Pivoting Your Career Without Starting From Scratch

 

Most developers spend their days fixing bugs, shipping features, and jumping into the next sprint without even thinking about it. After a while, you begin to ask yourself, “Is this still what I want to be doing?” This article looks at how you can move into a new direction in your career without starting from scratch, and how the skills you already use, like problem-solving, communication, and empathy, can open new doors.

Has work felt “different” to you? You show up, do your work, fix what needs fixing, and get the job done, but the excitement isn’t quite the same anymore. Maybe the work has become too routine, or maybe you’ve grown in a way your role hasn’t kept up with. You catch yourself thinking, “I’ve been doing this for years, but where do I go from here?”

It’s not always about the burnouts or frustrations. Sometimes it’s just curiosity. You’ve learned a lot, built things, solved problems, and now a small part of you wants to see what else you can do. Maybe the rise of AI is making you look at your job differently, or maybe you feel ready for a new kind of challenge that does not look like your current day-to-day.

I have seen many people across different fields go through this. Developers moving into product work, designers shifting to UX research, engineers getting into teaching, or support folks building communities. Everyone reaches that point where they want their work to feel meaningful again.

The good thing is you are not starting from zero. The experience you already have, like solving problems, making decisions, working, and communicating with people, those are real, valuable skills that carry over anywhere. Most of the time, the next step is not about leaving tech behind. It’s about finding where your skills make the most sense next.

This article is about that: How to rethink your path when things start to feel a bit stale, and how to move toward something new without losing everything you’ve built so far.

Redefining Your Toolkit

When people start thinking about changing careers, the first thing they usually do is focus on what they do not have. The missing skills, the new tools they need to learn, or how far behind they feel. It is a normal reaction, but it is not always the best place to begin.

Instead, try looking at what is already there. You have probably built more useful skills than you realize. Many of us get used to describing ourselves by our job titles, such as developer, designer, or analyst, but those titles do not fully explain what we actually do. They just tell us where we sit on a team. The real story is the work behind the title.

Think of a developer, for example. On paper, the job is to write code, but in reality, a developer spends most of their time solving problems, making decisions, and building systems that make sense to other people. The same goes for designers. They do not just make things look good; they pay attention to how people think, how they move through a screen, and how to make something feel clear and simple.

Your skills don’t disappear when your title changes. They just find new ways to show up.

These are what people call transferable skills, but you do not need the fancy term to get the idea. These are abilities that stay useful no matter where you go. Problem-solving, curiosity, clear communication, empathy, and learning fast — these are the things that make you good at what you do, even if the tools or roles change.

You already use them more than you think. When you fix a bug, you are learning how to track a problem back to its roots. When you explain a technical idea to someone non-technical, you are practicing clarity. When you deal with tight deadlines, you are learning how to manage priorities. None of these disappear if you switch fields. You apply it somewhere else.

So, before you worry about what you do not know, take a moment to see what you already do well. Write it down if you have to. Not just the tasks, but the thinking behind them. That is where your real value is.

Four Real-World Paths to Explore

Once you start seeing your skills beyond your job title, you may realize how many directions you can actually take. The tech world keeps changing fast: tools change, teams change, new roles show up every year, and people move in ways they never planned.

Here are four real paths that many people in tech are taking today.

From	To	What Changes	Why It Works
Developer	Product Manager	You move from building the product to shaping what gets built and why.	Developers already understand tradeoffs, user needs, and how features come together. That is product thinking in action.
Engineer	Developer Advocate	You focus less on code delivery and more on helping others succeed with your product.	You already know the technology inside out, so turning that knowledge into clear communication makes you a natural teacher.
Back-end Engineer	Solutions Engineer	You bring your problem-solving mindset to real client challenges.	It is not about selling, it is about understanding problems deeply and building trust through technical skill.
Designer	UX Researcher or Service Designer	You shift from visuals to understanding how people think, feel, and interact.	Good design starts with empathy, and that same skill fits perfectly in research and experience design.

What many people discover when they take one of these steps is that their daily work changes, not their identity. The tools and routines might be different, but the core way they think and solve problems stays the same.

The biggest change is usually perspective. Instead of focusing on how something gets built, you begin to care more about why it matters, who it helps, and what impact it has. For many people, that shift often brings back the excitement they might have lost somewhere along the way.

Your First Steps Towards A New Path

When you find a direction that feels interesting, the next step is figuring out how to move toward it without losing your footing where you are. This is where curiosity turns into a plan.

1. Take A Look At What You Bring

Start by checking your strengths. It does not have to be anything complex. Write down what you do well, what feels natural to you, and what people usually ask you for help with.

If you want a simple guide, Learning People has a good breakdown for auditing your personal skills, including a template for identifying and evaluating your skills. Try filling it out; it’s well worth the few minutes it takes to complete.

After listing your strengths, try matching them with roles you’re curious about. For example, if you’re a developer who enjoys explaining things, that could connect well with mentoring, writing tutorials, or developer advocacy.

2. Learn By Getting Close To It

Job descriptions aren’t a perfect reflection of the realities of working a specific job. Talking with people who do that job will. So, reach out to people who already do what you’re interested in and ask them what their day-to-day looks like, what parts they enjoy, and what surprised them when they started.

And if possible, shadow someone or volunteer to help on a project. You don’t need a job change to explore something new. Short, hands-on experiences often teach you far more than any course, and many people are more than willing to take you under their wing, especially if you are offering your time and help in exchange for experience.

3. Build Proof Through Small Experiments

Do something small that points in the direction you want to go. Maybe build a simple tool, write a short piece about what you’re learning, or help a local startup or open-source team. These don’t need to be perfect, but they just need to exist. They show direction, not completion.

Blogging has always been a perfect way to share your learning path and demonstrate your excitement about it. Plus, it establishes a track record of the knowledge you acquire.

4. Shape Your Story As You Grow

Instead of going with the idea of “I’m switching careers,” try thinking of it as “I’m building on what I already do.” That simple shift makes your journey clearer. It shows that you’re not starting from zero — you’re simply moving forward with more intention.

Navigating The Mental Hurdles

Every career shift, even when it feels exciting, comes with doubts. You might ask yourself, “What if I’m not ready?” or “What if I can’t keep up?” These thoughts are more common than people admit.

Imposter Syndrome

One fear that shows up a lot is imposter syndrome, that feeling you do not belong or that others are “better” or “smarter” at something than you. A recent piece from Nordcloud shared that more than half (58%) of IT professionals have felt this at some point in their career.

Comparison is a silent thief of confidence. Seeing others move faster can make you feel late. But everyone has different opportunities and different timing. What matters is the direction you are moving in, not how fast you go.

Here’s a thought worth remembering:

People who have successfully changed their careers did not wait until they felt brave. Most of them still had doubts, but they just moved anyway, one small step at a time.

Starting Again

Another worry is the idea of starting over. You may feel that you’ve spent too many years in one space to move into another. But you are not returning to the beginning. You are moving with experience. Your habits, discipline, and problem-solving stay with you. They just show up in a different way.

It’s hard — and self-defeating — to imagine the work it takes to start all over again, especially when you have invested many years into what you do. But remember, it’s not always too late. Even Kurt Vonnegut was 47 when he wrote his seminal book, Slaughterhouse Five. You can still enjoy a very long and fruitful career, even in middle age.

Finances

Money and stability also weigh a lot. The fear of losing income or looking uncertain can hold you back. And everyone’s money situation can be wildly different. You may have family to support, big loans to pay back, a lack of reserves, or any number of completely valid reasons for not wanting to give up a steady paycheck when you’re already receiving one.

A simple way to reduce that pressure is to start with small steps. Take a small side gig, try part-time work, or help on a short project in the area you’re curious about. These small tests give you clarity without shaking your foundation.

Conversations With Industry Experts

Below are short interviews with a handful of tech professionals serving in different roles. I wanted to talk with real people who have recently switched careers or are in the process of doing so because it helps illustrate the wide range of situations, challenges, and opportunities you might expect to encounter in a career change.

Thomas Dodoo: Graphic Designer, 5 Years Of Experience

Background: Thomas has an IT background. He first got interested in tech through game development in school, but later discovered that design was what he enjoyed more. Over time, he moved fully into graphic design and branding.

Question: When you were starting, what confused you the most about choosing your path?

Thomas: I wasn’t sure if I should stay with game development or follow design. I liked both, but design came more naturally, so I just kept learning little by little.

Question: Was there a moment that made you take your design work more seriously?

Thomas: Yes, the first time someone trusted me with their full brand. It made me realise this could be more than a hobby.

Question: What skills did you carry over from development into your design work?

Thomas: My background in development helped me think more logically about design. I break things down, think in steps, and focus on how things work, not just how they look.

Adwoa Mensah: Product Manager, 4 Years Of Experience

Background: Adwoa moved from software testing to product management.

Question: When did you realize it was time to change careers?

Adwoa: I realised it when I started caring more about why things were being built, not just checking if they worked. I enjoyed asking questions, giving input, and thinking about the bigger picture, and testing alone started to feel limiting.

