Research that settles arguments instead of generating slides.
Most research decks get read once. We run interviews, usability tests and journey mapping designed to answer a specific decision you are stuck on — and we deliver findings ranked by what they should change, not organised by what we did.
When research is worth the time
A big build is about to start on an assumption
The roadmap commits a quarter of engineering to something nobody has validated. Two weeks of research is the cheapest insurance available against three months of building the wrong thing.
Analytics show what, never why
You can see the drop-off precisely and have no idea what causes it. Quantitative data localises the problem; only qualitative research explains it well enough to fix.
The team disagrees and nobody can win
Two credible internal positions, no evidence either way, and the decision keeps getting deferred. Research is often faster than continuing to argue.
You're designing for users unlike yourselves
Enterprise operations staff, students, drivers, traders. When the team is not the user — which is most of the time in B2B — intuition is unreliable in ways that are invisible from inside.
What you actually get
In-depth user interviews
Structured conversations with your actual users or target segment, run to surface behaviour and context rather than opinions and feature requests.
Usability testing
Task-based testing on your live product or a prototype, moderated or unmoderated, with recordings and timestamped findings your team can watch rather than take on trust.
Journey mapping
The end-to-end path including the parts outside your product — the spreadsheet, the email, the phone call — where much of the real friction usually lives.
Competitive and category analysis
What conventions your users already carry from other tools. Violating an established convention costs adoption unless there is a very good reason.
Synthesis and prioritised findings
Findings ranked by decision impact, each stated as a specific recommendation with the evidence attached — not a themed summary that leaves interpretation to you.
Working session with your team
We present, your team pushes back, and we agree together what actually changes. Research that is not argued with does not change behaviour.
How the engagement runs
Frame the decision
Days 1–3. We define what decision the research must inform. If we cannot name one, we will tell you the research is not worth running.
Recruit and prepare
Days 3–7. Participant recruitment against a defined screener, discussion guide and test protocol.
Run the study
Week 2. Interviews or usability sessions, recorded and timestamped, with interim findings shared as they emerge rather than held to the end.
Synthesise and present
Weeks 3–4. Analysis, prioritised findings and a working session where the team decides what changes.
Proof
Adda247 — research at consumer scale
Research into onboarding and test-taking behaviour across eight modules drove a 45% rise in onboarding completion and a 60% fall in support tickets. Both numbers came from understanding where users stalled — not from redesigning what looked dated. Read the full case study →
Related work
Research is the default first phase of product design and SaaS product design engagements. For a faster, lower-cost diagnostic, a UX audit may be the better starting point.
What it costs
Standalone or embedded
Research runs either as a standalone study — useful when you need evidence for a decision and nothing else — or as the first phase of a design engagement, where it is included. Standalone studies are fixed-scope and fixed-price. See the pricing page.
Typical timeline
Two to four weeks depending on recruitment difficulty. Enterprise and specialist audiences take longer to recruit; consumer studies are usually at the faster end.
Common questions
For usability testing, five to eight participants per distinct user type surfaces the large majority of usability problems — additional participants mostly repeat what you have already heard. For generative research aimed at understanding a market or behaviour, eight to twelve is more typical. We would rather run two well-defined smaller studies than one large unfocused one.
Either. Recruiting from your own user base is faster, cheaper and usually more representative, so we prefer it where possible. Where you need people outside your existing users — non-customers, competitors' users, a new segment — we handle recruitment against an agreed screener, which adds time and cost to the study.
An audit is expert evaluation: we assess your product against usability principles and observed data, quickly and cheaply. Research is empirical: we observe actual users. The audit tells you what is likely wrong; research tells you what is actually happening and why. If budget only allows one, start with the audit — it is faster and often sufficient.
Prioritised findings ranked by decision impact, each with the evidence attached and stated as a specific recommendation. Plus session recordings with timestamps so your team can watch the relevant moments rather than take our word for it, and a working session to argue it through and agree what changes.
We work with your quantitative data rather than generating it. Analytics review, funnel analysis and survey data all feed into how we scope and interpret a study. Our own contribution is the qualitative half — the part that explains why the numbers look the way they do.
Sometimes not, and we will say so. If the team genuinely shares the users' context and the decision is reversible, intuition plus a fast experiment may be better value. Research earns its cost when the decision is expensive to reverse, when the team is not the user, or when a credible internal disagreement has stalled progress.
Yes — that is often when it is most valuable, because nothing is locked in. We test prototypes or concepts with people matching your target profile. Findings at this stage cost a design revision to act on rather than an engineering rebuild.
Evaluating design partners? Read our buyer's guide to choosing a product design agency — including when hiring an agency is the wrong call.
What decision are you stuck on?
Tell us the decision. In 30 minutes we'll tell you what research would actually resolve it — and whether you need research at all, because sometimes you don't.