Navigating UX Research in Fast-Paced Environments

From Fundamental Research to Minimum Viable Research

The fast-paced nature of tech companies challenges researchers to conduct thorough research within a highly constrained environment. Limited resources, pressing deadline, tight roadmaps, and the need to move quickly can make it difficult to legitimate comprehensive studies that dive deeply into the problem. This oftentimes leads to neglecting the bigger picture and researchers being forced to conduct tactical research for specific solutions.  There is a constant push towards delivering actionable insights quickly to keep up with the rapid development cycles and immediate business priorities, which seems to stay in contrast to the time it takes to do in-depth user research. 

This creates significant tension between the desire for in-depth understanding of the underlying user issues through research and the urgent need for quick, actionable data that can drive immediate product decisions. 

Value of fundamental research 

Fundamental research provides a comprehensive view of the problem space, uncovering user pain points, behavior and motivations. This generates valuable insights that are not only relevant for current projects but also inform future initiatives and strategies. From a researcher perspective, this approach is more efficient in creating impactful results in the long term.  

However, fundamental research often requires more time and resources than available in fast-moving product teams. This may lead to a lack of buy in from stakeholders and the neglect of more ambitious research proposals.  

Nevertheless, as researchers, it is our task to ensure that in-depth strategic insights influence the decision making and crafting of roadmaps.  

Balancing the need for thorough research with the demands for speed and pragmatism requires making compromises in the process. For this, we need to find new ways to generate and integrate in-depth insights into fast-paced development cycles and subsequently, get buy-in from our stakeholders. 

The challenge of getting buy-in 

Product teams are driven by deliverables, particularly in fast-paces environments like startups or emerging tech initiatives. The immediate focus lies on achieving short-term goals, meeting release dates and ensuring to be the first mover in the ever-evolving innovation landscape. Product teams are therefore frequently biased towards deliverables that can quickly be translated into features or immediate updates and might sideline research. Without the buy-in to research, product development might miss bigger opportunities for effectively addressing user needs. 

The primary question becomes: “Should we proceed with this or not?”  

In this environment, fundamental research insights are seen as important, but not as important as an immediate action point. Therefore, tactical research oftentimes finds precedence before fundamental research, where benefits may not be immediately apparent or quantifiable. 

Researchers need to bridge the gap between the need for short-term actionable items and in-depth strategic insights.  

Bridging the gap using Minimum viable research methods and collaborative sessions 

These challenges require researchers to approach their proposals with the constraints of resources and time in mind. This is where the concept of minimum viable research comes in. 

Minimum viable research (MVR) refers to the most basic level of research needed to validate a hypothesis, idea or concept while minimizing the time, cost and effort involved. This practice requires the breaking down comprehensive research to deliver actionable insights quickly.  

For example, you might be challenged with the question, if a specific solution would be well accepted from users. However, your team is lacking insights about the overall pains of the target audience. While fundamental research might suggest an in-depth pain point analysis, using a mixed method approach, you can adopt an MVR strategy to quickly address this issue:  

Research goal: Uncovering user pain points to gauge the acceptance of a new features 

Instead of delving deep into discovery, you might want to focus on existing research using the same research questions. In case, there is no previous research available, you might want to consider market research or other resources to develop valuable assumptions. If time permits, you can conduct a quick survey to validate those assumptions using a survey to allow you to provide a contextual understanding of the assumptions and gain immediate feedback.  

The advantage of MVR is that it not only allows the quick iteration based on generated data, it also introduces stakeholders to the value of research.   

To maximize the benefits of MVR, stakeholders need to be involved as early as possible into the process. Engaging stakeholders into the research process allows them to interact with the insights directly, fostering an understanding of the overall problem space.  

Engaging stakeholders with early insights 

At times it is beneficial to engage stakeholders and key decision-makers in the research process, instead of conducting research autonomously and making sense out of the data with the exclusion of stakeholders.  

Collaborative sessions 

In collaborative sessions, such as workshops and group discussions, stakeholders are encourage to actively participate in the research process and engage with the data. Creating an open space for discussion provide a platform for stakeholders to interact with the research, ask questions and contribute their perspective. This hands-on involvement fosters a deeper understanding of the insights and strengthens the connection to the research. Furthermore, it is within their responsibility that their needs and concerns are addressed.  

Collaboration, visibility and relationship 

Collaborative sessions strengthen the bond between researchers and product managers, or other stakeholders involved. It increases the visibility of research within the product development cycle and with this the understanding of its need. Instead of keeping the process behind closed doors, stakeholders who are less involved in research can experience research, rather than consuming the final results. 

Early exposure to data 

Involving stakeholder and key decision maker in sensemaking sessions allows them to understand and interpret the insights in real-time rather than waiting for a comprehensive report. This allows the product team to react quickly and directly to user research data. 

Relevance and education 

Collaborative sensemaking ensures that insights are not only relevant for the product development, but also actionable for the current roadmap. This combines immediate relevance of insights with broader education and helps align research with stakeholder priorities of the findings. Lastly, this approach might help stakeholders understand gaps of knowledge.  

Conclusion 

Generating in-depth understanding of the problem space in fast-paced environments might feel like an unmanageable task. As researchers, at times we might have to move away from the idea of the text book research project and adopt a more realistic approach. The need to deliver immediate, actionable insights often conflict with the need for comprehensive research.  

The concept of minimum viable research in combination with collaborative sensemaking sessions, allows to bridge this gap. Smaller project chunks of 1-2 weeks are easier to get buy in for, allowing researchers to have a chance to proof the worth of in-depth knowledge. 

Engaging stakeholders early in the research process not only fosters a deeper understanding of the problem space through collaborative sessions allows them to experience the insights rather than consuming outputs and with that strengthens the relationship between researchers and their stakeholders. 

Embracing MVR and collaborative engagement not only meets the demands of rapid development cycles but also builds a foundation for more impactful and strategic research outcomes.