Question: What new skills did you need to learn to move into your new field?

Adwoa: I had to learn how to communicate better, especially with designers, developers, and stakeholders. I also worked on planning, prioritising work, and understanding users more deeply. I learned most of this by watching product managers I worked with, asking questions, reading, and slowly taking on more responsibility on real projects.

Konstantinos Tournas: AI Engineer

Background: Konstantinos started programming with zero experience. He had no technical background at first, but he developed a strong interest in artificial intelligence and worked his way into the field.

Question: What moments in your journey made you question yourself, and how did you move past them?

Konstantinos: There were many moments in my career journey when I doubted myself, mainly because I started completely from zero, with no programming background and no connections in the field. What helped me push through was the motivation I had to learn and my genuine love for artificial intelligence. Every time I questioned myself, I reminded myself where I started and how far I had come in such a short amount of time.

Question: When you feel pressure or doubt in your work, what helps you stay grounded?

Konstantinos: When I feel pressure or self-doubt, I usually take a walk in nature. It helps me clear my mind and think creatively about how I can improve my work. In programming, the work rarely stops when your shift ends; problems in the code follow you throughout the day, and overcoming them requires creativity. Walking helps me reset and return with better ideas.

Question: How do you deal with comparing yourself to others in your field?

Konstantinos: Even though I’m competitive by nature, I constantly try to learn from others in my field. I don’t like showing off; I prefer listening. I know I can become great at what I do, but that doesn’t happen overnight. Comparison can be healthy, as long as it pushes you to grow rather than discourages you.

Question: What would you say to someone who feels like they are not good enough to pursue the path they want?

Konstantinos: I started programming without a university degree and with an entirely different background. Patience and persistence truly are the keys to success; it might sound cliché, but they were precisely what helped me. In less than six months, with long hours of focused work, consistency, and determination, I managed to get hired for my dream job simply because I believed in myself and wanted it badly enough.

Yinjian Huang: Product Designer (AI, SaaS), 5 Years Of Experience

Background: Yinjian works in product design across AI, SaaS, and B2B products. Her work focuses on building early-stage products, shaping user experience, and working closely with engineering and product teams on AI-driven features.

Question: Looking back, what is one decision you made that you think others in your field could learn from?

Yinjian: Keep learning across disciplines: design, PM, AI, and engineering. The broader your fluency, the better you can design and reason holistically. Cross‑functional knowledge compounds and unlocks better product judgment.

Question: What do you wish you had known about handling stress, workload, or expectations earlier in your career?

Yinjian: Communicate early if the workload is too heavy or a deadline is at risk. Flag constraints, renegotiate scope, and make trade‑offs explicit. Early clarity beats late surprises.

Question: How do you evaluate whether a new opportunity or challenge is worth taking on?

Yinjian: I evaluate opportunities on three axes: the learning delta (skills I’ll gain), the people I’ll work with, and alignment with my interests.

Question: What advice would you give to someone who wants to grow in your field but feels stuck or unsure of where to start?

Yinjian: Growth can feel overwhelming at first because there’s so much to learn. Build a simple roadmap: start by making your craft solid, then expand adjacent skills. Find the best resources, practice relentlessly, and seek feedback on tight cycles. Momentum comes from small, consistent wins.

The Bottom Line

This whole piece is just a reminder that it’s fine to question where you are and want something different. Everyone hits that moment when things stop feeling exciting, and you start wondering what’s next. It doesn’t mean you’ve failed. It usually means you’re growing.

I wrote this because I’ve been in that space too, still figuring out what direction makes the most sense for me. So if you’re feeling stuck or unsure, I hope this gave you something useful. You don’t need to have everything sorted out right now. Just keep learning, stay curious, and take one small step at a time.

Collaboration: The Most Underrated UX Skill No One Talks About

 

We often spotlight wireframes, research, or tools like Figma, but none of that moves the needle if we can’t collaborate well. Great UX doesn’t happen in isolation. It takes conversations with engineers, alignment with product, sales, and other stakeholders, as well as the ability to listen, adapt, and co-create. That’s where design becomes a team sport, and when your ability to capture the outcomes multiplies the UX impact.

When people talk about UX, it’s usually about the things they can see and interact with, like wireframes and prototypes, smart interactions, and design tools like Figma, Miro, or Maze. Some of the outputs are even glamorized, like design systems, research reports, and pixel-perfect UI designs. But here’s the truth I’ve seen again and again in over two decades of working in UX: none of that moves the needle if there is no collaboration.

Great UX doesn’t happen in isolation. It happens through conversations with engineers, product managers, customer-facing teams, and the customer support teams who manage support tickets. Amazing UX ideas come alive in messy Miro sessions, cross-functional workshops, and those online chats (e.g., Slack or Teams) where people align, adapt, and co-create.

Some of the most impactful moments in my career weren’t when I was “designing” in the traditional sense. They have been gaining incredible insights when discussing problems with teammates who have varied experiences, brainstorming, and coming up with ideas that I never could have come up with on my own. As I always say, ten minds in a room will come up with ten times as many ideas as one mind. Often, many ideas are the most useful outcome.

There have been times when a team has helped to reframe a problem in a workshop, taken vague and conflicting feedback, and clarified a path forward, or I’ve sat with a sales rep and heard the same user complaint show up in multiple conversations. This is when design becomes a team sport, and when your ability to capture the outcomes multiplies the UX impact.

Why This Article Matters Now

The reason collaboration feels so urgent now is that the way we work since COVID has changed, according to a study published by the US Department of Labor. Teams are more cross-functional, often remote, and increasingly complex. Silos are easier to fall into, due to distance or lack of face-to-face contact, and yet alignment has never been more important. We can’t afford to see collaboration as a “nice to have” anymore. It’s a core skill, especially in UX, where our work touches so many parts of an organisation.

Let’s break down what collaboration in UX really means, and why it deserves way more attention than it gets.

What Is Collaboration In UX, Really?

Let’s start by clearing up a misconception. Collaboration is not the same as cooperation.

• Cooperation: “You do your thing, I’ll do mine, and we’ll check in later.”
• Collaboration: “Let’s figure this out together and co-own the outcome.”

Collaboration, as defined in the book Communication Concepts, published by Deakin University, involves working with others to produce outputs and/or achieve shared goals. The outcome of collaboration is typically a tangible product or a measurable achievement, such as solving a problem or making a decision. Here’s an example from a recent project:

Recently, I worked on a fraud alert platform for a fintech business. It was a six-month project, and we had zero access to users, as the product had not yet hit the market. Also, the users were highly specialised in the B2B finance space and were difficult to find. Additionally, the team members I needed to collaborate with were based in Malaysia and Melbourne, while I am located in Sydney.

Instead of treating that as a dead end, we turned inward: collaborating with subject matter experts, professional services consultants, compliance specialists, and customer support team members who had deep knowledge of fraud patterns and customer pain points. Through bi-weekly workshops using a Miro board, iterative feedback loops, and sketching sessions, we worked on design solution options. I even asked them to present their own design version as part of the processAfter months of iterating on the fraud investigation platform through these collaboration sessions, I ended up with two different design frameworks for the investigator’s dashboard. Instead of just presenting the “best one” and hoping for buy-in, I ran a voting exercise with PMs, engineers, SMEs, and customer support. Everyone had a voice. The winning design was created and validated with the input of the team, resulting in an outcome that solved many problems for the end user and was owned by the entire team. That’s collaboration!

It is definitely one of the most satisfying projects of my career.

On the other hand, I recently caught up with an old colleague who now serves as a product owner. Her story was a cautionary tale: the design team had gone ahead with a major redesign of an app without looping her in until late in the game. Not surprisingly, the new design missed several key product constraints and business goals. It had to be scrapped and redone, with her now at the table. That experience reinforced what we all know deep down: your best work rarely happens in isolation.

As illustrated in my experience, true collaboration can span many roles. It’s not just between designers and PMs. It can also include QA testers who identify real-world issues, content strategists who ensure our language is clear and inclusive, sales representatives who interact with customers on a daily basis, marketers who understand the brand’s voice, and, of course, customer support agents who are often the first to hear when something goes wrong. The best outcomes arrive when we’re open to different perspectives and inputs.

Why Collaboration Is So Overlooked?

If collaboration is so powerful, why don’t we talk about it more?

In my experience, one reason is the myth of the “lone UX hero”. Many of us entered the field inspired by stories of design geniuses revolutionising products on their own. Our portfolios often reflect that as well. We showcase our solo work, our processes, and our wins. Job descriptions often reinforce the idea of the solo UX designer, listing tool proficiency and deliverables more than soft skills and team dynamics.

And then there’s the team culture within many organisations of “just get the work done”, which often leads to fewer meetings and tighter deadlines. As a result, a sense of collaboration is inefficient and wasted. I have also experienced working with some designers where perfectionism and territoriality creep in — “This is my design” — which kills the open, communal spirit that collaboration needs.

