Overcome habits and discover the power of collaboration and research methods (#9)

Motivation

Whenever we take on a task, everyone wants to share their opinion - often influenced by personal experience, beliefs, or assumed expertise. This can lead to biased perspectives and unnecessarily complicate collaboration. In meetings, for instance, discussions commonly boil down to just a couple of people talking by the end.

From my observations, when we form conclusions too quickly, we become less willing to hear other perspectives. We grow emotionally attached to our initial ideas. Why? Because acknowledging that we might be wrong or that our idea is flawed feels uncomfortable. As a result, we often slip into a defensive role.

When we are quick to anger, we are slow to understand.
- Ladybug (Bullet Train)

Challenge

Avoid emotion-driven design, as it often creates a toxic atmosphere. Thankfully, there are methods to help us avoid this pitfall. The first step is recognizing that different ways of knowing exist—this heightened awareness fosters better understanding among colleagues and underscores the diversity of our collective knowledge.

According to Amy Blackstone, there are five distinct ways of knowing: informal observation, selective observation, overgeneralization, authority, and research methods.

Informal Observation
Making observations without any systematic process for verifying their accuracy.
Example: “I think the weather is getting colder.”
Selective Observation
Focusing on patterns we want to see or assuming only those we’ve personally encountered exist.
Example: Noticing only coworkers’ mistakes while overlooking their strengths.
Overgeneralization
Assuming broad patterns based on very limited observations.
Example: “All people from that country are rude.”
Authority
Accepting something as true without questioning, which can lead us to believe falsehoods.
Example: Historically believing that Earth was the center of the universe, because this was the Catholic Church’s stance—an influential authority in Europe at the time.
Research Methods
A systematic, logical approach to understanding and learning about reality.

The first four ways of knowing are deeply rooted in human nature. Changing these ingrained habits and adopting research-based methods takes time. Time that our team and company simply do not have, or do they?

So how do we achieve a great outcome in a short amount of time? Without sacrificing our user experience and the momentum and excitement of our team?

Solution approach

The first step is to ensure that we have a clear problem statement rather than just a task. If the problem statement is too generic, we reframe it. This approach helps the team connect diverse perspectives to shared, objective goals. Without a well-defined problem statement, people tend to rely on emotion and feelings instead of focusing on the actual issue.

Second step, change you approach:

Old Habit

We often rush straight into a solution because we want results quickly, and we already have an idea in mind. This approach usually leads to more meetings, arguments, and revisions later on, because we'll have to convince others and defend our solution and assumptions.

New Habit

Begin with a kickoff session. I typically provide a short summary of the current situation—where we are and where we need to be as a team. Since each team member comes in with a different level of knowledge and understanding, this summary helps establish clarity and alignment. I often collaborate with Frontend and/or Backend Developers to cover all bases.

With limited experience in research methods, your team might feel slower at first. However, it will pay off, because moving “slow” can be “smooth,” and smooth is ultimately faster. By starting with careful research, you’ll have fewer revisions, fewer arguments, and therefore fewer meetings.

Note: In our context, “research methods” doesn’t necessarily mean surveys, A/B testing, or interviews. Instead, we focus on techniques like affinity mapping, card sorting, and user flows.

Unfortunately, there isn’t a universal guide or checklist that works for every situation because each team and business has unique needs. Still, there are helpful articles and resources for better alignment, understanding, and managing expectations among teams and colleagues. The key is to improvise, adapt, and overcome.

#1 Article: How much research is just enough research? - Link

We know that even research cannot predict the future but it can minimize the risk to develop the wrong thing and reduce the unknowns so that you and your team can make better decisions in advance. Overall, the guessing process is being minimized.

On the left side of the graph, we’re doing too little research

On average, it takes longer to reach the desired outcome. Why? Simply because we’ll have to build everything that doesn’t function as well as everything that does before we can figure out which is which.

On the right side of the graph, we’re doing too much research

We want guarantees that anything we build will not fail. However, no such certainty exists. Don’t overthink it. There is a deadline to meet.

Article: Link

#2 Article: Prioritizing user research - Link

Features that solves a problem or a user need can be prioritized in a very effective way. Depending on the risk or problem clarity the priority of the problem space and solution space can shift.

So we don’t always need that amount of research to solve a problem, if for example the risk is low and the problem clarity is high. It also depends on which goal and strategy our team and company are aiming for.

Article: Link

#3 Article: Less is more - Link

Which results in less design, less code. This means less time is spend on maintenance in general. In conclusion putting more effort at the beginning will lead to less work at the end. So claiming that research is slowing you down misses the big picture.

Additive ideas come to mind quickly and easily, but subtractive ideas require more cognitive effort. Because people are often moving fast and working with the first ideas that come to mind, they end up accepting additive solutions without considering subtraction at all. - Benjamin Converse

To add is expected, to subtract is design.

Article: Link

Side note

I found a great summary for the maturity of user research by Jared M. Spool. If you want to increase the I found a great summary for the maturity of user research by Jared M. Spool. If you want to increase the stage of maturity in your team or company I can highly recommend the UX maturity models. Which I have summarized briefly: Link

Maturity of User Research:

Stage -1
Wrong activities are more harmful than no research. Teams get poor direction from ineffective research activities. These include unmoderated usability testing, surveys (especially satisfaction surveys, NPS, and SUS), session recording tools, misinterpretation of analytics, focus groups, and A/B testing.

Stage 0
No user research at all. Teams are focused only on business and technology needs.

Stage 1
Basic usability testing. Teams conduct usability tests where they derive tasks from function points in the product, service, or feature they’re evaluating.

Stage 1.5
Basic usability testing with tasks from customer support. Teams switch to task scenarios that they glean from reported customer problems.

Stage 2
Interview-based task usability testing. Teams use tasks that come from user research to validate the design.

Stage 3
Basic field research. Teams go into the users’ environments to learn more about how users integrate the product, service, or feature.

Stage 4:
Focused field research. Teams seek out users and environments to fill in gaps in the team’s knowledge.

Stage 5
Longitudinal studies. Teams conduct in-depth research into the lives of users; before, during, and after their use of the product, service, or feature.

Stage 6
Strategic user research. Teams conduct research that directs where the organization’s product and service strategies should go. Exposure is critical for our success. Researchers can’t be the only ones with primary exposure.