Productivity & UX Research
A high-level view on how we spend our time and how we work
Productivity…
It is something I have thought about a lot this month. I even did an audit of my time to see which activities were (or weren’t) helping me produce better work. I imagine productivity, whether through minimizing efforts, maximizing results, or both, is important to most of us. To that end, I thought it would be appropriate to dedicate an issue to the theme of productivity.
In this issue, we will look at two pieces of content sure to make you reconsider how you work and give you ideas for increasing your productivity.
Graham’s classic article on how to set your schedule with attention to maximizing heads-down time and what might be keeping it from catching on
A podcast on UX productivity hacks, with commentary on how we think about improving processes
Maker’s Schedule, Manager’s Schedule
Paul Graham | Article | 2009
A classic article with ideas that many have heard of, some people follow, and even fewer people have actually read. Graham wrote with development teams in mind, but the ideas are equally applicable to UX teams.
The core concept is that there are two broadly different types of schedules; the Maker’s and the Manger’s. A Manager’s schedule is characterized by a day partitioned into several back-to-back 30 and 60-minute meetings (see below). The Maker’s schedule is more intentional, dividing the day into a dedicated “making” portion (typically in the afternoon) and a block for everything else (like stand-ups, staff meetings, etc. in the morning)1.
I’m sure many of you, whether you’re doing research, design, writing, or development, can relate to being able to do your best work when you’re able to set aside a block of a few hours vs. trying to find 30-60 minutes at a time for your craft.
Graham points out that problems occur when these schedules mix. Where someone in a Manager's schedule mindset will be quick to throw a meeting on the diary, a meeting disrupts the Maker: “A single meeting can blow a whole afternoon, by breaking it into two pieces each too small to do anything hard in.“
After introducing these two ways of working and giving a few anecdotes, Graham concludes that the article intends to spread a conscious awareness and hopes to see this deliberate approach to how we plan our time become widespread:
We just took it for granted that we had to either blow our schedules or offend people. But now that I've realized what's going on, perhaps there's a third option: to write something explaining the two types of schedule. Maybe eventually, if the conflict between the manager's schedule and the maker's schedule starts to be more widely understood, it will become less of a problem.
Those of us on the maker's schedule are willing to compromise. We know we have to have some number of meetings. All we ask from those on the manager's schedule is that they understand the cost.
Anecdotally, I have worked on a product team that advocated for a Maker’s schedule (all our staff meetings were before 11 am), and worked for an agency whose core values included “sustainable flow.” On the other hand, I hear Maker vs. Manager schedules referenced less frequently than in the mid-2010s and notice that most teams I come in contact with (through consulting engagements) aren’t deliberate about when they will schedule our meetings. Marginally more objectively, Google trends show that the concept peaked in 2011-2013 and has not seen a meaningful increase in the years since.
Most of us can agree, despite Graham’s efforts, Maker’s schedules have not reached ubiquity. So, what stands in the way? I doubt it is a lack of desire. More likely, it is a combination of:
Lack of awareness — Despite being semi-popular, the Maker’s-Manager’s concept is far from ubiquitous. You can help by sharing the article and advocating for it on your team.
Lack of Executive-level Buy-in — Essentially, everyone in a company needs to be on the same page to make it work without fail. A single person trying to get heads-down time is sure to have others ask “is that a firm block?” A single team saying “we set meetings between 9a-11a” is great, but what if they need to meet with people from a different part of the org who don’t follow their conventions?
No preset “ping times” — Random pings are the breakers of flow. But sometimes we get urgent questions. So, how do we balance staying responsive to urgent needs while maintaining our flow? Make preset times for people to come to ask you for help. You can do this by staying strict about your do-not-disturb times and adding an established time for people to bother you, like office hours.
Distributed teams — Awareness, top-down buy-in, and preset interruption times are all easily addressable problems, but the more damning issue that takes a creative solution is the distributed team. Having people across time zones is a conundrum when trying to establish team-wide meeting & focus times. Admittedly, I haven’t found a great solution to this. If you have one, I’d love to hear it (that’s an invitation to reply, by the way).