When Collaboration Is The User Research

In an ideal world, we’d always have direct access to users. But let’s be real. Sometimes that just doesn’t happen. Whether it’s due to budget constraints, time limitations, or layers of bureaucracy, talking to end users isn’t always possible. That’s where collaboration with team members becomes even more crucial.

The next best thing to talking to users? Talking to the people who talk to users. Sales teams, customer success reps, tech support, and field engineers. They’re all user researchers in disguise!

On another B2C project, the end users were having trouble completing the key task. My role was to redesign the onboarding experience for an online identity capture tool for end users. I was unable to schedule interviews with end users due to budget and time constraints, so I turned to the sales and tech support teams.

I conducted multiple mini-workshops to identify the most common onboarding issues they had heard directly from our customers. This led to a huge “aha” moment: most users dropped off before the document capture process. They may have been struggling with a lack of instruction, not knowing the required time, or not understanding the steps involved in completing the onboarding process.

That insight reframed my approach, and we ultimately redesigned the flow to prioritize orientation and clear instructions before proceeding to the setup steps. Below is an example of one of the screen designs, including some of the instructions we added.

This kind of collaboration is user research. It’s not a substitute for talking to users directly, but it’s a powerful proxy when you have limited options.

But What About Using AI?

Glad you asked! Even AI tools, which are increasingly being used for idea generation, pattern recognition, or rapid prototyping, don’t replace collaboration; they just change the shape of it.

AI can help you explore design patterns, draft user flows, or generate multiple variations of a layout in seconds. It’s fantastic for getting past creative blocks or pressure-testing your assumptions. But let’s be clear: these tools are accelerators, not oracles. As an innovation and strategy consultant Nathan Waterhouse points out, AI can point you in a direction, but it can’t tell you which direction is the right one in your specific context. That still requires human judgment, empathy, and an understanding of the messy realities of users and business goals.

You still need people, especially those closest to your users, to validate, challenge, and evolve any AI-generated idea. For instance, you might use ChatGPT to brainstorm onboarding flows for a SaaS tool, but if you’re not involving customer support reps who regularly hear “I didn’t know where to start” or “I couldn’t even log in,” you’re just working with assumptions. The same applies to engineers who know what is technically feasible or PMs who understand where the business is headed.

AI can generate ideas, but only collaboration turns those ideas into something usable, valuable, and real. Think of it as a powerful ingredient, but not the whole recipe.

“

How To Strengthen Your UX Collaboration Skills?

If collaboration doesn’t come naturally or hasn’t been a focus, that’s okay. Like any skill, it can be practiced and improved. Here are a few ways to level up:

1. Cultivate curiosity about your teammates.
   Ask engineers what keeps them up at night. Learn what metrics your PMs care about. Understand the types of tickets the support team handles most frequently. The more you care about their challenges, the more they’ll care about yours.
2. Get comfortable facilitating.
   You don’t need to be a certified Design Sprint master, but learning how to run a structured conversation, align stakeholders, or synthesize different points of view is hugely valuable. Even a simple “What’s working? What’s not?” retro can be an amazing starting point in identifying where you need to focus next.
3. Share early, share often.
   Don’t wait until your designs are polished to get input. Messy sketches and rough prototypes invite collaboration. When others feel like they’ve helped shape the work, they’re more invested in its success.
4. Practice active listening.
   When someone critiques your work, don’t immediately defend. Pause. Ask follow-up questions. Reframe the feedback. Collaboration isn’t about consensus; it’s about finding a shared direction that can honour multiple truths.
5. Co-own the outcome.
   Let go of your ego. The best UX work isn’t “your” work. It’s the result of many voices, skill sets, and conversations converging toward a solution that helps users. It’s not “I”, it’s “we” that will solve this problem together.

Conclusion: UX Is A Team Sport

Great design doesn’t emerge from a vacuum. It comes from open dialogue, cross-functional understanding, and a shared commitment to solving real problems for real people.

If there’s one thing I wish every early-career designer knew, it’s this:

Collaboration is not a side skill. It’s the engine behind every meaningful design outcome. And for seasoned professionals, it’s the superpower that turns good teams into great ones.

“

So next time you’re tempted to go heads-down and just “crank out a design,” pause to reflect. Ask who else should be in the room. And invite them in, not just to review your work, but to help create it.

Because in the end, the best UX isn’t just what you make. It’s what you make together.

 

The Core Model: Start FROM The Answer, Not WITH The Solution

 

The Core Model is a practical methodology that flips traditional digital development on its head. Instead of starting with solutions or structure, we begin with a hypothesis about what users need and follow a simple framework that brings diverse teams together to create more effective digital experiences. By asking six good questions in the right order, teams align around user tasks and business objectives, creating clarity that transcends organizational boundaries.

Ever sat in a meeting where everyone jumped straight to solutions? “We need a new app!” “Let’s redesign the homepage!” “AI will fix everything!” This solution-first thinking is endemic in digital development — and it’s why so many projects fail to deliver real value. As the creator of the Core Model methodology, I developed this approach to flip the script: instead of starting with solutions, we start FROM the answer.

What’s the difference? Starting with solutions means imposing our preconceived ideas. Starting FROM the answer to a user task means forming a hypothesis about what users need, then taking a step back to follow a simple structure that validates and refines that hypothesis.

Six Good Questions That Lead to Better Answers

At its heart, the Core Model is simply six good questions asked in the right order, with a seventh that drives action. It appeals to common sense — something often in short supply during complex digital projects.

When I introduced this approach to a large organization struggling with their website, their head of digital admitted: “We’ve been asking all these questions separately, but never in this structured way that connects them.”

These questions help teams pause, align around what matters, and create solutions that actually work:

1. Who are we trying to help, and what’s their situation?
2. What are they trying to accomplish?
3. What do we want to achieve?
4. How do they approach this need?
5. Where should they go next?
6. What’s the essential content or functionality they need?
7. What needs to be done to create this solution?

This simple framework creates clarity across team boundaries, bringing together content creators, designers, developers, customer service, subject matter experts, and leadership around a shared understanding.

Starting With a Hypothesis

The Core Model process typically begins before the workshop. The project lead or facilitator works with key stakeholders to:

1. Identify candidate cores based on organizational priorities and user needs.
2. Gather existing user insights and business objectives.
3. Form initial hypotheses about what these cores should accomplish.
4. Prepare relevant background materials for workshop participants.

This preparation ensures the workshop itself is focused and productive, with teams validating and refining hypotheses rather than starting from scratch.

The Core Model: Six Elements That Create Alignment 

Let’s explore each element of the Core Model in detail:

The Core Model framework with its six elements: Target Group, User Tasks, Business Objectives, Inward Paths, Forward Paths, and Core Content. (Large preview)

1. Target Group: Building Empathy First

Rather than detailed personas, the Core Model starts with quick proto-personas that build empathy for users in specific situations:

• A parent researching childcare options late at night after a long day.
• A small business owner trying to understand tax requirements between client meetings.
• A new resident navigating unfamiliar public services in their second language.

The key is to humanize users and understand their emotional and practical context before diving into solutions.

2. User Tasks: What People Are Actually Trying to Do

Beyond features or content, what are users actually trying to accomplish?

• Making an informed decision about a major purchase.
• Finding the right form to apply for a service.
• Understanding next steps in a complex process.
• Checking eligibility for a program or benefit.

These tasks should be based on user research and drive everything that follows. Top task methodology is a great approach to this.

3. Business Objectives: What Success Looks Like

Every digital initiative should connect to clear organizational goals:

• Increasing online self-service adoption.
• Reducing support costs.
• Improving satisfaction and loyalty.
• Meeting compliance requirements.
• Generating leads or sales.

These objectives provide the measurement framework for success. (If you work with OKRs, you can think of these as Key Results that connect to your overall Objective.)

4. Inward Paths: User Scenarios and Approaches

This element goes beyond just findability to include the user’s entire approach and mental model:

• What scenarios lead them to this need?
• What terminology do they use to describe their problem?
• How would the phrase their need to Google or an LLM?
• What emotions or urgency are they experiencing?
• What channels or touchpoints do they use?
• What existing knowledge do they bring?

Understanding these angles of different approaches ensures we meet users where they are.

5. Forward Paths: Guiding the Journey

What should users do after engaging with this core?

• Take a specific action to continue their task.
• Explore related information or options.
• Connect with appropriate support channels.
• Save or share their progress.

These paths create coherent journeys (core flows) rather than dead ends.

6. Core Content: The Essential Solution

Only after mapping the previous elements do we define the actual solution:

• What information must be included?
• What functionality is essential?
• What tone and language are appropriate?
• What format best serves the need?

This becomes our blueprint for what actually needs to be created.

Action Cards: From Insight to Implementation

The Core Model process culminates with action cards that answer the crucial seventh question: “What needs to be done to create this solution?”

These cards typically include:

• Specific actions required;
• Who is responsible;
• Timeline for completion;
• Resources needed;
• Dependencies and constraints.

Action cards transform insights into concrete next steps, ensuring the workshop leads to real improvements rather than just interesting discussions.

