If user experience is key to success, why is research a hard sell?
I don’t think it’s in the facts and figures. I think it is mostly about human psychology. So what can we do about it?
When I think about the question in the title, 2 experiences always come to my mind.
A start-up founder and I were walking out of this immensely popular talk by a venture capitalist. The talk got loud cheers as the speaker hammered home the importance of talking to customers and not relying on assumptions. I asked the founder as we headed towards the trade show booths,
“So what do you know about your users and how do you find that out?”
He emm’d and aah’d and said,
”Oh right now, we are building the thing and marketing it. We will start testing it as soon as we get some funding.”The product team watched a short (research shadowing)movie of homestay guests arriving tired and hungry. All the family wanted was to find the keys quickly and enter the vacation home to start their holiday. After a frustrating treasure hunt coupled with a lot of texting with the owner, they found the keys under the flower pot hidden behind the overgrown tree. The lady said,
”Next time we are picking a hotel with a 24-hour front desk.”
The team couldn’t stop using this example for strategy and goals, and not once did they challenge the numbers or authenticity of this finding.
Through these experiences, I couldn’t help but wonder; why, despite all the advice to invest in research, all the cautionary tales about assumption-driven decisions, and all the data on failure rates, do decision-makers still avoid the crucial step of truly understanding their users when it matters most?
It has to be something more than what’s on the surface… right?
I took the ‘GOOD COP, BAD COP’ framework to make sense of my experiences. (Yes I love frameworks as they make for interesting coffee chats.)
The good cop is a friend of the researchers and holds the world around them accountable.
The bad cop quite simply holds the researchers accountable.
Why is Research a hard sell - When the other is at fault
People often learn about new skills either from being exposed to an impactful person (Tara is awesome, I don’t know exactly what she does, but she changed XYZ!) or having experienced an impactful function (The research team in ACME prevented a ton of wasted effort, and I want the same value now.)
Most people fall in the vast middle, and they;
* See Research as a cost centre, not a value driver
When people complain that research takes time and costs money, they often categorise strategic customer insights as OpEx and not CapEx. A bank of insights drives the power to innovate, differentiate, grow, and retain. There is every reason why filling up this bank should be strategic and not near-sighted.
What agency do researchers have?
Differentiate research budgets into OpEx and CapEx buckets. For instance, continuous discovery can fall into OpEx while new market exploration will be CapEx.
Hold stakeholders accountable for learning…learning about users, and about past failures and successes. Push the conversation from Fail Fast to Learn First.
Position insights as a growth engine, not incremental improvement. Choose initiatives that are high visibility/high impact.
(Yes, even usability tests can do that. Ask me how).
* Think any information = insights, anecdotes = patterns
Nod if you have heard this before.
“I know what the users need as I had the same problem.”
“I talk to users during demos and pitches. I don’t need research.”
While any information is good to have, they are just that…information and anecdotes.
information ≠ insights, anecdote≠ patterns
To turn information into insight, we need to understand context, map it to goals, structure the inquiry process, and ask the right questions.
To uncover patterns, we need to have a repeatable template for inquiry, the ability to connect the dots, and uncover hidden meanings.
What agency do researchers have?
If you are not spending at least 30% of your project time on crafting the outcome story and influencing the use of the insights, you are doing it wrong. Nikki Anderson goes into detail of delivering insights that demand action.
I often ask a simple question, “How sure are you about your information? What will it take to become close to 95% sure?”
* Fear bad news - The Ostrich effect
If I had a penny for every time people stiffened up when they saw research findings for the first time, I’d be retired on a tropical island. Most people dislike bad news, especially when it comes after they’ve already made investments.
What agency do researchers have?
First rule - Do not perform grand reveals of research insights. If your key stakeholders don’t already know what is coming by the time you finish a project and organise a presentation/workshop, it is too late.
Rule two - Don’t deliver bad news when you can deliver hope, aka recommendations, workarounds, and positive spins.
Bad - “Users prefer the competitor’s product over ours.”
Better - “If our product fulfilled X needs and solved Y problems, we have a competitive advantage.”
* Are caught between the mountain and the molehill
Most low UX mature teams often face one of the two pitfalls.
Molehill - The problem does not need research as is not current but a future problem.
Mountain - The problem is too big and we are too late to change anything!
What agency do researchers have?
In low-maturity environments, redefine research. Move away from doing research, to finding means of spotlighting users and customers. This might look like organising customer events or analysing CS (customer service) and sales data.
Find a leadership champion in non-research roles. And empower them to speak on your behalf.
* Face no consequences for bad decisions
This is a system failure, not an individual’s.
Most success is measured by what is produced, how soon, and what are the early indicators of profit (adoption, engagement, etc.) If consequences are far off in the future and rewards are here in the now, the system enables mercenaries over missionaries.
What agency do researchers have?
I have nothing here, to be honest. If you have any repeatable successes, please share. :)
Why is Research a hard sell - When researchers are at fault
As a researcher, I have seen my peers and myself go through all the stages of grief - denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. The fact is that we researchers are a product of our education and experiences. The good thing is we are constantly learning and learning makes everything better.
Through all my trials and errors, there are a few things I repeatedly use to establish research mindset.
* Facilitate a insights-driven culture, not silo it
We must go beyond simply sharing data. This means facilitating rituals where insights are learned and applied in collaboration, empowering every team member to participate.
Create a sense of co-ownership when it comes to understanding users. I often use the metaphor of researchers as travel guides (not travel bloggers).
Which brings me to…
* Co-own decisions as much as your non-UXR peers
It was not long ago when researchers were taught to NOT offer recommendations as that is not part of their job.
Through all my good and bad learnings, I now strongly disagree with the statement. Decision-making is as much a team sport as participating in research. At its simplest, ensure you offer recommendations and justifications along with observations and insights. My favorite structure is,
I encourage all researchers to take some of that decision power back and show up as peers.
Of course, that also means…
* With great power comes great responsibility
Power and responsibility/accountability are two sides of a coin. I consider this a good thing! So what would accountability look like for research practice, that is more than just producing insights?
Measure Use - Track how often insights+recommendations lead to actionable steps or influence product decisions. Ask stakeholders to rate the clarity, actionability, and relevance of research outputs.
Measure Success - Record cases such as being consulted by stakeholders as thought partners, involvement in strategic meetings, and insights-led prioritisation.
Measure ROI - If research prevents costly unwanted features, uncovers new opportunities, or avoids potential usability issues, the researcher’s accountability to product success is evident.
Measure failure - Share responsibility for failed launches and unflattering metrics. All product retrospectives should have a, “What will research do differently?” line item.
When researchers co-own decisions, champion accountability, and bridge the gap between data and strategy, they elevate research from a “nice-to-have” to a game-changer. We empower teams to move beyond assumptions and are one of the primary influencers of revenue and cost.
Are you setting up a learning culture in your company, and need a partner?