For every UX problem, there is a UX research method.
Well, that might be stating it a little too simply.
For any one UX problem you will likely need several UX research methods to unpack it. If we were casting roles for the proverb about blind men and the elephant, UX problems are the elephant and UX research methods are the blind men. Most of my projects involve some combination of interviews, usability tests, think-a-louds, and contextual inquiries, with the occasional diary study.
When it comes to drafting a research plan, and figuring which out which methods you should pull out of your quiver, it can be helpful to have a few “cheat sheets” or summaries to refer to. Here are 4 tools to help you select the right UX research methods:
- UX Research Cheat Sheet – An easy-to-use cheat sheet for selecting a method for each phase of the project.
- Methods cards from 18f – Quick summaries of different research methods, organized by the phase of the project.
- The UX Toolbelt – A web application for selecting UX methods. It includes time and cost estimates for each method, so you can quickly whip up a budget plan for research.
- UX Project Checklist – A general checklist for every UX project, with links to other articles and resources.
A question: how do you pick your UX research methods?
What references, books, websites, cheat sheets, etc. do you use? Are they any other resources I should add to this list?
In Part 1, of the Startup Challenge we discussed how to generate (good) startup ideas. In Part 2, we focussed on compiling our personal criteria for success. Today in Part 3 of the startup challenge, I’ll share with you the three startup ideas I’ve decided to move forward with and conduct some discovery research around.
Ideas written up as problem hypotheses
Maybe its because I’m a researcher, but I find I see every new venture as an untested hypothesis. Whenever I see an announcement about a new product, I look for the underlining assumptions about customers. Whenever I see new government legislation, I look for the underlying theory of impact. And whenever I meet someone launching a new startup, all I want to talk about is how they are going to test and validate their idea as they move forward.
Not to get overly philosophical on the matter, but if you look at the world through a researcher lens, you can imagine every new idea is just an untested hypothesis waiting for the right experiment.
I’ve decided to articulate all of my startup ideas as a hypothesis, and here is the general formula I used:
Because [knowledge, assumptions and gut instincts about the problem], users are [in some undesirable state]. They need [solution idea].
The nice thing about writing up all my ideas as hypothesis is that they are concise, yet complete. You can see the prior knowledge I’ve gathered, the assumptions I’ve made, and where my head is currently. Also, as I gather more knowledge I can edit the hypothesis to match. Continue reading “Three startup ideas (Startup Challenge – Part 3)”
Meet Alison Alvarez and Tomer Borenstein, the founders of BlastPoint.
Before starting BlastPoint, Alison had a career in building big data tools for large Fortune 1000 companies. Through her work, she came to realize two things:
- When it comes to big data systems, everyone asks for the same subset of features.
- Only really large companies can afford to hire data scientists.
She believed that by building technology that met the ~90% of data needs, she could make data science tools accessible and affordable to businesses of all types and sizes. Alison pitched her idea at a CMU entrepreneurship event and met Tomer, an experienced software engineer and recent Computer Science Masters graduate. In 2016 they launched BlastPoint, with the mission to make big data accessible, usable, and affordable to all types of businesses. They have been making headlines ever since, and most recently won the 2017 UpPrize social venture competition.
Continue reading “Interview with BlastPoint”
Throughout the Spring, I had been posting a blog entry about once a week. I had a writing schedule that worked well for me. Then something happened that disrupted my routine – I had a baby. This is my second child, so I had a better idea of what I was getting into. But I was still surprised (or rather, reminded) how much an infant disrupts your entire life. I had high hopes of continuing to work on my start-up challenge over the summer, but baby #2 put the kibosh on that.
However, having a second child gave me even more ideas for potential startups. There is so much worry and work that goes into pregnancy, giving birth, and caring for an infant. And I think there is a lot of business potential in products and services that make parents’ lives easier.
So while I didn’t have time to write regular blog posts over the summer, I did have time to engage in a little self-study. Continue reading “Self-study research”
Over the past several days, I’ve generated 60+ startup ideas by following my idea generating process I blogged about last week. When I look over my list of ideas I have a lot of “gut feelings” about them. Some of the ideas seem too simple, some seem too complex, some seem dumb, and some seem beyond my skill set. While I think it is important to, at times, trust your gut. I also think it’s important to not throw away an idea before you at least consider its merits.
In today’s post I’ll go over my personal criteria to evaluate each startup idea. Similar to my idea generating process, I created this list of criteria for myself. I designed this list to help me think critically about each of the ideas I generated. I recommend that you take what I’ve written here as a starting point, do some more reading and research, and create your own idea evaluation process tailored to what’s important to you.
Continue reading “Criteria for success (Startup Challenge – Part 2)”
Last week I announced that I would be taking on the Startup Challenge:
Try to take a start-up idea as far as you can without building a thing.
So I’m kicking off my efforts by launching into a startup ideas brainstorming session.
Continue reading “Generating Startup Ideas (Startup Challenge – Part 1)”
Last week, I shared my ideas about MVE’s: Minimum Viable Experiments. To recap, an MVE is a type of experiment that should…
- require minimal set-up,
- require minimal cost and materials, and
- ultimately help you determine whether you’ve got a startup idea worth pursuing, or not.
MVEs are great because they take the focus away from building and shift it towards validating. In fact, I think that the longer you can pursue your startup idea without building anything, the more open you’ll be to new ideas, and the more successful you’ll be when it comes time to execute.
So to help you embrace the validate first, build later mantra, I’ve created a list of three ways to test your startup idea without building a damn thing:
Continue reading “3 ways to validate your startup idea without building a damn thing”
You have all been dutifully instructed to “fall in love with the problem, not the solution.” A lot of ink (virtual or otherwise) has been spent making sure you do your customer research. But as much as the start-up crowd seems to value research, it still seems like you can’t call yourself a “real entrepreneur” until you build something.
For example, if you spend your time investigating better ways to help senior citizens get to where they want to go, you’re just a do-gooder. But if you tell everyone you are making the “Uber for Seniors,” you are suddenly an entrepreneur.
Even the Lean movement, which espouses an experimental approach, puts a lot of focus on building something. (That “something” being the “minimum viable product.” Emphasis on product.)
I think that would-be entrepreneurs would find a lot more freedom to explore and grow their ideas if there was less pressure to come up with a “thing” to build. Instead, it may be better to focus on conducting worthwhile experiments. So in this post I’d like to introduce the MVE: minimum viable experiment.
Continue reading “The MVE: Minimum Viable Experiment”
In graduate school, whenever we were getting ready to attend a conference, we would all get together to practice our elevator pitches. In theory, the reason we practiced our pitch was that if by some miracle we found ourselves on an elevator with a philanthropically inclined Bill Gates we’d be ready to win him over with a 30 second spiel on our research. In practice, this never happened. We did use our elevator pitches to introduce ourselves to like-minded researchers and build our professional networks, which is almost as good.
The general formula we followed was:
Pitch = problem to solve + method to solve it
My pitch went something like this… Continue reading “The Startup Pitch”
(Originally published on the UX Bookclub)
Usable design is good. Emotional design is better.
I first read Emotional Design in graduate school. I considered it light reading, compared to all of the thick, indecipherable academic texts I was consuming at the time. I remember loving it. But over-time, I started to forget the details. The message didn’t stick with me.
Fast forward to a few weeks ago when I saw Emotional Design as part of a library display of design books. I decided, on a whim, to take it home with me and read it for a second time. I’m glad I did.
Continue reading “Review of “Emotional Design” by Don Norman”