The Power of Core Pairs

A unique aspect of the Core Model methodology is working in core pairs—two people from different competencies or departments working together on the same core sheet. This approach creates several benefits:

• Cross-disciplinary insight
  Pairing someone with deep subject knowledge with someone who brings a fresh perspective.
• Built-in quality control
  Partners catch blind spots and challenge assumptions.
• Simplified communication
  One-to-one dialogue is more effective than group discussions.
• Shared ownership
  Both participants develop a commitment to the solution.
• Knowledge transfer
  Skills and insights flow naturally between disciplines.

The ideal pair combines different perspectives — content and design, business and technical, expert and novice — creating a balanced approach that neither could achieve alone.

Creating Alignment Within and Between Teams

The Core Model excels at creating two crucial types of alignment:

Within Cross-Functional Teams

Modern teams bring together diverse competencies:

• Content creators focus on messages and narrative.
• Designers think about user experience and interfaces.
• Developers consider technical implementation.
• Business stakeholders prioritize organizational needs.

The Core Model gives these specialists a common framework. Instead of the designer focusing only on interfaces or the developer only on code, everyone aligns around user tasks and business goals.

As one UX designer told me:

“The Core Model changed our team dynamic completely. Instead of handing off wireframes to developers who didn’t understand the ‘why’ behind design decisions, we now share a common understanding of what we’re trying to accomplish.”

Between Teams Across the Customer Journey

Users don’t experience your organization in silos — they move across touchpoints and teams. The Core Model helps connect these experiences:

• Marketing teams understand how their campaigns connect to service delivery.
• Product teams see how their features fit into larger user journeys.
• Support teams gain context on user pathways and common issues.
• Content teams create information that supports the entire journey.

By mapping connections between cores (core flows), organizations create coherent experiences rather than fragmented interactions.

Breaking Down Organizational Barriers 

The Core Model creates a neutral framework where various perspectives can contribute while maintaining a unified direction. This is particularly valuable in traditional organizational structures where content responsibility is distributed across departments.

The Workshop: Making It Happen

The Core Model workshop brings these elements together in a practical format that can be adapted to different contexts and needs.

Workshop Format and Timing

For complex projects with multiple stakeholders across organizational silos, the ideal format is a full-day (6–hour) workshop:

First Hour: Foundation and Context

• Introduction to the methodology (15 min).
• Sharing user insights and business context (15 min).
• Reviewing pre-workshop hypotheses (15 min).
• Initial discussion and questions (15 min).

Hours 2–4: Core Mapping

• Core pairs work on mapping elements (120 min).
• Sharing between core pairs and in plenary between elements.
• Facilitators provide guidance as needed.

Hours 5–6: Presentation, Discussion, and Action Planning

• Each core pair presents its findings (depending on the number of cores).
• Extensive group discussion and refinement.
• Creating action cards and next steps.

The format is highly flexible:

• Teams experienced with the methodology can conduct focused sessions in as little as 30 minutes.
• Smaller projects might need only 2–3 hours.
• Remote teams might split the workshop into multiple shorter sessions.

Workshop Environment

The Core Model workshop thrives in different environments:

• Analog: Traditional approach using paper core sheets.
• Digital: Virtual workshops using Miro, Mural, FigJam, or similar platforms.
• Hybrid: Digital canvas in physical workshop, combining in-person interaction with digital documentation.

Note: You can find all downloads and templates here.

Core Pairs: The Key to Success

The composition of core pairs is critical to success:

• One person should know the solution domain well (subject matter expert).
• The other brings a fresh perspective (and learns about a different domain).
• This combination ensures both depth of knowledge and fresh thinking.
• Cross-functional pairing creates natural knowledge transfer and breaks down silos.

Workshop Deliverables

Important to note: The workshop doesn’t produce final solutions.

Instead, it creates a comprehensive brief containing the following:

• Priorities and context for content development.
• Direction and ideas for design and user experience.
• Requirements and specifications for functionality.
• Action plan for implementation with clear ownership.

This brief becomes the foundation for subsequent development work, ensuring everyone builds toward the same goal while leaving room for specialist expertise during implementation.

Getting Started: Your First Core Model Implementation

Ready to apply the Core Model in your organization? Here’s how to begin:

1. Form Your Initial Hypothesis

Before bringing everyone together:

• Identify a core where users struggle and the business impact is clear.
• Gather available user insights and business objectives.
• Form a hypothesis about what this core should accomplish.
• Identify key stakeholders across relevant departments.

2. Bring Together the Right Core Pairs

Select participants who represent different perspectives:

• Content creators paired with designers.
• Business experts paired with technical specialists.
• Subject matter experts paired with user advocates.
• Veterans paired with fresh perspectives.

3. Follow the Seven Questions

Guide core pairs through the process:

• Who are we trying to help, and what’s their situation?
• What are they trying to accomplish?
• What do we want to achieve?
• How do they approach this need?
• Where should they go next?
• What’s the essential content or functionality?
• What needs to be done to create this solution?

4. Create an Action Plan

Transform insights into concrete actions:

• Document specific next steps on action cards.
• Assign clear ownership for each action.
• Establish timeline and milestones.
• Define how you’ll measure success.

In Conclusion: Common Sense In A Structured Framework

The Core Model works because it combines common sense with structure — asking the right questions in the right order to ensure we address what actually matters.

By starting FROM the answer, not WITH the solution, teams avoid premature problem-solving and create digital experiences that truly serve user needs while achieving organizational goals.

Whether you’re managing a traditional website, creating multi-channel content, or developing digital products, this methodology provides a framework for better collaboration, clearer priorities, and more effective outcomes.

Collaboration: The Most Underrated UX Skill No One Talks About

 

We often spotlight wireframes, research, or tools like Figma, but none of that moves the needle if we can’t collaborate well. Great UX doesn’t happen in isolation. It takes conversations with engineers, alignment with product, sales, and other stakeholders, as well as the ability to listen, adapt, and co-create. That’s where design becomes a team sport, and when your ability to capture the outcomes multiplies the UX impact.

When people talk about UX, it’s usually about the things they can see and interact with, like wireframes and prototypes, smart interactions, and design tools like Figma, Miro, or Maze. Some of the outputs are even glamorized, like design systems, research reports, and pixel-perfect UI designs. But here’s the truth I’ve seen again and again in over two decades of working in UX: none of that moves the needle if there is no collaboration.

Great UX doesn’t happen in isolation. It happens through conversations with engineers, product managers, customer-facing teams, and the customer support teams who manage support tickets. Amazing UX ideas come alive in messy Miro sessions, cross-functional workshops, and those online chats (e.g., Slack or Teams) where people align, adapt, and co-create.

Some of the most impactful moments in my career weren’t when I was “designing” in the traditional sense. They have been gaining incredible insights when discussing problems with teammates who have varied experiences, brainstorming, and coming up with ideas that I never could have come up with on my own. As I always say, ten minds in a room will come up with ten times as many ideas as one mind. Often, many ideas are the most useful outcome.

There have been times when a team has helped to reframe a problem in a workshop, taken vague and conflicting feedback, and clarified a path forward, or I’ve sat with a sales rep and heard the same user complaint show up in multiple conversations. This is when design becomes a team sport, and when your ability to capture the outcomes multiplies the UX impact.

Why This Article Matters Now

The reason collaboration feels so urgent now is that the way we work since COVID has changed, according to a study published by the US Department of Labor. Teams are more cross-functional, often remote, and increasingly complex. Silos are easier to fall into, due to distance or lack of face-to-face contact, and yet alignment has never been more important. We can’t afford to see collaboration as a “nice to have” anymore. It’s a core skill, especially in UX, where our work touches so many parts of an organisation.

Let’s break down what collaboration in UX really means, and why it deserves way more attention than it gets.

What Is Collaboration In UX, Really?

Let’s start by clearing up a misconception. Collaboration is not the same as cooperation.

• Cooperation: “You do your thing, I’ll do mine, and we’ll check in later.”
• Collaboration: “Let’s figure this out together and co-own the outcome.”

Collaboration, as defined in the book Communication Concepts, published by Deakin University, involves working with others to produce outputs and/or achieve shared goals. The outcome of collaboration is typically a tangible product or a measurable achievement, such as solving a problem or making a decision. Here’s an example from a recent project:

Recently, I worked on a fraud alert platform for a fintech business. It was a six-month project, and we had zero access to users, as the product had not yet hit the market. Also, the users were highly specialised in the B2B finance space and were difficult to find. Additionally, the team members I needed to collaborate with were based in Malaysia and Melbourne, while I am located in Sydney.

Instead of treating that as a dead end, we turned inward: collaborating with subject matter experts, professional services consultants, compliance specialists, and customer support team members who had deep knowledge of fraud patterns and customer pain points. Through bi-weekly workshops using a Miro board, iterative feedback loops, and sketching sessions, we worked on design solution options. I even asked them to present their own design version as part of the process.

