This article "UX Research Reckoning is Here" written by Judd Antin really caused an uproar in the overseas user research circle at that time, and the views in the article are very sharp.
Peron's core view:
1. Micro-user research (based on technology usability, eye tracking and detailed interaction development, etc.) is certainly valuable, but it cannot constitute a professional barrier for user researchers, and it is easy to be replaced by product/operation/design, etc., and they can do it themselves, so there is no future
2. Meso-user research (in fact, it can be understood as those basic researches) cannot directly provide landing value, and can only indirectly create value by empowering the business side to improve cognition, which is not to say that there is no value at all, but it is difficult to measure, and the proportion needs to be controlled
3. Macro user research (strategic user research) is a type of user research project with real technical content and the highest value, but it needs to be achieved by comprehensive desk research, big data, user research, etc., so it is not possible to only understand user research;
UX research teams have been hit hard by the wave of layoffs, with hundreds or thousands of UX researchers (UXRs) losing their jobs. It's not just the economic crisis, UX research over the past 15 years is dying. If the industry is to survive and thrive, we have to adapt, and we have to adapt quickly.
1. The Golden Age
The last 15 years have been a golden age for UX research. The number of fellows has also increased proportionally, driven by the expanding design department. The company is also open to experimenting with the value that multidisciplinary, human-interaction-driven UX research provides.
The golden age of high-paying UX research jobs seemed to fall from the sky, and the industry was full of job opportunities. I also helped grow Facebook's UXR team from a dozen to over 100 people, and then did the same for Airbnb in the same time period when Facebook/Meta grew from 100 to over 1000 researchers. There are vacancies everywhere, competitive hiring, and high budgets.
So why did it get to where it is today?
2. The judgment of the value of the use of research
A company's layoffs are a judgment on the value of the business.
When user researchers are disproportionately laid off, the implications are fairly obvious. You may be thinking, "They just don't understand, we're so misunderstood." The dilemma for UXR is to use insights for others to use to drive business value. The road map was never guided, there was no place for it, and we were forgotten and eventually had to be laid off. ”
I've led the research team for many years, and I've thought and said a lot of these things. But now I have a different idea: none of this matters. If UX research over the past 15 years hasn't proven its worth on its own, the only question we should ask is: why not?
It's all more necessary to look inward and figure out how we can better position ourselves for the future of UXR.
3. Erroneous research
If there's one characteristic of UX researchers over the past 15 years, it's busy. How can you be so busy and not provide enough business value? I think we've been doing the wrong research.
There are three types of work that a UX researcher needs to do:
- Macro Strategy Research: Business-oriented, future-oriented provides a specific framework to guide macro business decisions
- Medium-scope research: Focus on user understanding and product development
- Micro research: technology usability, eye tracking, and detailed interaction development
The biggest reason UX research faces this kind of trial is that we do too much mid-range research. Medium-scale studies are attractive to researchers, but there is only marginal incremental efficiency to actual product and design efforts.
It has largely led to the worst reviews and thoughts about UXR.
So many medium-scale studies don't bring enough commercial value:
- How do users perceive/use a feature?
- What are the user's concerns or challenges?
- Why do users use/don't use a feature?
Even if researchers are able to communicate their findings clearly, medium-range findings tend to be descriptive and difficult to translate into specific recommendations. It's therefore easy to find fault or overlook, triggering post-event bias: "Researchers working for months just tell us the stereotype of what we already know." "All of this weakens the so-called commercial value of research.
4. Commercial > users
Great user experience and profit are not exactly opposites, but when a choice has to be made, profit always > the user. Researchers are often averse to putting profits first, and many companies also try to prioritize positive personal and social outcomes. I'm respectful, but reality also shows how quickly those promises fall apart in the face of a terrible quarterly report.
The product process is often built around understanding that the user is necessary to develop the product - this is a lie. In fact, it's easy to develop money-making products without the need for this kind of research, and a lot of companies have been doing it. You might say that it's not easy to develop a good product without research, but that's not necessarily true.
