Research operations case study · ADP · Enablement

Four designers for every researcher

How I built a research enablement programme so designers and content writers at ADP could run their own low-risk studies without lowering the bar.

CompanyADP, UX organisation: about 200 designers and about 50 researchers
My roleFounder and facilitator of the Research Enablement programme
Type of workResearch operations, training and governance
Who it was forUX designers and UX content writers
What I builtA four-pillar framework, a playbook, templates, workshops, tool training and a support hub
Outcome12 participants, 6 studies started, 4 completed with a stakeholder readout

The one-minute version

The problem
ADP had roughly four designers for every researcher. Researchers could not cover every research need, so design questions were either waiting in a queue or going untested.
What I did
I founded and ran an enablement programme that taught designers and content writers to run their own studies, limited to work that was low risk for the business, with a researcher still attached to every study.
How it worked
  1. Knowledge. A playbook, templates and workshops on the research process and on which method to use when.
  2. Autonomy. Hands-on training in the tools, group sessions and one-to-ones.
  3. Support. One hub for everything, a dedicated channel, and governance and compliance training.
  4. Influence. Feedback loops and recognition, so the programme kept improving and kept its participants.
What happened
12 participants took part and started 6 studies. 4 were completed, meaning the readout was delivered and shared with stakeholders. 90% of participants were satisfied or very satisfied.
4:1
designers to researchers, about 200 to 50
12
programme participants
4 of 6
studies completed with a readout
90%
satisfied or very satisfied
100%
attendance at the tools training
01

More research needs than researchers

ADP recognised the imbalance between UX Research and UX Design and set out to spread research capability across its design and content teams. The aim was a culture of evidence-based decisions, with validation done through scalable approaches such as unmoderated testing.

The capacity gap

UX designers
~200
UX researchers
~50

Approximate headcount in ADP’s UX organisation at the time.

The constraint

Not every study should be handed over. The programme covered studies that were low risk for the business but still necessary from a design point of view, mostly usability and validation work. Foundational and higher-risk research stayed with researchers.

The question

How do we let designers and content writers answer their own design questions, and still trust the answers?

02

Four pillars, not a training course

Training alone gives people knowledge they do not use. I designed the rollout around four pillars, each answering a different reason why a designer might not run a study.

Pillar 1
Knowledge
The barrier: not knowing how. Equip teams with the research skills needed to produce meaningful insights.
Pillar 2
Autonomy
The barrier: no confidence with the tools. Make sure teams can run research independently across projects.
Pillar 3
Support
The barrier: not knowing where to go. Centralised resources and consistent guidance.
Pillar 4
Influence
The barrier: doubting it will matter. A continuous, inclusive programme so the research has a lasting effect.

My role

I founded the programme, designed the framework, wrote the materials, ran the workshops and training, and held the one-to-ones. Quality oversight was shared: every participant worked with the UX researcher aligned to their team, and the wider UXR and UXR Ops community answered questions.

03

What I built under each pillar

Knowledge: documentation, templates, workshops

Step 1DocumentationA playbook with the step-by-step research process, a welcome deck setting out what participants could expect and what was expected of them, and a central deck gathering every template and examples of successful studies.
Step 2Templates and processesTemplates for the research plan and the readout, plus a screener, usability questions and a recruitment email, all on SharePoint. Standard processes made results comparable across projects.
Step 3WorkshopsThe fundamentals of UX research, the steps of the process, and three sessions on which method to use and when, with the emphasis on usability studies.

Autonomy: practice, not theory

  • Hands-on tool training. I created and recorded sessions on the tools participants would use, including Maze and User Interviews.
  • Collaborative learning. Group sessions where participants shared what they were learning with each other.
  • One-to-ones. I set these up proactively to follow up and understand where each person was stuck.

Every learning session was recorded and available to any team member.

Support: one place for everything

I built an educational hub on SharePoint so nobody had to ask where something lived.

ProcessesThe UXR journey, recruitment, incentives, governance.
DocumentationGeneral UXR knowledge, a glossary, the Miro boards from the workshops.
Tool trainingLinks to every tool workshop.
RecordingsVideo training, interactive sessions, webinars.

Influence: relationships and feedback

The one-to-ones built trust beyond UXR Ops. Asking participants for feedback did two things: it showed them they were at the centre of the process, and it let me adjust the sessions as the programme went on.

04

How quality was protected

Handing research to non-researchers only works if the guardrails are built in. Three were.

  1. A researcher on every study

    Each participant followed the same process for every study, which included connecting with the UX researcher aligned to their team.

    Why: methodological rigour, alignment and oversight stay with someone accountable for them.

  2. Three channels for help

    A dedicated Teams channel with the Research Enablement team, plus membership of the UXR Ops channel and the wider UXR channel.

    Why: questions get answered in the open, and participants see how researchers work.

  3. Governance, compliance and administration

    A session on GDPR, mandatory compliance sessions, and a standard administrative path: a UXR story in Jira and a study file in the participant’s SharePoint space.

    Why: everyone running research knows their legal and ethical responsibilities, and every study leaves a trace.

05

Outcomes

Satisfaction
90%of participants were satisfied or very satisfied with the programme
Attendance
100%at the tools training, the peak of steadily rising workshop attendance
Studies
4 of 6completed. A study counted as complete only when its readout was delivered and shared with stakeholders.

Recognition

All 12 participants were recognised at the quarterly meeting, and each received a My Moment award.

What the programme left behind

A playbook, a template set, recorded training and a SharePoint hub that any team member could use.

06

Limits, and what I took from it

Limits I kept in view

  • The results describe the programme: satisfaction, attendance and completed studies. They do not show what the studies changed in the product.
  • Two of the six studies were not completed. Finishing with a readout is the hard part, and the part worth designing for.
  • Twelve participants in an organisation of about 200 designers is a start, not scale.

What I took from it

  • Deciding what not to delegate mattered as much as the training. “Low risk but necessary” gave everyone a clear line.
  • Attendance peaked at the tools session. People came for something they could use the next day.
  • The one-to-ones built trust in a way the decks could not.

Want the full story?

I am happy to walk through the framework, the materials, and what I would change next time. nassim.seridji@gmail.com

Programme materials are internal to ADP and are described here, not reproduced.