After months of iterating on the fraud investigation platform through these collaboration sessions, I ended up with two different design frameworks for the investigator’s dashboard. Instead of just presenting the “best one” and hoping for buy-in, I ran a voting exercise with PMs, engineers, SMEs, and customer support. Everyone had a voice. The winning design was created and validated with the input of the team, resulting in an outcome that solved many problems for the end user and was owned by the entire team. That’s collaboration!

It is definitely one of the most satisfying projects of my career.

On the other hand, I recently caught up with an old colleague who now serves as a product owner. Her story was a cautionary tale: the design team had gone ahead with a major redesign of an app without looping her in until late in the game. Not surprisingly, the new design missed several key product constraints and business goals. It had to be scrapped and redone, with her now at the table. That experience reinforced what we all know deep down: your best work rarely happens in isolation.

As illustrated in my experience, true collaboration can span many roles. It’s not just between designers and PMs. It can also include QA testers who identify real-world issues, content strategists who ensure our language is clear and inclusive, sales representatives who interact with customers on a daily basis, marketers who understand the brand’s voice, and, of course, customer support agents who are often the first to hear when something goes wrong. The best outcomes arrive when we’re open to different perspectives and inputs.

Why Collaboration Is So Overlooked?

If collaboration is so powerful, why don’t we talk about it more?

In my experience, one reason is the myth of the “lone UX hero”. Many of us entered the field inspired by stories of design geniuses revolutionising products on their own. Our portfolios often reflect that as well. We showcase our solo work, our processes, and our wins. Job descriptions often reinforce the idea of the solo UX designer, listing tool proficiency and deliverables more than soft skills and team dynamics.

And then there’s the team culture within many organisations of “just get the work done”, which often leads to fewer meetings and tighter deadlines. As a result, a sense of collaboration is inefficient and wasted. I have also experienced working with some designers where perfectionism and territoriality creep in — “This is my design” — which kills the open, communal spirit that collaboration needs.

When Collaboration Is The User Research #

In an ideal world, we’d always have direct access to users. But let’s be real. Sometimes that just doesn’t happen. Whether it’s due to budget constraints, time limitations, or layers of bureaucracy, talking to end users isn’t always possible. That’s where collaboration with team members becomes even more crucial.

The next best thing to talking to users? Talking to the people who talk to users. Sales teams, customer success reps, tech support, and field engineers. They’re all user researchers in disguise!

On another B2C project, the end users were having trouble completing the key task. My role was to redesign the onboarding experience for an online identity capture tool for end users. I was unable to schedule interviews with end users due to budget and time constraints, so I turned to the sales and tech support teams.

I conducted multiple mini-workshops to identify the most common onboarding issues they had heard directly from our customers. This led to a huge “aha” moment: most users dropped off before the document capture process. They may have been struggling with a lack of instruction, not knowing the required time, or not understanding the steps involved in completing the onboarding process.

That insight reframed my approach, and we ultimately redesigned the flow to prioritize orientation and clear instructions before proceeding to the setup steps. Below is an example of one of the screen designs, including some of the instructions we added.

This kind of collaboration is user research. It’s not a substitute for talking to users directly, but it’s a powerful proxy when you have limited options.

But What About Using AI?

Glad you asked! Even AI tools, which are increasingly being used for idea generation, pattern recognition, or rapid prototyping, don’t replace collaboration; they just change the shape of it.

AI can help you explore design patterns, draft user flows, or generate multiple variations of a layout in seconds. It’s fantastic for getting past creative blocks or pressure-testing your assumptions. But let’s be clear: these tools are accelerators, not oracles. As an innovation and strategy consultant Nathan Waterhouse points out, AI can point you in a direction, but it can’t tell you which direction is the right one in your specific context. That still requires human judgment, empathy, and an understanding of the messy realities of users and business goals.

You still need people, especially those closest to your users, to validate, challenge, and evolve any AI-generated idea. For instance, you might use ChatGPT to brainstorm onboarding flows for a SaaS tool, but if you’re not involving customer support reps who regularly hear “I didn’t know where to start” or “I couldn’t even log in,” you’re just working with assumptions. The same applies to engineers who know what is technically feasible or PMs who understand where the business is headed.

AI can generate ideas, but only collaboration turns those ideas into something usable, valuable, and real. Think of it as a powerful ingredient, but not the whole recipe.

“

How To Strengthen Your UX Collaboration Skills?

If collaboration doesn’t come naturally or hasn’t been a focus, that’s okay. Like any skill, it can be practiced and improved. Here are a few ways to level up:

1. Cultivate curiosity about your teammates.
   Ask engineers what keeps them up at night. Learn what metrics your PMs care about. Understand the types of tickets the support team handles most frequently. The more you care about their challenges, the more they’ll care about yours.
2. Get comfortable facilitating.
   You don’t need to be a certified Design Sprint master, but learning how to run a structured conversation, align stakeholders, or synthesize different points of view is hugely valuable. Even a simple “What’s working? What’s not?” retro can be an amazing starting point in identifying where you need to focus next.
3. Share early, share often.
   Don’t wait until your designs are polished to get input. Messy sketches and rough prototypes invite collaboration. When others feel like they’ve helped shape the work, they’re more invested in its success.
4. Practice active listening.
   When someone critiques your work, don’t immediately defend. Pause. Ask follow-up questions. Reframe the feedback. Collaboration isn’t about consensus; it’s about finding a shared direction that can honour multiple truths.
5. Co-own the outcome.
   Let go of your ego. The best UX work isn’t “your” work. It’s the result of many voices, skill sets, and conversations converging toward a solution that helps users. It’s not “I”, it’s “we” that will solve this problem together.

Conclusion: UX Is A Team Sport

Great design doesn’t emerge from a vacuum. It comes from open dialogue, cross-functional understanding, and a shared commitment to solving real problems for real people.

If there’s one thing I wish every early-career designer knew, it’s this:

Collaboration is not a side skill. It’s the engine behind every meaningful design outcome. And for seasoned professionals, it’s the superpower that turns good teams into great ones.

“

So next time you’re tempted to go heads-down and just “crank out a design,” pause to reflect. Ask who else should be in the room. And invite them in, not just to review your work, but to help create it.

Because in the end, the best UX isn’t just what you make. It’s what you make together.

Connecting With Users: Applying Principles Of Communication To UX Research

 Communication theory is not just an academic exercise. UX practitioners benefit from an understanding of what we know about effective communication. Victor Yocco reviews the components of the Transactional Model of communication, explaining how we might apply this framework to preparing, conducting, and analysing our UX research. You will understand how many UX research best practices align with the model and get an example of a tool for tracking alignment.

Communication is in everything we do. We communicate with users through our research, our design, and, ultimately, the products and services we offer. UX practitioners and those working on digital product teams benefit from understanding principles of communication and their application to our craft. Treating our UX processes as a mode of communication between users and the digital environment can help unveil in-depth, actionable insights.

In this article, I’ll focus on UX research. Communication is a core component of UX research, as it serves to bridge the gap between research insights, design strategy, and business outcomes. UX researchers, designers, and those working with UX researchers can apply key aspects of communication theory to help gather valuable insights, enhance user experiences, and create more successful products.

Fundamentals of Communication Theory #

Communications as an academic field encompasses various models and principles that highlight the dynamics of communication between individuals and groups. Communication theory examines the transfer of information from one person or group to another. It explores how messages are transmitted, encoded, and decoded, acknowledges the potential for interference (or ‘noise’), and accounts for feedback mechanisms in enhancing the communication process.

In this article, I will focus on the Transactional Model of Communication. There are many other models and theories in the academic literature on communication. I have included references at the end of the article for those interested in learning more.

The Transactional Model of Communication (Figure 1) is a two-way process that emphasizes the simultaneous sending and receiving of messages and feedback. Importantly, it recognizes that communication is shaped by context and is an ongoing, evolving process. I’ll use this model and understanding when applying principles from the model to UX research. You’ll find that much of what is covered in the Transactional Model would also fall under general best practices for UX research, suggesting even if we aren’t communications experts, much of what we should be doing is supported by research in this field.

Figure 1: Transactional Model of Communication — Lindsay-has-Knapp. (Large preview)

Understanding the Transactional Model #

Let’s take a deeper dive into the six key factors and their applications within the realm of UX research:

1. Sender: In UX research, the sender is typically the researcher who conducts interviews, facilitates usability tests, or designs surveys. For example, if you’re administering a user interview, you are the sender who initiates the communication process by asking questions.
2. Receiver: The receiver is the individual who decodes and interprets the messages sent by the sender. In our context, this could be the user you interview or the person taking a survey you have created. They receive and process your questions, providing responses based on their understanding and experiences.
3. Message: This is the content being communicated from the sender to the receiver. In UX research, the message can take various forms, like a set of survey questions, interview prompts, or tasks in a usability test.
4. Channel: This is the medium through which the communication flows. For instance, face-to-face interviews, phone interviews, email surveys administered online, and usability tests conducted via screen sharing are all different communication channels. You might use multiple channels simultaneously, for example, communicating over voice while also using a screen share to show design concepts.
5. Noise: Any factor that may interfere with the communication is regarded as ‘noise.’ In UX research, this could be complex jargon that confuses respondents in a survey, technical issues during a remote usability test, or environmental distractions during an in-person interview.
6. Feedback: The communication received by the receiver, who then provides an output, is called feedback. For example, the responses given by a user during an interview or the data collected from a completed survey are types of feedback or the physical reaction of a usability testing participant while completing a task.
   

