One area that UXers lack in is getting stakeholders to want to show up to observe research sessions. I don’t think we always position our research in a way that makes stakeholders get excited.

Stakeholders need to know what’s in it for them. If we can sell the importance of observing users AND make it easy for them to observe AND make them want to give up time in their day to observe, then our research findings will have more impact.

In my experience, the folks observing, and what they walk away understanding from observing users, often has more impact on the project than my final report. And their observations often impact future projects.

I try to encourage stakeholders to observe by:
1) always having a live stream of the sessions available to anyone who can’t be there in person.
2) inviting important stakeholders individually, telling them what I think they will find valuable. I also cc their assistants (and stop by their desks), who often control the calendar for many busy execs.
3) Offering a highlights video just for stakeholders
4) Making reports as short as possible
5) Once they are in the room observing, I make sure that they understand who the participant is and what we are trying to find out. Anything I can do to engage them I do. I don’t want them doing work on their laptops during a session or playing with their phone.

Making a special invitation to each important stakeholder has yielded the best results for me. I usually find even the most high up stakeholder will at least send one of their direct reports to view the sessions live — if I’ve made a good enough case that it’s worth their time.

If anyone has more tips for engaging stakeholders, I’d love to hear about it.

Thanks Jared for writing this. I totally agree with diy usability research, but outsourcing definitely has it’s place and innie research has its challenges.

“…most importantly, their culture didn’t change — they weren’t integrating users into their design process any more than before.”

Incorporating user feedback, and understanding your user base are not enough to make great software. A team has to have a user-centered design and development process. Every individual in the product development cycle has to understand what it means to think about the problem in a user centered way – i.e., who is this product for? What problems is it trying to solve? How can we prioritize these problems so that we can solve the most important ones effectively, efficiently. Most important, I find that the business owners – the people who will actually determine how your product makes money – must clearly understand the user and what will motivate that user to part with their money.

As long as product development teams are rewarded for the number of features they build, the speed with which they build them, and the ability to put a product in the market that meets some bare minimum, they will not be able to incorporate user insight no matter how good it is.

Having said that, this issue exists not just for outsourcing but also for researchers within organizations. It’s not easy to translate research results into behavioral change. I regularly have the problem of reports that don’t get read, presentations that are quickly forgotten, etc.

The trick seems to be (as you say) to involve the people you aim to change. Exposing them to users is a big part of it, but I think we also need to involve them in posing questions and creating a loop in which they see what users want them to do and then see the effect of doing it.

Really effective graphics are also a great boost in getting across both qualitative and quantitative data. I’m struggling with that one.

Have to agree with Dave Malouf’s Point 1 though, sadly the higher authorities often won’t take it from their own staff but will pay a contractor to say exactly the same thing for a lot more cost and then accept it as though it’s a new idea.

1) The outsider is always right
Companies bring in consultants to say exactly what the internal teams have been saying all the time. Yes, this is a horrible reality, but I think it is still a reality. Sometimes I have used this to validate my existing research and give it more weight like an independent certification of sorts.

2) The outsider sees things you can’t
A clear set of eyes without corporate bias goes a really long way in getting to insights you may have glossed over yourself. This is the reason I use outside researchers more than any other.

3) Yup, I said 2 but I’m going with 3 … More people
Sometimes you pipeline is just bigger than your team’s capabilities. Sometimes saying slow down is not an option when you have quarterly reports to give your investment community. Not a great reality, but reality nonetheless

Again, I get the spirit of what Jared is saying and it goes right in line to use talk about what teams have in common that create great experiences and one big one is contact. I would offer that just because you hire someone to do research, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are doing it “for” you. It could also mean they are doing it “with” you. They bring in expertise, and support resources that aid your team. They don’t come in and throw a report at you, but facilitate your participation and emergence with the process of doing research.

I think it is fool hardy to be absolute about this topic. Your great adage Jared is “it depends” and I think on this topic, it really does. Not every organization is ready to jump in. They need to get there and outside help gets them there. Consult to the context, not to the ideal.

I totally subscribe to the “go and see for yourself” approach. There is even a phrase for it: Genchi Genbutsu: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genchi_Genbutsu

Allright, it is a Japanese phrase, but nonetheless!

This article is timely as I was considering having someone else do it for me. After reading this I am going to go and do it myself!