The better the research, the better your plan. Combining the hard-and-fast numbers-driven data points of quantitative research with the broader “why” and “how” questions of qualitative research sets you up to make well-informed decisions that truly speak to the problem at hand. 

That said, to some, qualitative research can feel squishy and daunting. Protocols as rigid as a survey will prevent truly illuminating findings from surfacing, but also, going in with too loose a plan can lead to time-wasting or significant gaps in findings. 

At Grand Studio, answering juicy qualitative research questions is among our favorite things to do. We start by working with clients to understand the decisions they’re trying to make, then co-craft a plan to help answer those questions. While every research plan is uniquely informed by the context and questions surrounding it, we have a few best practices to share. 

Best Practice #1: (Really, Really) Know Your Research Questions

We know this one sounds obvious, but this is a common problem we run into with clients. They’ll have a general sense of what they want to learn about but haven’t yet distilled these into concrete research questions that can keep teams on track in the field. 

Stakeholders who’ve been steeped in a problem for some time can probably rattle off the most critical research questions on the fly. But when they aren’t concretized into a clear list, things can get lost in translation when more people get involved. Researchers constantly encounter twists and turns out in the wild, and their clear understanding of the research goals can be the difference between a smart on-the-fly adjustment and a wasted day. 

We’ve also seen situations where the research goals are made clear at one point, but as folks get wrapped up in the work and adapt to surprises, the initial need can get lost in the mix. As pedantic as it may be, we recommend putting the research questions at the center of every research check-in and synthesis meeting. “How are we progressing along our goal of learning X, Y, and Z?” Impossibly simple, but the benefit cannot be overstated. 

Best Practice #2: Be Wary of Shortcuts

Life gets busy, and shortcuts can be tempting, especially when your research questions are so vast. Every day, there is slick new technology released, promising to enhance and streamline your qualitative research. We’ve looked at every piece of technology that’s come our way and tried out a lot of the new tools, Ray-Ban Stories and dScout’s diary study tools. While some are helpful augmentation tools, nothing we’ve found is a viable replacement for on-the-ground research. 

The bread and butter of qualitative research is talking to humans, and there’s a reason for that. No matter how crunched your timeline, be suspicious of things that try to steer you away from that. 

Best Practice #3: Choose Your Methodology Wisely

There is an art to choosing a research methodology that is nearly as critical as identifying your research questions. Once you’ve got a clear understanding of what you want to learn, you need to figure out the best way to learn it, and with whom. Say, for example, you’re doing a study on how people make decisions while grocery shopping. An interview may be able to tell you general things about how people shop. But when you’re on the ground, observing or doing shop-along, you’ll get so many details people would never have thought to tell you in an interview. Plus, the way people explain the why and how of what they did in the past can often be very different from what they say in the moment.

Perhaps the most tricky part of this is responding to inevitable restrictions that come up. Usually, there will be at least one or two feasibility or legal concerns that keep you from using your “dream” population. This requires you to get creative about how you can optimally answer your research questions using the tools you have. You don’t have to be in an exact real-life situation to get highly usable data.

One last point on methodology is to consider the reciprocity of the research. Sometimes, research questions may be sensitive, or catch people in a difficult moment in their lives. You don’t want to skip these perspectives, but you do want to be sensitive to them. For example, at one point, we collaborated with a client on a project to better serve the needs of cancer patients. With their support, we set up a table where patients could get free warm socks in exchange for their thoughts. 

Best Practice #4: Go Wide, Wider Than You Think

One of our favorite parts of qualitative research is the surprise involved in answering such large-scale questions. But it’s also the trickiest because, by nature, one cannot entirely plan for surprises.

Knowing that, at the beginning of the research, you don’t know what you don’t know, we recommend casting a wide net. Talk to more types of people and roles than you think you need, especially if these people are easy to access. You don’t need to go overboard — just one or two sessions with a new type of participant can do the trick. We’ve made critical discoveries by taking the time to talk to someone slightly adjacent to the primary field of research who ended up having a great deal of insight into it. Go small at first, just to see if there are new stones worth turning over. 

Best Practice #5: Always Stay Aware of Bias in Synthesis

There is no way around the fact that humans are biased, even researchers who try very hard to be objective. 