Meet Smashing Workshops on front-end, design & UX, with practical takeaways, live sessions, video recordings and a friendly Q&A. With Brad Frost, Stéph Walter and so many others.

Jump to the workshops ↬

Applying the Transactional Model of Communication to Preparing for UX Research #

We can become complacent or feel rushed to create our research protocols. I think this is natural in the pace of many workplaces and our need to deliver results quickly. You can apply the lens of the Transactional Model of Communication to your research preparation without adding much time. Applying the Transactional Model of Communication to your preparation should:

• Improve Clarity
  The model provides a clear representation of communication, empowering the researcher to plan and conduct studies more effectively.
• Minimize misunderstanding
  By highlighting potential noise sources, user confusion or misunderstandings can be better anticipated and mitigated.
• Enhance research participant participation
  With your attentive eye on feedback, participants are likely to feel valued, thus increasing active involvement and quality of input.

You can address the specific elements of the Transactional Model through the following steps while preparing for research:

Defining the Sender and Receiver #

In UX research, the sender can often be the UX researcher conducting the study, while the receiver is usually the research participant. Understanding this dynamic can help researchers craft questions or tasks more empathetically and efficiently. You should try to collect some information on your participant in advance to prepare yourself for building a rapport.

For example, if you are conducting contextual inquiry with the field technicians of an HVAC company, you’ll want to dress appropriately to reflect your understanding of the context in which your participants (receivers) will be conducting their work. Showing up dressed in formal attire might be off-putting and create a negative dynamic between sender and receiver.

Message Creation #

The message in UX research typically is the questions asked or tasks assigned during the study. Careful consideration of tenor, terminology, and clarity can aid data accuracy and participant engagement. Whether you are interviewing or creating a survey, you need to double-check that your audience will understand your questions and provide meaningful answers. You can pilot-test your protocol or questionnaire with a few representative individuals to identify areas that might cause confusion.

Using the HVAC example again, you might find that field technicians use certain terminology in a different way than you expect, such as asking them about what “tools” they use to complete their tasks yields you an answer that doesn’t reflect digital tools you’d find on a computer or smartphone, but physical tools like a pipe and wrench.

Choosing the Right Channel #

The channel selection depends on the method of research. For instance, face-to-face methods might use physical verbal communication, while remote methods might rely on emails, video calls, or instant messaging. The choice of the medium should consider factors like tech accessibility, ease of communication, reliability, and participant familiarity with the channel. For example, you introduce an additional challenge (noise) if you ask someone who has never used an iPhone to test an app on an iPhone.

Minimizing Noise

Noise in UX research comes in many forms, from unclear questions inducing participant confusion to technical issues in remote interviews that cause interruptions. The key is to foresee potential issues and have preemptive solutions ready.

Facilitating Feedback

You should be prepared for how you might collect and act on participant feedback during the research. Encouraging regular feedback from the user during UX research ensures their understanding and that they feel heard. This could range from asking them to ‘think aloud’ as they perform tasks or encouraging them to email queries or concerns after the session. You should document any noise that might impact your findings and account for that in your analysis and reporting.

Track Your Alignment to the Framework

You can track what you do to align your processes with the Transactional Model prior to and during research using a spreadsheet. I’ll provide an example of a spreadsheet I’ve used in the later case study section of this article. You should create your spreadsheet during the process of preparing for research, as some of what you do to prepare should align with the factors of the model.

You can use these tips for preparation regardless of the specific research method you are undertaking. Let’s now look closer at a few common methods and get specific on how you can align your actions with the Transactional Model.

Applying the Transactional Model to Common UX Research Methods 

UX research relies on interaction with users. We can easily incorporate aspects of the Transactional Model of Communication into our most common methods. Utilizing the Transactional Model in conducting interviews, surveys, and usability testing can help provide structure to your process and increase the quality of insights gathered.

Interviews

Interviews are a common method used in qualitative UX research. They provide the perfect method for applying principles from the Transactional Model. In line with the Transactional Model, the researcher (sender) sends questions (messages) in-person or over the phone/computer medium (channel) to the participant (receiver), who provides answers (feedback) while contending with potential distraction or misunderstanding (noise). Reflecting on communication as transactional can help remind us we need to respect the dynamic between ourselves and the person we are interviewing. Rather than approaching an interview as a unidirectional interrogation, researchers need to view it as a conversation.

Applying the Transactional Model to conducting interviews means we should account for a number of facts to allow for high-quality communication. Note how the following overlap with what we typically call best practices.

Asking Open-ended Questions

To truly harness a two-way flow of communication, open-ended questions, rather than close-ended ones, are crucial. For instance, rather than asking, “Do you use our mobile application?” ask, “Can you describe your use of our mobile app?”. This encourages the participant to share more expansive and descriptive insights, furthering the dialogue.

Actively Listening

As the success of an interview relies on the participant’s responses, active listening is a crucial skill for UX researchers. The researcher should encourage participants to express their thoughts and feelings freely. Reflective listening techniques, such as paraphrasing or summarizing what the participant has shared, can reinforce to the interviewee that their contributions are being acknowledged and valued. It also provides an opportunity to clarify potential noise or misunderstandings that may arise.

Being Responsive

Building on the simultaneous send-receive nature of the Transactional Model, researchers must remain responsive during interviews. Providing non-verbal cues (like nodding) and verbal affirmations (“I see,” “Interesting”) lets participants know their message is being received and understood, making them feel comfortable and more willing to share.

Minimizing Noise

We should always attempt to account for noise in advance, as well as during our interview sessions. Noise, in the form of misinterpretations or distractions, can disrupt effective communication. Researchers can proactively reduce noise by conducting a dry run in advance of the scheduled interviews. This helps you become more fluent at going through the interview and also helps identify areas that might need improvement or be misunderstood by participants. You also reduce noise by creating a conducive interview environment, minimizing potential distractions, and asking clarifying questions during the interview whenever necessary.

For example, if a participant uses a term the researcher doesn’t understand, the researcher should politely ask for clarification rather than guessing its meaning and potentially misinterpreting the data.

Additional forms of noise can include participant confusion or distraction. You should let participants know to ask if they are unclear on anything you say or do. It’s a good idea to always ask participants to put their smartphones on mute. You should only provide information critical to the process when introducing the interview or tasks. For example, you don’t need to give a full background of the history of the product you are researching if that isn’t required for the participant to complete the interview. However, you should let them know the purpose of the research, gain their consent to participate, and inform them of how long you expect the session to last.

Strategizing the Flow

Researchers should build strategic thinking into their interviews to support the Transaction Model. Starting the interview with less intrusive questions can help establish rapport and make the participant more comfortable, while more challenging or sensitive questions can be left for later when the interviewee feels more at ease.

A well-planned interview encourages a fluid dialogue and exchange of ideas. This is another area where conducting a dry run can help to ensure high-quality research. You and your dry-run participants should recognize areas where questions aren’t flowing in the best order or don’t make sense in the context of the interview, allowing you to correct the flow in advance.

While much of what the Transactional Model informs for interviews already aligns with common best practices, the model would suggest we need to have a deeper consideration of factors that we can sometimes give less consideration when we become overly comfortable with interviewing or are unaware of the implications of forgetting to address the factors of context considerations, power dynamics, and post-interview actions.

Context Considerations

You need to account for both the context of the participant, e.g., their background, demographic, and psychographic information, as well as the context of the interview itself. You should make subtle yet meaningful modifications depending on the channel you are conducting an interview.

For example, you should utilize video and be aware of your facial and physical responses if you are conducting an interview using an online platform, whereas if it’s a phone interview, you will need to rely on verbal affirmations that you are listening and following along, while also being mindful not to interrupt the participant while they are speaking.

Power Dynamics

Researchers need to be aware of how your role, background, and identity might influence the power dynamics of the interview. You can attempt to address power dynamics by sharing research goals transparently and addressing any potential concerns about bias a participant shares.

We are responsible for creating a safe and inclusive space for our interviews. You do this through the use of inclusive language, listening actively without judgment, and being flexible to accommodate different ways of knowing and expressing experiences. You should also empower participants as collaborators whenever possible. You can offer opportunities for participants to share feedback on the interview process and analysis. Doing this validates participants’ experiences and knowledge and ensures their voices are heard and valued.

Post-Interview Actions #

You have a number of options for actions that can close the loop of your interviews with participants in line with the “feedback” the model suggests is a critical part of communication. Some tactics you can consider following your interview include:

• Debriefing
  Dedicate a few minutes at the end to discuss the participant’s overall experience, impressions, and suggestions for future interviews.
• Short surveys
  Send a brief survey via email or an online platform to gather feedback on the interview experience.
• Follow-up calls
  Consider follow-up calls with specific participants to delve deeper into their feedback and gain additional insight if you find that is warranted.
• Thank you emails
  Include a “feedback” section in your thank you email, encouraging participants to share their thoughts on the interview.

