Ironically, many organizations base their most important decisions (what to build, how it should work) on almost no user research (who are the users, what would improve their life?). Complete guesses.
Don’t guess.
Do the research.
In my experience, the most disruptive ideas come from a deep understanding of the challenges your users and customers face today.
You can’t get that deep understanding through guessing or “instinct.”
A lot of my work is talking to UX folks about their next job.
Many struggle with "deciding what I want from my next employer."
I've come up with a way to get them past this and to start thinking about where to look first for opportunities.
1/
Thinking about their next job inevitably leads many folks down the path of "what would I like in a place to work."
This gets into lots of touchy-feely attributes about the work environment, but what's almost always missing is what they'll actually do when they get there.
2/
Don't get me wrong: there's a lot to be said about working in a high-quality work environment.
However, that environment isn't going to hire someone out of charity.
The org is hiring someone to get a job done.
That's where the job hunt needs to start. What will you do?
3/
I see the same mistake repeated across many of the UX job ads I review.
The job ad describes the JOB, yet highly-qualified candidates want to learn about the WORK.
These are very different things.
1/
What we hear from candidates:
Tell me what I'll be working on.
Tell me how my work will have an important impact on people.
Tell me what makes the work challenging, especially for someone at my experience level.
Tell me what makes this work unique.
This is the WORK.
2/
UX job ads rarely talk about those things. Or maybe they give 1-2 sentences about it.
Here's one example I just found. They give 1 sentence to what the company does. The rest of the paragraph could be describing any company on the planet.
I spend most of my time these days helping extremely frustrated UX leaders try desperately to push past the “research=validation” boundary with their leadership.
It’s really a dangerous mindset to let grow.
There are better ways to position research. We’re much smarter now.
When every respondent brings their own meaning and context to a question, you can’t aggregate the answers. You’re aggregating apples, oranges, watermelons, and bees. What’s the average of all that mean?
Satisfaction measures are literally garbage measures.