Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Plan and execute user research for defined product problem
3–4 weeks (research planning + recruitment + sessions)
Define a specific product problem and design a research plan to investigate it. Choose minimum two methods from: interviews, surveys, diary studies, contextual inquiry, or card sorting. Recruit a minimum of six participants matching your target user. Conduct the sessions and document raw data (full interview transcripts, session notes, or survey responses).
Proof required
Submit your research plan (problem statement, methods, recruitment criteria, discussion guide or survey instrument) and raw data documentation (transcripts or session notes) as a PDF.
What gets checked
- Problem statement is specific and testable — not 'I want to understand users'
- Minimum six participants with documented recruitment criteria matching the target user
- Raw data is complete — full transcripts or session notes, not retrospective summaries
Common mistakes
- Problem statement is too broad to constrain the research design
- Fewer than six participants — insufficient for pattern identification
- Raw data was summarised at collection — the synthesis stage requires unmediated raw material
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Verify research plan specifies a testable problem — ask student what a successful or failed research outcome would look like
- Check six or more participants with documented recruitment criteria
- Verify raw data is complete transcripts or notes — not retrospective summaries
- Ask student: what surprised you in the research? Inability to name a surprise may indicate the research confirmed pre-existing assumptions
Analyse data and produce synthesis artefact with insight statements
2 weeks (analysis + synthesis)
Analyse your raw research data using a structured synthesis method: affinity mapping, thematic analysis, or jobs-to-be-done mapping. Produce a synthesis artefact documenting the process and a minimum of five insight statements, each with a supporting quote or observation from the raw data.
Proof required
Submit your synthesis artefact (affinity diagram photograph or export, thematic analysis document, or JTBD canvas) and five or more insight statements with supporting evidence.
What gets checked
- Synthesis artefact documents process, not just conclusions — groupings and themes are visible
- Insight statements are grounded in raw data — each has a specific supporting quote or observation
- Insights are non-obvious — not restatements of the research questions or prior assumptions
Common mistakes
- Synthesis artefact shows final categories without intermediate groupings — the process is absent
- Insight statements are opinions rather than data-derived conclusions
- Insights confirm existing assumptions — the synthesis found nothing the researcher didn't already believe
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Check synthesis artefact shows process — ask student to walk through how they moved from raw data to insights
- Verify insight statements have specific supporting evidence from raw data
- Ask student: which insight was most surprising and why? This reveals whether synthesis was genuinely exploratory
Present research synthesis for methodology challenge
1 week
Present your research synthesis to a UX practitioner, product manager, or design researcher in a review session (minimum 20 minutes). The reviewer should challenge your methodology, sampling, or interpretation. Document specific challenges and produce a research limitations statement (minimum 300 words) addressing what the research can and cannot conclude.
Proof required
Submit: (1) review session record (date, reviewer, specific methodology challenges — minimum half page), (2) research limitations statement (minimum 300 words).
What gets checked
- Review record documents specific methodology challenges — not general presentation feedback
- Limitations statement is honest about what the research cannot conclude
- Limitations statement is shaped by the review — not written before it unchanged
Common mistakes
- Review focuses on presentation quality rather than methodology
- Limitations statement is defensive rather than honest
- Limitations statement was written before the review and never revised
Resources
Foundationstart here
What a verifier looks for
- Confirm review challenged methodology — ask student to name one specific limitation raised
- Verify limitations statement is honest and specific about what the research cannot conclude
- Ask student: if you ran this research again with more time and budget, what would you change and why?
Part of