You also need to do something with the feedback you receive. Researchers and product teams should make time for reflexivity and critical self-awareness.

As practitioners in a human-focused field, we are expected to continuously examine how our assumptions and biases might influence our interviews and findings.

“

We shouldn’t practice our craft in a silo. Instead, seeking feedback from colleagues and mentors to maintain ethical research practices should be a standard practice for interviews and all UX research methods.

By considering interviews as an ongoing transaction and exchange of ideas rather than a unidirectional Q&A, UX researchers can create a more communicative and engaging environment. You can see how models of communication have informed best practices for interviews. With a better knowledge of the Transactional Model, you can go deeper and check your work against the framework of the model.

Surveys

The Transactional Model of Communication reminds us to acknowledge the feedback loop even in seemingly one-way communication methods like surveys. Instead of merely sending out questions and collecting responses, we need to provide space for respondents to voice their thoughts and opinions freely. When we make participants feel heard, engagement with our surveys should increase, dropouts should decrease, and response quality should improve.

Like other methods, surveys involve the researcher(s) creating the instructions and questionnaire (sender), the survey, including any instructions, disclaimers, and consent forms (the message), how the survey is administered, e.g., online, in person, or pen and paper (the channel), the participant (receiver), potential misunderstandings or distractions (noise), and responses (feedback).

Designing the Survey

Understanding the Transactional Model will help researchers design more effective surveys. Researchers are encouraged to be aware of both their role as the sender and to anticipate the participant’s perspective as the receiver. Begin surveys with clear instructions, explaining why you’re conducting the survey and how long it’s estimated to take. This establishes a more communicative relationship with respondents right from the start. Test these instructions with multiple people prior to launching the survey.

Crafting Questions

The questions should be crafted to encourage feedback and not just a simple yes or no. You should consider asking scaled questions or items that have been statistically validated to measure certain attributes of users.

For example, if you were looking deeper at a mobile banking application, rather than asking, “Did you find our product easy to use?” you would want to break that out into multiple aspects of the experience and ask about each with a separate question such as “On a scale of 1–7, with 1 being extremely difficult and 7 being extremely easy, how would you rate your experience transferring money from one account to another?”.

Minimizing Noise

Reducing ‘noise,’ or misunderstandings, is crucial for increasing the reliability of responses. Your first line of defense in reducing noise is to make sure you are sampling from the appropriate population you want to conduct the research with. You need to use a screener that will filter out non-viable participants prior to including them in the survey. You do this when you correctly identify the characteristics of the population you want to sample from and then exclude those falling outside of those parameters.

Additionally, you should focus on prioritizing finding participants through random sampling from the population of potential participants versus using a convenience sample, as this helps to ensure you are collecting reliable data.

When looking at the survey itself, there are a number of recommendations to reduce noise. You should ensure questions are easily understandable, avoid technical jargon, and sequence questions logically. A question bank should be reviewed and tested before being finalized for distribution.

For example, question statements like “Do you use and like this feature?” can confuse respondents because they are actually two separate questions: do you use the feature, and do you like the feature? You should separate out questions like this into more than one question.

You should use visual aids that are relevant whenever possible to enhance the clarity of the questions. For example, if you are asking questions about an application’s “Dashboard” screen, you might want to provide a screenshot of that page so survey takers have a clear understanding of what you are referencing. You should also avoid the use of jargon if you are surveying a non-technical population and explain any terminology that might be unclear to participants taking the survey.

The Transactional Model suggests active participation in communication is necessary for effective communication. Participants can become distracted or take a survey without intending to provide thoughtful answers. You should consider adding a question somewhere in the middle of the survey to check that participants are paying attention and responding appropriately, particularly for longer surveys.

This is often done using a simple math problem such as “What is the answer to 1+1?” Anyone not responding with the answer of “2” might not be adequately paying attention to the responses they are providing and you’d want to look closer at their responses, eliminating them from your analysis if deemed appropriate.

Encouraging Feedback

While descriptive feedback questions are one way of promoting dialogue, you can also include areas where respondents can express any additional thoughts or questions they have outside of the set question list. This is especially useful in online surveys, where researchers can’t immediately address participant’s questions or clarify doubts.

You should be mindful that too many open-ended questions can cause fatigue, so you should limit the number of open-ended questions. I recommend two to three open-ended questions depending on the length of your overall survey.

Post-Survey Actions

After collecting and analyzing the data, you can send follow-up communications to the respondents. Let them know the changes made based on their feedback, thank them for their participation, or even share a summary of the survey results. This fulfills the Transactional Model’s feedback loop and communicates to the respondent that their input was received, valued, and acted upon.

You can also meet this suggestion by providing an email address for participants to follow up if they desire more information post-survey. You are allowing them to complete the loop themselves if they desire.

Applying the transactional model to surveys can breathe new life into the way surveys are conducted in UX research. It encourages active participation from respondents, making the process more interactive and engaging while enhancing the quality of the data collected. You can experiment with applying some or all of the steps listed above. You will likely find you are already doing much of what’s mentioned, however being explicit can allow you to make sure you are thoughtfully applying these principles from the field communication.

Usability Testing

Usability testing is another clear example of a research method highlighting components of the Transactional Model. In the context of usability testing, the Transactional Model of Communication’s application opens a pathway for a richer understanding of the user experience by positioning both the user and the researcher as sender and receiver of communication simultaneously.

Here are some ways a researcher can use elements of the Transactional Model during usability testing:

Task Assignment as Message Sending

When a researcher assigns tasks to a user during usability testing, they act as the sender in the communication process. To ensure the user accurately receives the message, these tasks need to be clear and well-articulated. For example, a task like “Register a new account on the app” sends a clear message to the user about what they need to do.

You don’t need to tell them how to do the task, as usually, that’s what we are trying to determine from our testing, but if you are not clear on what you want them to do, your message will not resonate in the way it is intended. This is another area where a dry run in advance of the testing is an optimal solution for making sure tasks are worded clearly.

Observing and Listening as Message Receiving

As the participant interacts with the application, concept, or design, the researcher, as the receiver, picks up on verbal and nonverbal cues. For instance, if a user is clicking around aimlessly or murmuring in confusion, the researcher can take these as feedback about certain elements of the design that are unclear or hard to use. You can also ask the user to explain why they are giving these cues you note as a way to provide them with feedback on their communication.

Real-time Interaction

The transactional nature of the model recognizes the importance of real-time interaction. For example, if during testing, the user is unsure of what a task means or how to proceed, the researcher can provide clarification without offering solutions or influencing the user’s action. This interaction follows the communication flow prescribed by the transactional model. We lose the ability to do this during unmoderated testing; however, many design elements are forms of communication that can serve to direct users or clarify the purpose of an experience (to be covered more in article two).

Noise

In usability testing, noise could mean unclear tasks, users’ preconceived notions, or even issues like slow software response. Acknowledging noise can help researchers plan and conduct tests better. Again, carrying out a pilot test can help identify any noise in the main test scenarios, allowing for necessary tweaks before actual testing. Other forms of noise can be less obvious but equally intrusive. For example, if you are conducting a test using a Macbook laptop and your participant is used to a PC, there is noise you need to account for, given their unfamiliarity with the laptop you’ve provided.

The fidelity of the design artifact being tested might introduce another form of noise. I’ve always advocated testing at any level of fidelity, but you should note that if you are using “Lorem Ipsum” or black and white designs, this potentially adds noise.

One of my favorite examples of this was a time when I was testing a financial services application, and the designers had put different balances on the screen; however, the total for all balances had not been added up to the correct total. Virtually every person tested noted this discrepancy, although it had nothing to do with the tasks at hand. I had to acknowledge we’d introduced noise to the testing. As at least one participant noted, they wouldn’t trust a tool that wasn’t able to total balances correctly.

Encouraging Feedback

Under the Transactional Model’s guidance, feedback isn’t just final thoughts after testing; it should be facilitated at each step of the process. Encouraging ‘think aloud’ protocols, where the user verbalizes their thoughts, reactions, and feelings during testing, ensures a constant flow of useful feedback.

You are receiving feedback throughout the process of usability testing, and the model provides guidance on how you should use that feedback to create a shared meaning with the participants. You will ultimately summarize this meaning in your report. You’ll later end up uncovering if this shared meaning was correctly interpreted when you design or redesign the product based on your findings.

We’ve now covered how to apply the Transactional Model of Communication to three common UX Research methods. All research with humans involves communication. You can break down other UX methods using the Model’s factors to make sure you engage in high-quality research.

Analyzing and Reporting UX Research Data Through the Lens of the Transactional Model

The Transactional Model of Communication doesn’t only apply to the data collection phase (interviews, surveys, or usability testing) of UX research. Its principles can provide valuable insights during the data analysis process.