There are two reasons for this:
First, designers, engineers, and product personnel can reach users faster. Modern data science gives everyone the confidence that they can pick a winner without research, just A/B testing!
Second, users will put up with a lot of poor user experience in order to use a useful product. As long as they're clicking, engaging, buying, that's okay.
5. How to refuse
In the last 15 years, medium-scale research has filled the work of user research, and we have not turned it down. Product managers like to make medium-sized research requests to prove that their teamwork doesn't make decisions alone. Designers prefer medium-scope studies, which are in line with the design process. Executives like mid-scope research because they don't really understand the purpose of UX research, but still want to prove that they're user-centric, but ultimately make decisions based on their own opinions.
That's how much time we've spent over the last 15 years, and ultimately not enough to justify the effort and work we've invested.
We need to fix this.
Sixth, the next 15 years
I'm a realist, and I'm still optimistic that this function can be repositioned to deliver business value. The first thing we need to do is take business responsibility.
The industry is based on selling goods and creating shareholder value. UX research needs to find a balance that drives business and is user-centric, which changes our value. Naked capitalism is bad, and I'm not suggesting that UX research abandon users, empathy, and justice. What I'm suggesting is that there will only be a place to drive these goals if we find the business value drivers.
1. Refocus 90% of your efforts on micro and macro research
We are grossly underinvested in micro research. Technical usability testing, eye tracking, and detailed study of specific interactions and processes are more common in the early days of user research than in the last 15 years.
Designers may think that the usability research they do is also very good. If that were the case, the software would be much easier to use than it is today. Excellent microscopic research is highly technical and specialized. It puts the user experience under the microscope.
Micro, technical UX research may not always be interesting, but it drives business value. When research makes the product easier to use, engagement increases and churn decreases – a win-win.
Also, I've never come across a micro-level study that doesn't produce valuable medium-scale insights at the same time. So micro research not only drives business value, but also provides most of the value in the medium range.
At the same time, we need to do a better job in macro research. "Strategic" is often a buzzword used by researchers when they want to sound more advanced on LinkedIn.
In this context, it has a specific meaning: strategic research helps companies decide on long-term goals, priorities, and ways to achieve them.
- What insights does the board need to decide on an M&A strategy?
- How should companies prioritize business objectives in the second half of the year?
- What user issues, product and design trends should executives focus on over the next 3-5 years?
- What consumer trends are really important to business, and how can we translate them into action?
2. Renowned "storytelling"
Great macro research is multi-methodic – a combination of desktop, quantitative, and qualitative research. It provides priorities and frameworks, not answers or assumptions.
There is no doubt that macro research is business-first and future-oriented. And it requires working directly with executives to eliminate voices that could dilute the business value of research.
But macro research requires some skills that few researchers actually have. Such as business understanding, distilling insights, and communicating with executives.
We need to stop talking too much about storytelling and narration. Even more important than this is learning to speak concisely and forcefully about the business and products in a language that executives can identify with and enjoy.
If a UX researcher refocuses his work to focus on micro and macro research, there will be no doubt about the business value we will provide in the next 15 years.
We're not alone, and UX designers face similar skepticism.
But judging by the conversations on social media, I don't see the most productive approach. There was too much panic and blamed on their failure to recognize the reality of the business system in which UX was located.
I strongly believe that research is still a key player and that the most successful companies still need to have researchers on their teams. But the work they do and the core skills will be different.
We stand on the cusp of the future and realize that the last 15 years have been more like a golden age for fools than a real golden age.
But that's okay, the researchers are lifelong learners, and we know how to adapt quickly.
This article was published by Everyone is a Product Manager Author [Liu Peilong], WeChat public account: [Peron User Research], original / authorized Published in Everyone is a product manager, without permission, it is forbidden to reprint.
Image from Unsplash, based on the CC0 license.