Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Run and Synthesise a Real Usability Study
4–6 weeks (recruiting + 5 sessions + synthesis)
Conduct a usability study on a real product — yours, your company's, or a competitor's — with at least 5 participants. The study must use think-aloud protocol: participants narrate their thoughts as they complete real tasks, and you observe without guiding (you can clarify but not explain). Produce a synthesis report: usability findings categorised by severity (critical — blocks task completion, major — significantly impedes, minor — causes friction), with a specific recommendation for each critical finding.
Proof required
Submit your usability study plan (tasks + recruitment criteria + observation protocol), 3–5 observation notes from real sessions (participant # + task + what happened + observer notes, minimum 200 words per session), and the synthesis report (findings by severity with at least 2 critical findings and a recommendation for each).
What gets checked
- Observation notes capture what the participant did and said, not what the observer concluded — 'participant paused for 3 seconds, said "I don't know where to click"' not 'participant was confused'
- Synthesis report has at least 2 critical findings (not just minor friction) — a study that finds only minor issues has either been run with tasks that are too easy or has not been synthesised rigorously
- Each critical finding includes a specific design recommendation — 'redesign the checkout flow' is not a recommendation; 'move the CTA above the fold and label it "Confirm order" instead of "Submit"' is
Common mistakes
- Guiding participants through the tasks rather than observing — 'you might want to click the blue button' invalidates the observation; the study measures what users would do independently
- A synthesis that is a list of individual session summaries rather than cross-session themes — synthesis means finding patterns that appear across multiple participants
- Tasks that are too vague ('explore the app') or too specific ('click the blue button in the top right') — the tasks must be realistic and goal-directed
Resources
Foundationstart here
What a verifier looks for
- Ask the submitter to read one observation note aloud — if it sounds like an interpretation ('the participant was frustrated') rather than an observation ('the participant muttered "where is it" and clicked the wrong link twice'), the notes were not taken correctly
- Check that the critical findings are accompanied by design recommendations that are specific enough for a designer to act on without further clarification
- Ask the submitter what they would change about their task design if they ran the study again — genuine usability research always reveals that some tasks were not well-designed
- Confirm participants completed the tasks without guidance — ask the submitter to describe one moment where they had to resist helping a participant
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.
Deliver a Research Report That Changes a Decision
4–6 weeks (brief + study + report)
Conduct a research study — qualitative (user interviews) or quantitative (survey analysis, analytics interpretation) — for a real decision that a team or stakeholder needs to make. The research must be commissioned: someone asked you to answer a specific question before you designed the study. The deliverable is a research report presented to the commissioner — not just a summary for yourself — with a clear recommendation that the commissioner can act on.
Proof required
Submit the research brief (what question, who commissioned it, by when), the research report (methodology, findings, confidence level, recommendation), and a one-paragraph description of what the commissioner decided as a result of the report.
What gets checked
- Research brief names the real commissioner — not 'the team' but a specific person or role who requested the research
- Research report includes a confidence level (why you are or are not confident in the findings, given the sample size, methodology, and potential biases)
- The one-paragraph decision description names the actual decision that was made — 'the team found it useful' is not a decision outcome
Common mistakes
- Self-commissioned research ('I decided to research this question') — the value of research comes from its influence on decisions made by others; self-commissioned research has no decision impact to demonstrate
- A report that presents all findings equally without a recommendation — a research report that ends with 'here is what we found, now you decide' has not done the synthesis work
- Confidence level that is a rating number without explanation — 'confidence: 7/10' means nothing without explaining the specific reasons for uncertainty
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Ask the submitter who commissioned the research and what happened when they received the report — the impact of research is only visible through its downstream decisions
- Check the confidence level explanation — ask the submitter to name the most important limitation of the research and how it affects the reliability of the recommendation
- Ask what the submitter would do differently if they ran the study again with twice the time — this tests whether the M2 work produced genuine research learning
- Ask whether the commissioner agreed with the recommendation or pushed back — either outcome is valid; both test the quality of the research
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.
Present a Research Portfolio to a Senior UX Researcher
1–2 weeks (60–90 min session)
Present your M1 usability study and M2 commissioned research to a qualified reviewer: a senior UX researcher, lead researcher, or research director with 5+ years of industry UX research experience. The reviewer challenges the methodology choices (why think-aloud and not diary study, why qualitative and not survey?), identifies one finding they would have interpreted differently from the evidence, and presents a novel research question — in your product domain — that you must scope and design a study for live.
Proof required
Submit your M1 and M2 artefacts plus the reviewer's written assessment: the methodology challenge and your response, the alternative finding interpretation and your response, the novel research question and your live study design response, and their sign-off confirming their role and a live session.
What gets checked
- Methodology challenge response names the specific trade-off (what would think-aloud reveal that diary study would not, and vice versa) not just a defence of the chosen method
- Live study design response includes methodology, participant criteria, and at least 2 specific research questions — not just 'I would do interviews'
- Reviewer sign-off confirms 5+ years of UX research in industry (not academic research only, not UX design with some research involvement)
Common mistakes
- Methodology challenge response that defends the choice without acknowledging the alternatives — a researcher who cannot articulate what a different method would have revealed has not genuinely chosen a method
- Live study design that describes a general approach without getting specific — 'I would interview users about their experience' is not a study design
- A reviewer who is a UX designer with research experience rather than a dedicated researcher — the challenge questions must come from someone whose primary practice is research
Powstik Guide
A senior reviewer's written assessment of your research portfolio.
Steps
- Find someone with years of relevant work.
- Send your work beforehand.
- Let them pick what to challenge.
- Answer live, then get it in writing.
- Note what you'll change.
Template
Reviewer: Role: Years: Challenge raised: My response: Their assessment: What I'll change:
What gets sent back
- Reviewer without relevant experience.
- Verbal feedback only.
- No challenge recorded.
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Prepare the novel research question before the session — it should be in the same product domain as the M1 and M2 work, so the submitter can apply genuine domain knowledge in the live study design
- The alternative finding interpretation should be genuinely plausible — ask the submitter to acknowledge whether the alternative interpretation is possible given the evidence
- Reviewer minimum qualification: 5+ years of dedicated UX research in industry; UX designers with research involvement are less appropriate because the challenge questions require deep methodological knowledge
- Ask the submitter what research method they would most like to learn next and why — this tests whether the M1 and M2 work produced genuine research curiosity
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.