As part of my ongoing series where I try to find out who is doing user research in organizations and who should be, I spoke with Susan Wilhite. Susan is a lead UX researcher. She was incredibly helpful in explaining how teams work best under different conditions. This is the third post in the series.
Strategic vs Tactical
When we talk about ownership of the research function, we have to start with the type of research we’re doing and our goals for that research. “When research is mostly tactical,” Susan explains, “it should be owned by either product management or the design team, with the other being a key stakeholder.”
Research that is intended to answer very specific, well understood questions, should be driven by people on the team who are asking those questions. For example, usability testing and other forms of tactical, evaluative research are going to be owned and driven by the people responsible for making decisions based on the results of the studies.
Strategic research, on the other hand, like that done when a company is still developing its primary product or service or is branching into other lines of business, should be led with broad direction and budget from the VP of product or other high level stakeholder. This puts that leader in the best position to interpret UX research findings for their peers and champion those ideas into wider strategic decisions.
Most importantly though, generative and formative research is best done in-house rather than by people outside the company. “This research, unlike evaluative, has a very long shelf life. A tiny amount of information from strategic studies are communicated in a final report,” Susan explains. "Findings developed outside the company can be a lost opportunity to grow institutional knowledge within the org over time. Down the road this is important because findings from generative and formative research inform the most tactical research.”
In other words, don’t pay vendors to acquire deep knowledge about your users unless you intend a long-term relationship those outside researchers. Understanding the product/service and users is a critical advantage, and the understanding that comes from conducting generative and formative research should be kept close to the vest.
Cross Functional Teams vs Silos
Recently, with the growth in Agile and Lean methodologies, we’ve seen a lot of companies break down functional silos in favor of cross functional teams. This can improve communication within the product team and help diminish the waste that happens when silos only communicate through deliverables. Susan points out some of advantages and disadvantages of doing away with the research team.
“I have become a fan of the embedded research function,” Susan says. “Researchers are themselves tools, and as such are vastly more effective when given the chance to compound learnings and develop stakeholder trust in a circumscribed domain.” When a user researcher works within a product team, they become much more effective, since they’ll have a better understanding of the team’s real research needs. They can also build trust with the team, which will hopefully lead to less resistance to suggestions made by the researcher.
On the other hand, embedded UX research has its own problems. “The hazard here is that product groups have varying budgets and sexiness – a researcher caught in a group not advancing fast from attention given by executives or the market can hobble a career.” Having a separate research team can prevent that by allowing researchers to circulate among teams and find areas of interest and groups where they work best. But still, it takes a very well managed corporate culture for a silo to work. As Susan warns about research teams in silos, “Success is uncommon.”
Regardless of the company org chart, Susan encourages summing up and offering evolved thinking on strategic frameworks and tactical principles throughout the company. “I’d like to see twice-yearly off-sites where the org reviews what has been learned and workshops ideas from the product team at large,” she says. “Partly to remind the team of what has been learned and how we think we know it, but also to ponder aspirational research - what’s next.”