Research Strategy Workshop
A collaborative session designed to align stakeholders on research goals, priorities, and methodologies for a project or product.
Overview
A UX Research Strategy Workshop is a collaborative session designed to align stakeholders on research goals, priorities, and methodologies for a project or product. During the workshop, participants—typically from UX, product, design, and engineering—define key research questions, identify target users, and select appropriate research methods (e.g., interviews, usability testing, or surveys). The workshop also establishes timelines, success metrics, and how research findings will inform the product roadmap.
By fostering cross-functional collaboration and consensus, the workshop ensures that research efforts are strategically aligned with both user needs and business objectives, ultimately leading to more effective and impactful products.
MY ROLE
UX Researcher
Workshop Facilitator
COLLABORATORS
Product Management
Product Owner
Product Analyst
Software Engineer
UI/UX Director
UX Researcher
Interaction Designer
METHODS
Mural Workshop
DURATION
2 - 4 Hours
Workshop Steps
AGENDA
-
Welcome, whiteboarding tool overview, introductions - ask for cameras on, ice breaker
-
Scope
-
Choose personas
-
What do we know?
-
How certain are we?
-
What value does this bring?
-
What else do we want know?
-
When do we need this information?
-
What is the risk?
-
Prioritization Matrix or writing/scoring problem statements
-
The facilitator welcomes participants, setting a positive and collaborative tone.
-
Outline the workshop objectives, emphasizing the importance of aligning on research goals and strategies.
-
Share the agenda and ground rules for participation (e.g., respectful listening, staying engaged, contributing ideas).
-
Provide a brief walkthrough of the tool being used.
-
Demonstrate how to navigate around the board, zooming in/out, add sticky notes, shapes, and comments to ensure everyone is comfortable using the tool.
-
Ask each participant to introduce themselves with their name, role, and connection to the project.
-
Icebreaker: try a quick interactive activity, such as brainstorming "the worst possible user experience" for a product, to engage creativity and humor.
-
If all participants collaborate often you don't necessarily need and Icebreaker.
1
Welcome, whiteboarding tool overview, introductions - ask for cameras on, ice breaker
2
Scope
The scope can take various forms, such as a problem statement, a product feature, or project deliverables. It may also reference specific Jira stories that require validation or further insights.
The granularity of the scope directly impacts the research timeline for the product roadmap. Broader scopes, like strategic initiatives or multi-feature product research, may span weeks or months. In contrast, narrower scopes, such as usability tests for a specific feature, can be completed within a shorter timeframe.
By solidifying the scope early in the workshop, participants ensure a shared understanding of research priorities, allowing us to focus efforts on solving key user and business challenges. This clarity paves the way for efficient planning and execution of research activities and the product roadmap.
3
Choosing Personas
Personas represent key user archetypes, each with distinct needs, behaviors, and goals. Choosing the right personas ensures that our research is focused on the most impactful user groups.
By anchoring our research around these personas, we can prioritize scenarios and pain points that are critical to their experience. This helps teams develop targeted solutions that resonate with real users, ultimately improving product adoption and satisfaction. Additionally, aligning on personas across teams fosters a shared understanding of who we’re designing for, streamlining decision-making and reducing the risk of misaligned features.
Selecting personas at this stage provides a foundation for the research plan, ensuring our efforts remain user-centered and strategically aligned with business goals.
4
What do we know?
In this section, participants will list everything they believe they know about the problem, product, or users. This may include assumptions, perceived facts, or hypotheses. These could be based on previous experiences, anecdotal feedback, or internal discussions.
The goal here is not to debate the validity of these points but to surface them for further examination. Regardless of whether these statements are true or false, each needs to be tested and verified through research. By identifying these assumptions early, we can prioritize which need the most attention, ensuring our research efforts address critical knowledge gaps and avoid bias-driven decisions.
This exercise promotes clarity, reduces the risk of hidden assumptions influencing product design, and helps teams stay focused on evidence-based outcomes.
5
How certain are we?
Participants will evaluate the assumptions and hypotheses identified earlier by categorizing them based on their level of certainty. We’ll use a 4-column framework to visually organize these insights:
-
This is an opinion
-
I heard it somewhere
-
We have some data that suggests it
-
We have evidence that supports it
Participants will place sticky notes with their statements into the appropriate columns. This exercise helps teams understand where knowledge is weak or strong, prioritize areas for further research, and identify opportunities to validate or refine assumptions with new data.
