Advantages 🏆

‍

• They’re cheap and fastPen and paper, a basic word document, Photoshop. With a paper prototype, you can take an idea and transform it into a low-fidelity (but workable) testing solution very quickly, without having to write code or use sophisticated tools. This is especially beneficial to researchers who work with tight budgets, and don’t have the time or resources to design an elaborate user testing plan.
• Anyone can do itPaper prototypes allow you to test designs without having to involve multiple roles in building them. Developers can take a back seat as you test initial ideas, before any code work begins.
• They encourage creativityFrom both the product teams participating in their design, but also from the users. They require the user to employ their imagination, and give them the opportunity express their thoughts and ideas on what improvements can be made. Because they look unfinished, they naturally invite constructive criticism and feedback.
• They help minimize your chances of failurePaper prototypes and user-centered design go hand in hand. Introducing real people into your design as early as possible can help verify whether you are on the right track, and generate feedback that may give you a good idea of whether your idea is likely to succeed or not.

‍

Disadvantages 😬

‍

• They’re not as polished as interactive prototypesIf executed poorly, paper prototypes can appear unprofessional and haphazard. They lack the richness of an interactive experience, and if our users are not well informed when coming in for a testing session, they may be surprised to be testing digital experiences on pieces of paper.
• The interaction is limitedDigital experiences can contain animations and interactions that can’t be replicated on paper. It can be difficult for a user to fully understand an interface when these elements are absent, and of course, the closer the interaction mimics the final product, the more reliable our findings will be.
• They require facilitationWith an interactive prototype you can assign your user tasks to complete and observe how they interact with the interface. Paper prototypes, however, require continuous guidance from a moderator in communicating next steps and ensuring participants understand the task at hand.
• Their results have to be interpreted carefullyPaper prototypes can’t emulate the final experience entirely. It is important to interpret their findings while keeping their limitations in mind. Although they can help minimize your chances of failure, they can’t guarantee that your final product will be a success. There are factors that determine success that cannot be captured on a piece of paper, and positive feedback at the prototyping stage does not necessarily equate to a well-received product further down the track.

‍

Improving the interface of card sorting, one prototype at a time 💡

‍

We recently embarked on a research project looking at the user interface of our card-sorting tool, OptimalSort. Our research has two main objectives — first of all to benchmark the current experience on laptops and tablets and identify ways in which we can improve the current interface. The second objective is to look at how we can improve the experience of card sorting on a mobile phone.

‍

Rather than replicating the desktop experience on a smaller screen, we want to create an intuitive experience for mobiles, ensuring we maintain the quality of data collected across devices.Our current mobile experience is a scaled down version of the desktop and still has room for improvement, but despite that, 9 per cent of our users utilize the app. We decided to start from the ground up and test an entirely new design using paper prototypes. In the spirit of testing early and often, we decided to jump right into testing sessions with real users. In our first testing sprint, we asked participants to take part in two tasks. The first was to perform an open or closed card sort on a laptop or tablet. The second task involved using paper prototypes to see how people would respond to the same experience on a mobile phone.

‍

‍

Context is everything 🎯

‍

What did we find? In the context of our research project, paper prototypes worked remarkably well. We were somewhat apprehensive at first, trying to figure out the exact flow of the experience and whether the people coming into our office would get it. As it turns out, people are clever, and even those with limited experience using a smartphone were able to navigate and identify areas for improvement just as easily as anyone else. Some participants even said they prefered the experience of testing paper prototypes over a laptop. In an effort to make our prototype-based tasks easy to understand and easy to explain to our participants, we reduced the full card sort to a few key interactions, minimizing the number of branches in the UI flow.

‍

This could explain a preference for the mobile task, where we only asked participants to sort through a handful of cards, as opposed to a whole set.The main thing we found was that no matter how well you plan your test, paper prototypes require you to be flexible in adapting the flow of your session to however your user responds. We accepted that deviating from our original plan was something we had to embrace, and in the end these additional conversations with our participants helped us generate insights above and beyond the basics we aimed to address. We now have a whole range of feedback that we can utilize in making more sophisticated, interactive prototypes.

‍

Whether our success with using paper prototypes was determined by the specific setup of our testing sessions, or simply by their pure usefulness as a research technique is hard to tell. By first performing a card sorting task on a laptop or tablet, our participants approached the paper prototype with an understanding of what exactly a card sort required. Therefore there is no guarantee that we would have achieved the same level of success in testing paper prototypes on their own. What this does demonstrate, however, is that paper prototyping is heavily dependent on the context of your assessment.

‍

Final thoughts 💬

‍

Paper prototypes are not guaranteed to work for everybody. If you’re designing an entirely new experience and trying to describe something complex in an abstracted form on paper, people may struggle to comprehend your idea. Even a careful explanation doesn’t guarantee that it will be fully understood by the user. Should this stop you from testing out the usefulness of paper prototypes in the context of your project? Absolutely not.

‍

In a perfect world we’d test high fidelity interactive prototypes that resemble the real deal as closely as possible, every step of the way. However, if we look at testing from a practical perspective, before we can fully test sophisticated designs, paper prototypes provide a great solution for generating initial feedback.In his article criticizing the use of paper prototypes, Jake Knapp makes the point that when we show customers a paper prototype we’re inviting feedback, not reactions. What we found in our research however, was quite the opposite.

‍

In our sessions, participants voiced their expectations and understanding of what actions were possible at each stage, without us having to probe specifically for feedback. Sure we also received general comments on icon or colour preferences, but for the most part our users gave us insights into what they felt throughout the experience, in addition to what they thought.

‍

Further reading 🧠

‍

• Why You Only Need To Test With 5 Users - Nielsen Norman Group’s Jakob Nielsen explains reveals his thoughts on only using five users when conducting usability testing.
• Sketching for better mobile experiences - Lennart Hennigs explains how to sketch and why you should do it in an article for Smashing Magazine.
• Paper prototypes work as well as software prototypes -  Bob Bailey explains why he thinks paper prototypes are just as good as software prototypes for usability testing.

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.

‍

‍