We’ve found that the best way to introduce objectivity is not to push individual brains into objectivity, but to stack many ideas on top of one another. Try to use at least a few researchers, and gather their own unique perspectives on what they are seeing. Ideally, people from your organization should also review their findings and point out their own conclusions. Individually, no one’s perspective is objective. But when we see which trends emerge collectively, it’s more likely that they’ll be rooted in the actual research.

As is often the case with hard things, they frequently turn out to be the most worthwhile. Don’t be tempted to skip qualitative research if it sounds time-consuming, just make sure the research plan is well-matched to your timeline and budget. And, of course, we’re always here to help.

Got a qualitative research project you’d like to work together on? We’d love to hear from you.

Next Article

Scaling Research Through Templates

While every environment is unique in its own way, healthcare might take the cake when it comes to a need for specialized design considerations. 

There’s a trifecta of challenges: legal requirements to contend with, complex funding pathways, and the fact that what’s at stake might be life or death. How do you build technology poised to make a meaningful difference without endangering what’s already working? 

Grand Studio had the privilege of working alongside several clients on the front lines of healthcare and learned a few lessons.

Find a sustainable funding source, and check the CPT codes

With the interplay of public payers, private payers, and providers, the flow of funding in healthcare can be complicated. Whenever possible, aligning your intervention with a CPT billing code can be a smart way to position your technology of sustainable financing.

In the past several years, there have been more and more codes released that allow providers to bill insurance companies for digital health interventions like remote patient monitoring and patient engagement, and still, more are on the way. It’s a win-win-win for all involved: providers get reimbursed for investing in technology that improves health outcomes, patients get more tools that help them get and stay well, and the insurance companies spend less on patients who need less care.

Once you’ve found CPT codes that may be applicable, dig into the specific requirements to ensure your technology can meet them, and — critically — make sure your technology is designed to facilitate easy billing. 

While recently working with one of the largest US private healthcare systems, we co-designed an intervention for pregnant people with pre-eclampsia. We created a digital triage system to catch early signs of a problem, improving patient safety and staving off costly ED visits. While the avoidance of an ED visit was a saving unto itself for the healthcare system (and for the patient), we also designed the program to align with the CPT code’s billing requirement, which stated that providers could only bill for the remote monitoring if they saw the data and acted on it. As designers, this kind of requirement is frustrating in how much it limits the service experience. We saw enormous opportunities for automated alerts and interventions. Still, it was critical for us to remember that the service could not be funded and, therefore, couldn’t exist if it did not live within the payer requirements defined by CMS. Understanding our real-world limitations allowed us to build something viable and desirable.  

When patients are involved, study their mindsets carefully

We are perpetually in favor of doing robust research on end users, and healthcare is no exception. 

Whether leaving the hospital, adjusting to a new diagnosis, or even coming in for a check-up, people’s experiences in and around a doctor’s office can be highly emotionally charged. You may be dealing with people who are exhausted, people who are sick, people who are nervous about their loved ones, people who are confused but afraid to tell their doctor or people who can’t process any information at all because they are still in shock. Standard “design conventions” that may work in other environments could crumble in healthcare if they don’t address the specific emotional valence of the patient experience.

For instance, we once worked with a nonprofit health system to redesign how cancer patients checked into the hospital. In most contexts, efficiency is priority number one — the fastest solution is the best solution. In this setting, however, it was also essential to prioritize the slower face-to-face interactions that let these patients feel like humans, not numbers being churned through a system. Moments of warmth and connection were precious for people dealing with the magnitude of doctor’s appointments that come with a cancer diagnosis. (It’s worth mentioning that helping people feel more connected to their healthcare providers doesn’t just make them feel better — it can improve health.)

Understanding the patient’s mindset is also crucial when your goal is health behavior change. As healthcare providers know all too well, simply having the solution to a healthcare problem doesn’t mean it will be solved. Patients often do not follow their provider’s recommendations to take their medications or implement a lifestyle change. It usually isn’t because they don’t want to — it’s simply because there are too many barriers. Often, these barriers are emotional. It requires thorough research to stand a chance at cracking the code on what actually moves the needle on patient behavior. 