Next we vote. Voting is to narrow down the number of assumptions we will carry forward to the next step. This prioritization ensures that we focus on the most critical or impactful areas, given constraints like time and resources. If there are only 5 stickies total, you can move them all forward. Otherwise the facilitator must consider several factors for voting and how many votes each participant gets.
-
If there are too many stickies (n>10), the facilitator may encourage participants to consolidate related ideas before voting.
-
Depending on the agreed research timeframe (e.g., a month, a quarter), only a feasible number of assumptions can be tested.
-
Shorter timelines may require focusing on fewer, high-impact assumptions.
-
The facilitator may need to weigh organizational goals, ensuring research aligns with top business priorities and stakeholder needs.
-
Critical stakeholders may have their own priorities or concerns, which can guide voting decisions.
6
What value does this bring?
In this section, participants will place stickies from the previous exercise onto this matrix to visualize which assumptions are both highly valuable and well-supported. Assumptions in the "High Value" and "We have evidence" quadrant are strong candidates for immediate prioritization, while those in "Low Value" or "Opinion" quadrants may be deprioritized or revisited later.
This process helps stakeholders understand where research can have the greatest impact and which areas require further evidence before action. By focusing on assumptions with both high value and some level of supporting data, teams ensure that research resources are allocated effectively.
7
What else do we want to know?
In this section, similar to step 4 participants will generate additional research questions that have not yet been addressed. This step builds on the earlier assumption-gathering exercise but shifts the focus to uncovering knowledge gaps and new areas of inquiry.
This step helps identify any blind spots in the research plan and ensures that all important areas of inquiry are captured. Questions from this exercise may inform future research priorities, even if they do not fit within the current scope. This collaborative approach also encourages creativity and cross-functional perspectives, leading to more comprehensive research planning.
8
When do we need this information?
In this step, participants will prioritize the research questions identified in the previous section by assigning them to one of three timeline categories. This helps align research activities with business and product needs, ensuring the most critical questions are addressed promptly. Prioritize based on urgency: 0-3 months, 3-6 months, or 6-12 months.
This step creates a clear research roadmap by prioritizing activities based on urgency and impact. It allows teams to allocate resources effectively, balancing short-term needs with long-term research goals. The output from this exercise will help shape the overall research strategy and scheduling for the upcoming months.
9
What is the risk?
In this step, participants will evaluate and prioritize research questions based on risk—defined as the potential impact on the product or business if the question is not addressed. The questions are placed into a matrix that organizes them by timeline and risk level.
This exercise helps prioritize research efforts by focusing on questions that pose the greatest risk to product success. High-risk, short-term questions will drive immediate research activities, while lower-risk questions are deprioritized for later phases. This ensures that critical knowledge gaps with the highest impact on decision-making are addressed promptly.
10
Prioritization Matrix or writing/scoring problem statements
In this final step you can choose how to conclude the workshop. You can take the stickies from step 6 and step 9 and place them in the prioritization matrix. You can use whatever criteria you think it relevant. I use Feasibility and Desirability.
You can also choose to write and score problem statements. Either way, you'll end up with problem statements—whether they are written during the workshop or afterward. If you decide to write them post-workshop, plan for a follow-up meeting to score them. However, if your workshop moved quickly and you have time, it's often beneficial to complete both writing and scoring during the session to maintain momentum and alignment among participants.
There are a variety of methods to score problem statements. I use the design thinking triangle:
-
Desirability - Measures how much users want or need a solution. It focuses on whether the solution solves a meaningful problem for users and delivers a positive experience.
-
Viability - Assesses whether the solution is sustainable and profitable from a business perspective. It focuses on alignment with business goals and financial resources.
-
Feasibility - Evaluates whether the solution is technically achievable with current resources, tools, and expertise. It ensures that implementation is realistic.
You score from 1 -5 and add up the total. You can use whatever criteria you like. Here is an example of other criteria.
Tips and Tricks
-
Have 1 or 2 researchers or designers attend to help manage the workshop. If stickies need to be reworded or moved they can do that while you move on to the next. It really helps momentum.
-
Ask the participants to remain on camera - helps mitigate multi-tasking
-
Create a tutorial for how to use the whiteboard and put it on all boards for people to reference.
-
Create a 'table of contents' that can help maneuver around the board. It's a clickable list of all the sections of the workshop. Put a return link at every section.
-
Use the 'summon' (bring everyone to me) feature often. Announce it before you do it.
-
Don't forget to take breaks and allow for lunch if necessary.