user research.

Where user research fits on a long engagement.

Teams always have a model of their users; the question is whether it comes from evidence or from extrapolating from themselves. The second is the default and it is systematically wrong, because the people building a product are unrepresentative of the people using it in almost every way that matters.

A small amount of research changes decisions disproportionately. Five interviews will surface most major usability problems and will contradict at least one thing the team was confident about, which is usually worth more than the research cost several times over.

What an assigned team does with user research.

Research is most valuable as a cadence rather than a phase. A team talking to users every few weeks builds accumulating understanding; one that researches at the start of a project and not again is working from a snapshot that ages.

Making it continuous is what a standing assignment enables and project-based capacity does not, which is why it is agreed as a committed monthly capacity.

What we use user research for.

• Assumptions contradicted early A handful of sessions surfacing what the team was confidently wrong about.
• A research cadence rather than a phase Continuous contact, so understanding accumulates instead of ageing.
• Decisions traceable to evidence Design choices defensible with findings rather than with seniority.

How user research capacity is assigned.

Research capacity is assigned inside design work, run as a continuous cadence rather than a phase at project start.