top of page

UX Research Needs Assessment Tool

Role: UXR, Data Analyst

UX research teams often embark on projects without determining the level of research needed.

​

We set out to design a structured assessment tool that helps teams determine whether UX research is necessary, what type (qualitative or quantitative) is appropriate, and how urgently it is needed—improving research decision-making, aligning cross-functional teams, and reducing wasted effort.

The Problem

  • UX research is often undervalued or skipped in product development, leading to misaligned features and unmet user needs.

  • Teams frequently assume problems are well-defined without direct user input, creating false confidence and premature solutions.

  • There was no lightweight, standardized way to assess research readiness or communicate its urgency to stakeholders.

Goals

  • Create a tool that provides teams with a clear, systematic way to decide if research is needed and what form it should take.

  • Ground the tool in the Double Diamond framework, aligning it with divergent/convergent thinking and generative/evaluative research approaches.

  • Ensure the tool is simple, accessible, and low-burden, making it easy to adopt early in product cycles.

  • Provide structured recommendations (low, medium, high urgency) to guide research prioritization and resource allocation.

Research Questions

  • How can the Double Diamond framework be operationalized to assess whether research is warranted?

  • What types of questions best help teams distinguish between generative vs. evaluative and qualitative vs. quantitative research needs?

  • How can survey design principles (clarity, brevity, low response burden) be applied to improve adoption of the tool?

  • How can research urgency be effectively scored and communicated to teams and stakeholders?

Methods

image.png

  • Framework Review: Anchored the tool in the Double Diamond model (Discover, Define, Develop, Deliver), aligning phases with appropriate research approaches.

  • Literature Review: Examined scholarship on generative/evaluative research, survey design, and response burden to guide question construction.

  • Tool Development: Created a yes/no questionnaire with point scoring (+1 for “no,” 0 for “yes”), producing urgency ratings (low, medium, high).

  • Prototype: Built a visual flow in Miro mapping responses to research recommendations across phases.

  • Interpretation Guide: Defined scoring thresholds that direct teams to generative or evaluative research methods, both qualitative and quantitative.

Results

image.png

  • Produced a low-fidelity prototype assessment tool that guides teams through research readiness questions and provides urgency-based recommendations.

  • Developed an interpretation framework linking scores to recommended research types (e.g., usability testing, interviews, A/B tests, analytics).

  • Showcased how the tool could be embedded at key checkpoints in the product lifecycle to ensure problems are user-centered before advancing to solutions.

  • Identified opportunities for future improvements, including interactive digital versions, auto-scoring, and validation via pilot testing.

Impact

The tool provides UX teams with a practical, structured way to validate the need for research and communicate its urgency. Grounding recommendations in the Double Diamond framework helps ensure problems are properly defined, methods are well-matched, and resources are used effectively. The approach:

  • Strengthens alignment between researchers, designers, and stakeholders.

  • Reduces wasted effort by embedding research checks earlier in the lifecycle.

  • Makes the value of UX research more visible and actionable to non-research partners.

bottom of page