Despite the challenges of healthcare, it’s a gratifying field to work in, and we’re eager to collaborate with more clients trying to support people where it matters most.

Got a healthcare technology project you’d like to work together on? We’d love to hear from you.

Next Article

3 Healthcare Trends to Watch

Reworking a process that’s been around for a while can feel like opening Pandora’s box. 

Especially at large organizations, the prospect of reworking something that involves so many people is intimidating. And it’s not just the price tag — the prospect of making a significant change at an established organization usually requires near-herculean efforts of diplomacy and buy-in. 

With all that stacked against leadership, it’s no wonder any process working at least well enough stays in place as long as it does.

You may wonder how you got by when you finally cross the bridge to the other side. If done right, a service redesign has the power to revolutionize your organization, allowing the breathing room that lets people work and imagine to the best of their capacity. Job satisfaction goes up, and the bottom line does, too. 

If the light convinces you at the end of the tunnel, but you need help figuring out where to start, read on for our take on three common barriers to starting. 

Barrier 1: Too many politics involved in implementing a change

With more prominent organizations especially, decision-making is often dispersed across a number of groups, only some of which may talk to one another. The urgent problems of one faction of the company may not even cross the radar of another. The prospect of making a change with all those moving cogs can feel daunting to the point of impossible. 

Our best tip here is to get “in the room” with folks (even if it’s a remote room). It isn’t about turning on the charm to win someone over. It’s about demonstrating a genuine commitment to understanding their work and what’s important to them and creating improvements in a way that respects their lives and expertise. The sheer fact of feeling seen can do wonders. What shows up as stubbornness often belies a strong emotional connection and care about their work, which is grounds to connect. Plus, you may learn something that helps inform your approach to the redesign.

Tip: While this will seem biased, hiring consultants for some of this early diplomacy can be a game-changer if you have the budget. In addition to approaching the problems with fresh eyes, outsiders can often leverage an apolitical status and sense of urgency (due to budgets and timelines) to cut through entrenched political issues that can be very difficult to resolve from the inside. 

Barrier 2: Something feels wrong, but you’re not sure what the problem is

This is another common problem — our clients may have a general sense that something is inefficient but not know how and why it originates. 

We also sometimes see the flip side of this — clients who can pinpoint the issue precisely, but once solved, they realize it’s a symptom of the problem and not the core cause. 

For this, the best first step is to simply get out into the field. Watch people work, ask them questions about why they do what they do, and understand what motivates the different actions you’re seeing. While it may sometimes be daunting getting the logistics and approvals to go on-site, there is usually no faster way to diagnose the “real” problem than by getting into the thick of it.

Case study: With a recent healthcare client, we went out into the field expecting to streamline a patient registration process through digital tools. But after being on-site, we realized that solving the registration problem would actually create a new problem: when patients got to interact with an employee, even in an inefficient way, it let them feel known, cared about, and human. The problem to solve wasn’t digitizing clunky in-person processes. It was about optimizing moments of human contact.

Bonus: Having tangible examples to share with other groups can help lead to better communication and common ground for moving forward.

Barrier 3: The problem feels so overwhelming, you don’t know where to start

Start paralysis is one of the biggest barriers we’ve seen clients run into. Particularly when you are embedded into the organization you’re trying to change, with an up-close view of all the interconnections, interdependencies, moving parts, and potential obstacles, the prospect of getting started can feel like setting off a domino chain of chaos. There’s fear that change may actually make things worse.

In a perfect world, maybe it’d be possible to step back and assess your organization thoroughly and objectively, making a perfect step-by-step map of the best order of operations in which to tackle the overhaul. But in reality, it simply doesn’t work that way. 

One of the most significant steps toward success is letting go of the idea of starting in the perfect place and simply starting somewhere. After all, there’s nothing like getting into it to help you refine your map for the next journey phase. Indeed, the time will come when you need to coordinate efforts across the board, but having everything mapped out before the first step begins is an impractical goal that can stop efforts in their tracks. 

Tip: Experience and intimate knowledge of an operation are invaluable, but when it comes to getting started, it can also be a burden. Often, our clients know too much about what’s going wrong and can get into paralysis in figuring out an excellent place to start. Here is where outside eyes can be beneficial in helping you find a suitable starting place.