The Transactional Model instructs us to view any communication as an interactive, multi-layered dialogue — a concept that is particularly useful when unpacking user responses. Consider the ‘message’ components: In the context of data analysis, the messages are the users’ responses. As researchers, thinking critically about how respondents may have internally processed the survey questions, interview discussion, or usability tasks can yield richer insights into user motivations.

Understanding Context #

Just as the Transactional Model emphasizes the simultaneous interchange of communication, UX researchers should consider the user’s context while interpreting data. Decoding the meaning behind a user’s words or actions involves understanding their background, experiences, and the situation when they provide responses.

Deciphering Noise #

In the Transactional Model, noise presents a potential barrier to effective communication. Similarly, researchers must be aware of snowballing themes or frequently highlighted issues during analysis. Noise, in this context, could involve patterns of confusion, misunderstandings, or consistently highlighted problems by users. You need to account for this, e.g., the example I provided where participants constantly referred to the incorrect math on static wireframes.

Considering Sender-Receiver Dynamics #

Remember that as a UX researcher, your interpretation of user responses will be influenced by your understandings, biases, or preconceptions, just as the responses were influenced by the user’s perceptions. By acknowledging this, researchers can strive to neutralize any subjective influence and ensure the analysis remains centered on the user’s perspective. You can ask other researchers to double-check your work to attempt to account for bias.

For example, if you come up with a clear theme that users need better guidance in the application you are testing, another researcher from outside of the project should come to a similar conclusion if they view the data; if not, you should have a conversation with them to determine what different perspectives you are each bringing to the data analysis.

Reporting Results #

Understanding your audience is crucial for delivering a persuasive UX research presentation. Tailoring your communication to resonate with the specific concerns and interests of your stakeholders can significantly enhance the impact of your findings. Here are some more details:

• Identify Stakeholder Groups
  Identify the different groups of stakeholders who will be present in your audience. This could include designers, developers, product managers, and executives.
• Prioritize Information
  Prioritize the information based on what matters most to each stakeholder group. For example, designers might be more interested in usability issues, while executives may prioritize business impact.
• Adapt Communication Style
  Adjust your communication style to align with the communication preferences of each group. Provide technical details for developers and emphasize user experience benefits for executives.

Acknowledging Feedback #

Respecting this Transactional Model’s feedback loop, remember to revisit user insights after implementing design changes. This ensures you stay user-focused, continuously validating or adjusting your interpretations based on users’ evolving feedback. You can do this in a number of ways. You can reconnect with users to show them updated designs and ask questions to see if the issues you attempted to resolve were resolved.

Another way to address this without having to reconnect with the users is to create a spreadsheet or other document to track all the recommendations that were made and reconcile the changes with what is then updated in the design. You should be able to map the changes users requested to updates or additions to the product roadmap for future updates. This acknowledges that users were heard and that an attempt to address their pain points will be documented.

Crucially, the Transactional Model teaches us that communication is rarely simple or one-dimensional. It encourages UX researchers to take a more nuanced, context-aware approach to data analysis, resulting in deeper user understanding and more accurate, user-validated results.

By maintaining an ongoing feedback loop with users and continually refining interpretations, researchers can ensure that their work remains grounded in real user experiences and needs.

“

Tracking Your Application of the Transactional Model to Your Practice

You might find it useful to track how you align your research planning and execution to the framework of the Transactional Model. I’ve created a spreadsheet to outline key factors of the model and used this for some of my work. Demonstrated below is an example derived from a study conducted for a banking client that included interviews and usability testing. I completed this spreadsheet during the process of planning and conducting interviews. Anonymized data from our study has been furnished to show an example of how you might populate a similar spreadsheet with your information.

You can customize the spreadsheet structure to fit your specific research topic and interview approach. By documenting your application of the transactional model, you can gain valuable insights into the dynamic nature of communication and improve your interview skills for future research.

Stage	Columns	Description	Example
Pre-Interview Planning	Topic/Question (Aligned with research goals)	Identify the research question and design questions that encourage open-ended responses and co-construction of meaning.	Testing mobile banking app’s bill payment feature. How do you set up a new payee? How would you make a payment? What are your overall impressions?
	Participant Context	Note relevant demographic and personal information to tailor questions and avoid biased assumptions.	35-year-old working professional, frequent user of the online banking and mobile application but unfamiliar with using the app for bill pay.
	Engagement Strategies	Outline planned strategies for active listening, open-ended questions, clarification prompts, and building rapport.	Open-ended follow-up questions (“Can you elaborate on XYZ? Or Please explain more to me what you mean by XYZ.”), active listening cues, positive reinforcement (“Thank you for sharing those details”).
	Shared Understanding	List potential challenges to understanding participant’s perspectives and strategies for ensuring shared meaning.	Initially, the participant expressed some confusion about the financial jargon I used. I clarified and provided simpler [non-jargon] explanations, ensuring we were on the same page.
During Interview	Verbal Cues	Track participant’s language choices, including metaphors, pauses, and emotional expressions.	Participant used a hesitant tone when describing negative experiences with the bill payment feature. When questioned, they stated it was “likely their fault” for not understanding the flow [it isn’t their fault].
	Nonverbal Cues	Note participant’s nonverbal communication like body language, facial expressions, and eye contact.	Frowning and crossed arms when discussing specific pain points.
	Researcher Reflexivity	Record moments where your own biases or assumptions might influence the interview and potential mitigation strategies.	Recognized my own familiarity with the app might bias my interpretation of users’ understanding [e.g., going slower than I would have when entering information]. Asked clarifying questions to avoid imposing my assumptions.
	Power Dynamics	Identify instances where power differentials emerge and actions taken to address them.	Participant expressed trust in the research but admitted feeling hesitant to criticize the app directly. I emphasized anonymity and encouraged open feedback.
	Unplanned Questions	List unplanned questions prompted by the participant’s responses that deepen understanding.	What alternative [non-bank app] methods for paying bills that you use? (Prompted by participant’s frustration with app bill pay).
Post-Interview Reflection	Meaning Co-construction	Analyze how both parties contributed to building shared meaning and insights.	Through dialogue, we collaboratively identified specific design flaws in the bill payment interface and explored additional pain points and areas that worked well.
	Openness and Flexibility	Evaluate how well you adapted to unexpected responses and maintained an open conversation.	Adapted questioning based on participant’s emotional cues and adjusted language to minimize technical jargon when that issue was raised.
	Participant Feedback	Record any feedback received from participants regarding the interview process and areas for improvement.	Thank you for the opportunity to be in the study. I’m glad my comments might help improve the app for others. I’d be happy to participate in future studies.
	Ethical Considerations	Reflect on whether the interview aligned with principles of transparency, reciprocity, and acknowledging power dynamics.	Maintained anonymity throughout the interview and ensured informed consent was obtained. Data will be stored and secured as outlined in the research protocol.
	Key Themes/Quotes	Use this column to identify emerging themes or save quotes you might refer to later when creating the report.	Frustration with a confusing interface, lack of intuitive navigation, and desire for more customization options.
	Analysis Notes	Use as many lines as needed to add notes for consideration during analysis.	Add notes here.

You can use the suggested columns from this table as you see fit, adding or subtracting as needed, particularly if you use a method other than interviews. I usually add the following additional Columns for logistical purposes:

• Date of Interview,
• Participant ID,
• Interview Format (e.g., in person, remote, video, phone).

Conclusion #

By incorporating aspects of communication theory into UX research, UX researchers and those who work with UX researchers can enhance the effectiveness of their communication strategies, gather more accurate insights, and create better user experiences. Communication theory provides a framework for understanding the dynamics of communication, and its application to UX research enables researchers to tailor their approaches to specific audiences, employ effective interviewing techniques, design surveys and questionnaires, establish seamless communication channels during usability testing, and interpret data more effectively.

As the field of UX research continues to evolve, integrating communication theory into research practices will become increasingly essential for bridging the gap between users and design teams, ultimately leading to more successful products that resonate with target audiences.

As a UX professional, it is important to continually explore and integrate new theories and methodologies to enhance your practice. By leveraging communication theory principles, you can better understand user needs, improve the user experience, and drive successful outcomes for digital products and services.

Integrating communication theory into UX research is an ongoing journey of learning and implementing best practices. Embracing this approach empowers researchers to effectively communicate their findings to stakeholders and foster collaborative decision-making, ultimately driving positive user experiences and successful design outcomes.

References and Further Reading

• The Mathematical Theory of Communication (PDF), Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W.
• From organizational effectiveness to relationship indicators: Antecedents of relationships, public relations strategies, and relationship outcomes, Grunig, J. E., & Huang, Y. H.
• Communication and persuasion: Psychological studies of opinion change, Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Yale University Press
• Communication research as an autonomous discipline, Chaffee, S. H. (1986). Communication Yearbook, 10, 243-274
• Interpersonal Communication: Everyday Encounters (PDF), Wood, J. (2015)
• Theories of Human Communication, Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (2011)
• McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory (PDF), McQuail, D. (2010)
• Bridges Not Walls: A Book About Interpersonal Communication, Stewart, J. (2012)