From “duct-tapey” UXR workflows to streamlined remote research

Business context and the challenge

As UX research became increasingly remote and technology-driven, Usability Sciences found itself working with a growing stack of specialist tools. The problem wasn't a lack of functionality. Instead, it was how all those tools fit together. In fact, the team described their experience of putting together a typical UXR workflow as “duct-tapey.” They were often learning just enough of each tool to get by, then moving on. There wasn't enough time to explore new features or rethink whether the workflow could better serve their needs.

The biggest felt need was around data-collection. On one side were general-purpose meeting platforms such as Zoom (familiar and easy for participants). However - these weren't designed for UXR. Participants could struggle with tech checks, downloads and logins; while researchers lacked built-in support for observers. In some setups, participants couldn't easily share their screens, and Zoom Webinar didn't provide the chat functionality the team needed.

On the other end of the spectrum, were specialist UXR platforms. These offered research-specific functionalities, but created participant friction and increased costs (particularly around tech-check services). For Usability Sciences, the workaround was to duct-tape tools together i.e. use platforms such as Slack or WhatsApp alongside Zoom, so observers and project teams could communicate without disrupting participants. 

Where flowres.io fit

Usability Sciences wasn't looking to replace every tool in its stack. It needed to bridge the gap between the familiarity of generic meeting tools and research-specific functionalities of UXR platforms. This led to a simple requirement: a research backroom that could sit on top of Zoom.

flowres.io provided that layer. Researchers could continue using Zoom to collect data, while moderators and observers got a dedicated backroom, with a common link for everyone involved. The workflow could also extend into participant recruitment, scheduling and analysis.

The difference was: rather than forcing the team to choose between a meeting platform and a research platform or stitch multiple tools together; flowres.io added UXR functionalities around a tool researchers and participants already knew. 

Outcomes & impact

Usability Sciences derived value by removing compromises they faced, with existing tools. The team could retain the familiarity and sophistication of Zoom while adding the observer and research-session functionality that a generic meeting platform lacked. That meant:

• Less duct-taping: fewer workarounds needed amidst data-collection.

• Enhanced observer experience: moderators and observers could work together, from a dedicated research backroom.

• Lower participant friction: participants could continue using a familiar meeting environment rather than navigating a specialist UXR platform.

• Better connected workflow: recruitment, scheduling, fieldwork and data analysis could sit within a broader research workflow.
  
  

The experience also led to a broader lesson for the Usability Sciences team: Don't simply settle into whatever workflow your tools create. Revisit the tools, challenge them, understand their gaps and keep an eye on where they're going. Move away from “duct-taping” tools together and towards a more connected remote UXR workflow; without asking researchers to abandon the tools they already knew.