In sum, there’s a light at the end of the tunnel, and we hope to see you there.

Got a service design project you’d like to work together on? We’d love to hear from you.

Next Article

5 Tips for Maximizing Your Design Overhaul

It’s 2023. Most of the low-hanging digital transformation fruit has been picked. We’ve got online shopping, digital media, and online scheduling systems…while we’d hesitate to call any digital transformation “easy,” the more straightforward projects have already been crossed off the list.

What we’re left with now are the harder-to-budge changes. We’ve got industries like finance, healthcare, and manufacturing that, in addition to being strapped by complex laws, are also highly human-dependent. Digital transformation isn’t a simple 1:1 switch, putting an e-widget where a physical one used to be. To pull off a genuine digital transformation in industries like these, you often need to change the whole system to some degree. And we don’t need to tell you that such a thing can be extremely challenging.

In our experience, coming up with the actual solutions our clients need is usually the relatively easy part. Very few needs are entirely unprecedented, and Grand Studio has been in the game long enough to spot patterns in what tends to work. But, as we know, simply dropping even the slickest of digital tools into an institution not yet ready to adopt it is an effort destined to fail. The hard part — what we spend a lot of time thinking about as a design consultancy — is how to get people to buy into digital transformation.

Here are a few buy-in barriers we’ve run into, and how to navigate (or, better yet, prevent) them.

Barrier 1: People feel a solution is being pushed onto them from above.

Any digital tool should always be framed as operating in service of people — not the other way around. Unfortunately, however, many people have been forced to work with tools that feel more like a chore than a service, and that suspicion can carry over to any new digital product. We like to address this explicitly when we do research, framing the job of the tool as directly supporting their work and existing routines. We ask lots of questions about their needs and habits and make sure that these are respected to the degree possible in the final design. If we’re working on revamping a system that is currently painful, it can also help to acknowledge the frustrations they’ve been dealing with. It builds faith you’re setting out to do it differently this time.

Barrier 2: People fear being replaced by digital tools. 

This fear has been around since the very first digital tools surfaced, and as technology advances, it’s not going away anytime soon. Workers who have specific technical skills, either resulting from formal education or on-the-job experience, will be justifiably proud of their abilities and defensive about new technologies that could displace them. However, we’ve hardly run into situations when a digital transformation is designed for, or results in massive layoffs. Usually, the organization’s goal is to optimize, get more results out of the resources and employees they have, and allow humans to work at the top of their skill level. If this reflects your organization’s strategy, it may be wise to address this concern head-on, mediating any fear about how roles may change once the new process/product is implemented. 

Situation 3: Highly technical audiences do not trust something digital to do parts of their job.

Related to the fear of being replaced is the suspicion that nothing digital will be a viable substitute for a person’s expertise. We see this in many types of industries, and it’s a difficult hurdle to overcome. We find that significantly involving these technical experts in the process is the most powerful way to confront this resistance. 

Initially, you’ll want to do extensive research with them, understanding the ins and outs of their jobs and expertise. Next, budget some time for these experts to test the tool out before widespread release. In addition to likely making your product better, this allows some time for folks to develop trust that the tool can be relied upon. We’ve even seen some stakeholders gain excitement at this phase, seeing how delegating some of the simpler parts of their job can enable them to work faster and better — it’s often the case that the bits best suited to new technology are the bits users currently hate to do, and that makes for a powerful case for change. Your pool of collaborator experts will do the job of spreading the word to other experts, and when they do, they’ll encounter much less suspicion than an outsider would.

Situation 4: The prospect of change in any form feels overwhelming.

No matter how well planned, change is often hard. One way we like to work with organizations overwhelmed by change is to start small. Even if your digital transformation goals are mighty, beginning with one bite-sized, concrete thing people can use immediately will do two critical things: first, build trust that you can deliver on your project goals, and second, demonstrate to others how change can happen. Quick wins build the faith you need to get those larger projects rolling.

We love working with clients on the precipice of a digital transformation. Have a project you’d like to work together on? We’d love to hear from you.

Next Article

3 Essential Tips for Quality Digital Experience Design