Awkward Silences Episode #100 - UXR Productivity Hacks with Michele Ronsen of Curiosity Tank
Podcast | 2022
The term “productivity hacks” might make your eyes roll, but you’d dismiss this podcast to your detriment. The tips in this episode are concrete, well-founded processes and practices for UX research teams. I encourage you to listen to it for yourself; look at the episode as a checklist you can use to audit your processes and conventions.
I divide the productivity hacks that Ronsen presents into two broad categories: Templates and Tips:
Templates — If you follow a process (most UXR teams do), you repeat the same activities and create the same documents over and over. Templates support efficiency in these recurring tasks. A few templates that most UX research teams should have include:
A Kickoff Checklist — A document that covers the questions and information you need to determine if a research project is viable, and what the objectives and requirements of the test will be
Participant Communications — Boilerplate copy for invitations, scheduling, reminders, and session preparation communications sent to participants
Test Plan — A template for outlining your methods, tasks, questions, etc. for a given study
Question Banks — A set of commonly asked questions and when/why to use them
Note-taking Sheet — A pre-formatted excel sheet for taking notes during a moderated session
Observer Tips — Guidelines on how to be a good test observer (to be shared with stakeholders)
Final Presentation Checklist — A document to help a researcher prepare for final presentations with stakeholders
Artifact Archival Checklist — Guidelines on what study documents to archive and where/how to do it
Some extra thoughts on templates…
There are a few common templates not mentioned in this episode. These include: analysis templates/calculators for quant scoring, deliverable templates, project timeline templates & guidelines, and methods FAQs (for stakeholders to understand the pros/cons/considerations for different UXR methods)
Some advice I’ll throw in: Don’t marry yourself to a template too early. Try a few different styles and be open to iterating before establishing a v1
Tips — Some of the tips Ronsen provides include:
Over-schedule participants where possible, and cancel sessions once you’ve collected enough data2
Have flexible participant criteria (e.g., identify must-have vs. nice-to-have participant criteria upfront and loosen requirements as needed)
Never schedule more than 3-4 moderated sessions in a day
Do pilot sessions
Establish file naming conventions
But what about subtraction?
If you’re like me, you will notice a theme as you listen to this episode; none of the tips remove work to be done. Sure, some lessen the workload (e.g., you don’t have to create a new document format when templates exist), but nothing is removed entirely. Towards the end of the episode, one of the hosts asks about this; Ronsen reasons that all of the hacks in the episode address work a UXR would be doing anyway, and the conversation about subtraction ends there.
Let’s reopen that conversation and discuss how we look at “productivity hacks.” Research shows that people tend to add things, and often overlook subtractive change, when improving something. So, it makes sense that the UXR field is guilty of this in how we establish best practices and improve processes. There are plenty of things we would probably be better off not doing anymore. I see three key areas for subtractive improvements3.
Automation through tools — Some things that we do can be easily automated by tools. For example, Ronsen mentions (manually) sending separate calendar invitations to observers & participants. Any purpose-built tool for moderated research should handle this (as well as any participant communications like reminders) for the researcher.
Intentionality in selecting research & methods — We stand to gain a lot by being very intentional with choosing when & how to conduct research. This means not running a study if we feel like we already have research that addresses its objectives, and right-sizing our projects (e.g., don’t schedule hour-long sessions out of habit, some studies only need 20 minutes of your/the participants’ time).
Intentionality in how we work together — Reduce needless meetings (see above) and communications (emails that could be slack messages, double-pings, etc.).
As the UXR field progresses, I’m sure we will add several best practices and processes. Let’s be sure to check our blindspot and look for things we can remove so that we don’t continually increase the amount of administrative burden associated with running research.
You might also enjoy
Note: I’m sure that many/most Managers reading would benefit from following a “maker’s” schedule…these two terms describe two mindsets about setting your calendar. I do not suggest that ICs and managers need to follow one or the other. I actually think we would have more effective managers if they had dedicated heads-down time.
I am not a fan of canceling participants. It sets the wrong precedent (in my opinion) that we can cancel a session at our discretion while expecting participants not to be no-shows. I find a better approach is to use extra participants for ongoing discovery research (assuming they fit the desired profile).
If you have other ideas for how to improve UXR through subtractive changes, I’d love to hear them.