Platform feature for nonprofit project and volunteer management
Team
My Role:
UX Researcher
Team Members:
Lead UX Researcher
2 UX Designers
Executive Director
Timeline
Duration:
8 Weeks
Study Presented:
07/14/2023
Methodologies
User Interviewing
Concept Testing
For a full case study explanation, including study process, please schedule a case study review with me either through the contracting agency that is representing me for the role you are hiring for or via my email.
Problem Space
DemocracyLab is a nonprofit web-based platform that connects tech volunteers with tech-for-good organizations. A Groups feature was implemented to help these organizations with project and volunteer management needs.
The Groups feature was not widely adopted by users. The Executive Director wanted to understand why and what could be done to better meet organization needs using the Groups feature.
Objectives
Understand the value proposition of the Groups feature for tech-for-good/nonprofit organizations
Understand how user needs, goals and motivations align with what the Groups feature offers
Study Impact
Participant feedback shed light on why user engagement was lower than desired and what could be done to increase engagement. There was a disconnect between the stated goal of the Groups feature that the Executive Director had for helping organizations with their volunteer and project management and the mental model of organizations that used the feature. Organizations used a variety of 3rd party platforms to manage their volunteers and projects, and they viewed the Groups feature as a good way to showcase the work they were doing to potential funders and other interested stakeholders.
To address improvements that could be made to increase engagement with the Groups feature, I synthesized participant feedback in an affinity map, looking for patterns and themes that pointed to user pain points around volunteer and project management and how those pain points could be solved as they related to DemocracyLab’s vision and mission.
Based on my affinity map, I listed 53 insights paired with recommendations that I provided to the Executive Director.
The study lead prepared the share out deck that would be presented to the Executive Director and UX Designers. I provided feedback on their deck based on my professional experience. The study lead presented their share out deck to the Executive Director and UX Designers. The UX Designers were assigned to design solutions based on recommendations.
During the share out, I provided input and support for the recommendations made by the study lead. I addressed concerns that the UX Designers had about being able to design recommendations or do further research. I assured them that there were some clear solutions that could be designed immediately, with additional research that could be done for more complex solutions requiring more information from users.
Research Process
I joined the study after the study plan and moderator guide had been written. The methodologies chosen for the study were user interviewing and concept testing. I was asked to provide feedback for the study plan.
I suggested question and methodological changes to address the research question “How is the group feature valuable for tech-for-good organizations?”
I was also asked to provide feedback on the Moderator Guide. I made 2 Moderator Guides to include relevant questions that would apply to the specific user segment of focus. I suggested that we also include the Microsoft Desirability Tool Kit to understand user attitudes toward the Groups feature. The study lead agreed to my suggestion. I led efforts to create a list of 25 words that participants would choose 5 from.
Two user segments had been identified as target participants. They were chosen because each were either target or current users of the Groups feature. We wanted to understand if each of the 2 user segments had different motivations and needs that the Groups feature could address.
The 2 user segments identified were:
DemocracyLab users who had a Groups account
Tech for good organizations that did not have a Groups account
Non-DemocracyLab users
DemocracyLab users who did not have a Groups account
I created a participant tracker spreadsheet and recruited participants from each user segment.
DemocracyLab users who had a Groups account:
I messaged 200+ project leads using listed projects in the DemocracyLab platform. I used the “Contact” button on each organization’s project page to send a general study invite message.
Tech for good organizations that did not have a Groups account:
I Google searched tech for good organizations in Washington State and invited them via email to participate in the study.
Responses were very limited from all user segments. The highest response rate was from orgs associated DemocracyLab whether they had a Groups account or not. No tech for good organizations not associated with DemocracyLab responded to my invite.
The study lead created a screener and I wrote 3 email templates to manage participant engagement:
Introduction to study and interest to participate inquiry
Invite to fill out screener
Invite to participate in study with Calendly link
I scheduled participant sessions in collaboration with the study lead using Calendly.
After running the pilot session, I came to the conclusion that our questions uncovered attitudes about the design, and the Microsoft Desirability Tool Kit was unnecessary. I advised that it be removed from the moderator guide.
The study lead and I alternated moderating sessions when we both could attend. All sessions were recorded so that we could each take our own notes after. When one wasn’t moderating a session that we both attended, the non-moderator was able to ask follow up questions as appropriate.
Based on the low response rate of invited participants I recommended that we not focus on running sessions until all 2 user segment target numbers were reached. I strongly advised that we focus on reaching the minimum of N=5 recommended for qualitative studies. I used data from N=6 sessions for my synthesis stage. The study lead ran an additional session for a total N=7 sessions for their synthesis stage.
Since the study lead had less UX Research experience than I did, I advised them to take their own notes and synthesize on their own so that they could grow in their research experience.
I synthesized data in Miro in an Affinity Map, affinitizing all participants into one group.
What I Learned
Joining a UX Research project that had already started and working under a UX Researcher Lead taught me:
I had to put extra focus on learning the problem space, as understanding the product background was taken for granted by the lead researcher who had run previous studies and had a granularity of knowledge that I lacked
The lead researcher was less experienced than I was, and following their leadership was challenging because they approached the study differently than I would have
Different researchers synthesize the same sessions differently- insights and recommendations will differ
Honestly, I learned not to join a study that had already started and not to work with another researcher who was not open to feedback from a more experienced UXR. I definitely grew my collaboration and persuasive leadership skills!