PROGRAM MANAGEMENT | Laura Jones Research

Scaling a UXR program isn't for the faint of heart.

But there are some key guidelines and practices I've used to stand up and roll out effective, trustworthy quantitative and mixed-methods UX Research programs across organizations. Take a peek inside my thought processes and some of the challenges I faced and overcame in the areas of:

Mixing Methods

My go-to summary of mixed methods research: quantitative tells us what users are doing; qualitative tells us why they do it. Focusing on only one leaves a gap in knowledge and breeds assumptions that often lead to the wrong decision without any clear path to the right way.

This visual model is my clearest way of illustrating the product and mixed-methods research lifecycle. For an early stage team with an existing product, the best place to start is with evaluative user research insights and to form hypotheses that translate into testing ideas or confident changes. For later stage teams with multiple products and existing test and research results, starting at any point in the wheel works.

For example, you can start with a trend you have seen from site or product usage data. Let's take the hypothetical use case of a haircare site. Maybe users are exiting the site after engaging with a quiz that helps customers decide between multiple hair products. From the usage analytics (exit rate and engagement with quiz), we know what the users are doing. This triggers a question about why users are leaving the site, so over to user research it goes. To keep it lightweight, an unmoderated usability test with questions about user needs and expectations would be a great way to check for any technical issues and unexpected reasons the quiz is not giving users what they need. In a well-designed usability test, there tend to be multiple themes that surface among respondents, and from these themes we can deduce a few assumptions and corresponding recommendations for change. Since there are still questions about what exactly is causing users to leave, and making that recommended change could threaten conversions, it's not a confident change to be made, so it goes into AB testing. The results of that test tell us if the change causes a significant lift to our main KPI, exit rate, and if so the change is made.

Roadmapping and Strategic Prioritization

The best problem to have as a UX and online experimentation team is too many test ideas. Sifting through a backlog can be a pain, but there are strategic ways to rank and prioritize what comes next and how to talk through them with a team.

The most straightforward way I have found to roadmap testing ideas and UX studies includes these metrics:

Level of Effort
Potential Impact
Je Ne Sais Quois

It's rarely so simple as these 3 factors, so if it is, we embrace it and enjoy the convenience. I have found these secondary factors to be good tiebreakers when needed:

SEO Value
Interdependent products
Globally applicable changes (e.g., suite of websites with similar content and/or assets)

Strategic Alignment with Tactical Changes

Strategies keep work focused, intentional and impactful. They are also excellent guiding lights for teams of any size and help people think critically and more independently with a reference rather than needing to consult as frequently.

The best way I have found to develop strategies for products is to use a combination of internal stakeholder perspectives and themes that come up in user research: what are the consistent requests and complaints user voice? Cross-functional design workshops are an excellent way to uncover internally what folks across teams believe about products, and double as a way to educate them on user insights and engagement with the product.

Much of my experience in strategically building products is in the e-commerce world, focusing on interactive customer tools (quizzes, sort/filter tool), product information content, and page templates. Here's an example of how the strategies identified for one of the product page templates (left column) align with the tactical products and content being worked on (top row):

Screenshot 2025-09-04 at 1.01_edited.jpg

The strategies here were developed from a design workshop (cross-functional internal stakeholders) and user studies (external users). Ideally a given tactic will check off multiple strategic goals, and the more that one checks off, the higher impact score it can be assigned (back to prioritization). If an idea does not align with one of the strategic goals, it either does not belong in the roadmap or needs to have glaringly obvious justification (e.g., major technical error or usage roadblock).

Case Studies

CHALLENGES

In the early days establishing testing and research programs, I have encountered these challenges, which are interrelated:

Lack of cross-functional buy-in & engagement
No system to document findings and next steps
No prioritization system for tests and product changes
Inconsistent, incomplete KPIs and reporting
Competing changes/work with other teams

SOLUTIONS

Lack of cross-functional buy-in is often a symptom of a program that lacks systematic and strategic decision making. This is often compounded by the testing and research being seen as "competition" by other teams.

To solve these challenges, I looked at the root issue: incomplete documentation and no strategic planning. I first led strategic planning sessions with the team and then met with other team leads to uncover their perspectives and gaps. While training my team on testing and UX best practices, I developed systems for tracking results and next steps, which were accessible by other teams. We also developed a prioritization framework to guide our testing, research and product roadmaps.

Importantly, we spent time educating other teams on our work, results, and encouraged questions and doubts so we could inform and debunk.

These changes created a strategic, critically thinking team that fostered collaboration and trust.

CHALLENGE

No team is created technically equal, and this is especially true on mixed-methods teams where qualitative is as important as quantitative.

On a team with varied technical levels, I have seen resentment grow among the higher technical talents towards other teammates whose skills lean more qualitative or strategic.

An additional challenge that stems from this is the mistakes that can result when there are technical gaps on a team.

SOLUTION

To reduce frustration and resentment, I did a few things:

Better and more consistent documentation of technical processes, so less technical folks relied less on the time of their more technical teammates and made fewer errors
Skill swapping: I sent out a survey where everyone on the team identified teammates who they would like to learn from. I did this very intentionally, knowing that some of the less technical teammates had other important skills and knowledge to share: time management, organization, research, managing. I set up feedback partners, where there was an explicit understanding that they could give feedback to their assigned partners. This demonstrated the areas for improvement in all (technical and less technical) teammates and leveled up everyone on the team

CHALLENGES

People are complicated and don't come with a guidebook. Among the challenges I've faced in managing:

Tension between teammates
Tension between my team and others (individuals or teams)
Team frustration at decisions I have made
Miscommunication of expectations and standards
Perception I was stepping in too much
Perception I wasn't stepping in enough
Frustration with decisions made by senior leadership
Disillusionment with company mission or other coworkers

SOLUTIONS

The overwhelming solution to any people conflict is to confront the situation directly and honestly. I have found this to work in 99% of cases. Here's an idea of what I've done to facilitate those direct and honest conversations and create a team culture of honesty and feedback:

Creating a culture of regular 1:1s where we speak freely and without judgment
In a 1:1 setting, becoming familiar with challenge areas for the other person (and being honest about my own challenge areas)
Encouraging the other person to be self-aware about which of their challenge areas may be exacerbating or causing an interpersonal issue
Being open about my own experience dealing with issues they are going through
Asking questions, making them reflect, and being open to any response they may give (even if it doesn't align with my expectations or hopes)
Avoiding jumping in and solving the issue (when appropriate) so they can deal with and learn from it