Client Project: Streamlining the prioritization process for UX research projects in a centralized model
Timeline
August 2021 - December 2021
Skills
User research, interviews, affinity mapping, communicating research findings and recommendations to stakeholders
Tools
Zoom, Miro
Team
Anna Gilhool (myself), Saumya Baheti, Jessica Browning, Zelda Hu
Problem Statement
The client, a home improvement retailer, switched from an embedded to a centralized model to structure their User Experience (UX) team. With this switch in organizational structure, seven UX researchers began to receive a surplus of project requests. Out of those intake requests, the team needed to focus on the highest priority, highest-impact projects. The client had a current intake and prioritization process in place, but the process needed to be streamlined.
Research Questions
How can the research project intake process be optimized?
How can the prioritization process be streamlined to ensure researchers conduct high-impact and high-priority studies?
Current Project Intake and Prioritization Process
UX Researchers check in with stakeholder communities (PMs and UX Designers) to discuss needed research
UX Researchers meet again with PMs to input potential projects into SmartSheet
UX Research Managers, Senior Managers of Product, and Directors or Product and UX meet in a governance meeting to flag certain projects to move forward with
Our Research Process
Research process diagram.
Research
Secondary Research: Transitioning from an Embedded to Centralized Model
Since the client organization switched from an embedded to a centralized model to structure their User Experience (UX) team, they emphasized that prioritizing their studies and determining which studies have the highest impact is more difficult. To gain a better understanding of how the team is structured currently, how it was structured in the past, and how the team can best work in a centralized model, I researched the embedded and centralized models and examined their advantages and disadvantages.
Primary Research: Interviews
6 interviews with stakeholders: 2 UX Researchers, 2 Project Managers, and 2 UX Managers
Observed 1 governance meeting
Data Analysis
Affinity Mapping
After interviews and observing one governance meeting, our team pulled key quotes and observations into Miro and then categorized similar statements together, which helped us form insights into what challenges the client faced surrounding prioritization.
Subsection of affinity wall detailing issues with the client’s governance meetings.
Subsection of affinity wall detailing issues with the RICEER scores.
Findings & Recommendations
The Transition from Embedded to Centralized Model
Finding 1
Working in an Embedded Model led to stronger working relationships, but sometimes led to inefficient prioritization.
“[The embedded model] made me be able to create stronger relationships with my stakeholders.”
“Anything that [product managers] would ask - and he was a junior researcher - he would just do it, some of the stuff wasn't going to be good projects. It was really hard to get outside of that narrow view.”
Finding 2
Researchers were most heavily impacted by the transition from embedded to a centralized model, while Product Managers and Directors had less of an impact.
“I have zero negative feedback on the transition.”
“A lot of people felt a little more disconnected from product and design, because they weren't meeting with them everyday, they weren't going to stand up, they weren't in those constant meetings anymore, or at least not in the same way.”
RICEER Score
Finding 1
Scoring is subjective and there are projects that are hard to fit into the scoring mold.
✅* Simplify the scoring to math that you can do in your head.
*a ✅ icon indicates an opportunity for the client to improve their research prioritization process
“RICCER numbers are all over the board and it is kinda a problem”
“Gut check”
“Assumptions”
“Best Guess”
Finding 2
Inconsistent and inaccurate information submitted to the intake Smartsheet
Several projects slip through the cracks or do not make it onto the Smartsheet as early as they should
✅ Edit the intake form so input fields only accept numbers, clear RICEER scores are defined, another field is added for RICEER score explanation and project/research goal
✅ Develop a new intake Smartsheet for ‘Quick Hits’ research projects
“I don’t remember what we put…but it was probably not the correct thing, we probably just did some kind of generic number.”
Governance Meetings
Finding 1
Attendance is inconsistent and dwindling
Governance meetings aren't considered a high priority meeting for several invitees
✅ Modify meeting agenda to include more comprehensive information, make attendees feel more accountable, and circulate an anonymous feedback form
Finding 2
For governance meetings to be useful there needs to be consistent engagement
✅ Make nomenclature meaningful on Smartsheet and track meeting notes to share with wider circle to foster conversation
“It is very difficult to make sure everyone is there, we make the best decisions when everyone is present and engaged, need to have 80%+ participants, need to find a way to make the meeting valuable”
“I want everybody to fight for what they think is the right thing”
“We didn't have many people in the meeting to like, speak up and say, hey, my thing needs to move up.”
Communication
Finding 1
Inefficient communication among research teams in different departments leads to overlapping and duplication of research.
✅ Increase the visibility of the Smartsheet by having it in a central place and allow people from different departments to access it
✅ Implement a central research repository that includes detailed information like keywords, research description, name of primary contacts, link to email, etc.
“There's another part of our organization that also does research that at times can influence or affect us.”
“We don't have enough insight into what they're doing, and how maybe our front end stuff aligns to their stuff, or how their stuff could align with ours.”