Background
With direction from leadership to “buy versus build” wherever it made sense, an evaluation of existing systems commenced to determine if the need to maintain custom code could be reduced by replacing certain applications with one or more comparable off-the-shelf products without losing attributes that were deemed to be most valuable to our users.
This study was commissioned to identify the “must-haves” offered by our in-house applications that may not be available with a retail version, and an upcoming corporate conference provided build-in access to the user base that would be most impacted by these corporate decisions.
This study was commissioned to identify the “must-haves” offered by our in-house applications that may not be available with a retail version, and an upcoming corporate conference provided build-in access to the user base that would be most impacted by these corporate decisions.
My Responsibilities
- Define a 25-minute elicitation exercise to be carried out one-on-one with self-selected office assistants for insight into how our current applications fit within their office workflow.
- Analyze results from all participants in the context of the current research question, and provide an executive summary of the findings and resulting recommendations.
Team
- Researchers: 1
- Participants: 17
Timeframe
- Fall 2016
- Research: 2 days
- Analysis: 1 week
Platform/Devices
- Privacy booth (within main concourse of conference hall)
- Interview script
- Digital pen w/audio recording (Livescribe)
Research Question
How do our current proprietary systems help or hinder a financial professionals' office in carrying out client requests?
Script Formatting Process
Present what we felt to be the value-adds for the applications that we designed and maintained in-house in a manner that would allow each participant to openly discuss these features and benefits. The goal was to determine if the value we placed on in-house development was also deemed to be just as valuable by our users.
Rationale
- Upcoming conference
- Appropriate audience
- Low additional costs
- Short timeframe
Process
SAMPLE TYPE
Convenience, self-selected
SCRIPT COMPONENTS
- Discussion of client request workflows
- Word association in context – examples:
- Co-location
- Consistency
- Productivity
- Word Pair Comparison
- Submission Speed vs Processing Speed
- Up Front Resolution vs Post-Submission Resolution
Analysis
All interview activities were audio recorded with the consent of each participant. The word association activity resulted in all qualitative responses. The word pair activity resulted in both quantitative and qualitative results. All qualitative transcript text was categorized according to similarities for quantified analysis and reporting.
Deliverables
- Executive Summary Presentation
- Research Summary Report
Results
- Flexibility in request submission is critical, as client behavior tends to vary by age group.
- Common themes were identified across all topics and users leaned strongly towards one single suite of interconnected applications with built-in business rules for each clearing platform or sponsor firm.
- While not directly included within the interview script, participants often referred to their own work style to further explain their responses – “perfectionist”, “detail-oriented” and “methodical” were common personal attributes described.
DROP ME A LINE
Like what you see? Let's get in touch!
Diana Criser, CUA, CXA
User Experience Practitioner
Omaha, Nebraska
User Experience Practitioner
Omaha, Nebraska
|
|
402.598.4969
|
|