Case Study: Alarms Usage and Enhancement
This case study describes how an evaluation research was conducted to validate proposed design solutions for enhancing an alarm feature in a software product.
Prior Generative Research Findings

1

Alarms Usage Scenarios
1. Operators persona uses alarms feature every day. Managers twice a week.
2. They receive alerts both by email and inside the system.

2

Top 3 Pains
1. Too many alerts.
2. Not enough information on how to solve alarms.
3. Not enough filtering options to identify relevant alarm.
Prior Research Data Collection Methods
Focus Group Methodology
List of questions, 2-3 facilitators. One manages, others document.
5 Finger Statements
For specific insights - Each participant raised one to five fingers based on how much he disagrees to agrees with the statement presented.
Evaluation research former background

1

Generative research
Former UX researcher discovered user's pains from The Alarm feature in the product

2

Design Sprint Workshop
Stakeholders had decided to prioritize the Alarm enhancements initiative, and the UX designer created design solutions after a design sprint workshop.

3

New UX Researcher (that's me)
I entered the project as a new member in the Team, replacing the former UX researcher in the evaluation phase, after the design was prototyped and needed evaluation.
Evaluation Research Mission
Validate Assumptions
Ensure the new alarm enhancements align with users' needs and pain points.
Gather Feedback
Understand users' overall impressions of the new alarm enhancement features.
Identify Impact
Determine which specific enhancements had the greatest positive impact from the users' perspective.
Determine Iterations
Identify any additional changes needed to further optimize the alarm management experience.
Generative New Research Preparation
1
Prior Interviews Review
Dig in the repository to learn of the former research pains.
2
Match Pains to Solutions
Match the pain from prior research to the designed solution to learn how the new design had answered it.
3
Cross Match Analysis
Discover the cross match between the pains and the solutions.
Pain + solution match: Alerts Description
Pain
  • Alerts description is too generic
  • Can't figure out the root cause
  • How to fix the issue
Solution
  • Alarm static details and information
  • Alarm History
  • Alarm troubleshooting - how to solve - root cause
Pain + solution match: Alarm Suppression
Pain
1. No option to Suppress and shelf alerts to later time.
2. A need for a snooze alarm.
Solution
Snooze or suppress alarm.
Pain + solution match: Personalization & Filtering
Pain
Personalization - a need for more filters for relevant alarms or critical alarms.
Solution
  • Improve filters
  • Improve presets
Pain + solution match: Alarm Management
Pain
Want to see if someone took ownership on an alarm.
Solution
  • New statuses
  • Alarm acknowledgment
Evaluation Research Methods
Moderated Sessions
5 moderated sessions of 90 min' each. UX designer demo, user feedback, scenarios, and voting.
5 Finger Activity
Each participant raised one to five fingers based on how much the enhancement will better his experience
Generative Feedback
Additional generative feedback from participants.
Research analysis process
1
Data Collection
Lay out all feedback in a Miro table divided to Flows, question, Participants. Thematical sticks color code: positive, negative, suggestion, scenarios, current usage, organization details, opportunities.
2
Clustering
Thematically color cluster in a table divided by flows, clustered themes.
3
Insights + Recommendation
Flows insights, Votes summery, Recommendations.
4
Next steps
Feature requests
Thematic Data Collection
Clustering
Insights & Recommendation
Research Outcomes
Participant Reactions
Participants provided valuable feedback and insights during the moderated sessions.
User Voting on Likelihood
Participants rated how likely they would be to use the proposed enhancements.
Participant Recommendations
Participants provided valuable recommendations for new feature requests.
Yearly product planning
UX & stakeholders plan next steps given the user feedback and effort estimation
MVP Workshop
Participants: Product, R&D, Dev

1

T-shirt size activity
on evaluated concept design

2

T-shirt size activity
on new feature request improvement according to the concept demo

3

Alarms flow development ROI vote

4

Dev + design yearly gunt
Research Impact
User Engagement
User participant feel heard.
Cross-Team Collaboration
Product team knows how to priorities the work. Better communication across teams.
Developer Buy-In
Developers are more commited and act with empty to the user.
Project Conclusion
Project is suspended. Priorities had changed and the focus had shifted to different directions.
UX Team Reaction

1

No Post-Mortem
No post mortem as UX organization changed.

2

Team Morale
Stronger together - team moral.

3

Moving On
Morn than move on.
Lesson Learned
Handoff Insights
Initiatives switch hands when different researchers change. It's important to dedicate time to learn prior research insights to ease the transition.
User-Centered Approach
We must instruct co-designers not to influence participants during evaluations. The design may be great, but we are not the users.
Prioritization
Gathering user insights on likelihood to use helps the product manager prioritize the most impactful solutions.
Collaboration
Collaboration is key - the UX team can bridge the gap between users, business, and development efforts.
Thank You!
For reading my case study :-)
Up