A travel search engine developer sought to gain a deeper understanding of their current user base and potential users. They also aimed to identify new product features to implement based on user demand.

A survey, interview, and usability testing were conducted to achieve this goal. The research ultimately provided extensive insights into their user base. It also clarified which features to prioritize for development. In addition, it revealed that a term used in their product messaging carried a negative connotation among potential users, prompting a necessary shift in their marketing strategy.
‍
Keywords: travel tech, tourism, search engine, qualitative research, interview, usability testing, survey, user journey, user persona, stakeholder workshop, feature prioritization
‍
Disclaimers: Details are omitted due to confidentiality. Content is optimized for desktop viewing.

The client desired to develop their product (i.e., flight search engine), first through building knowledge of their current user base and potential users (i.e., their motivation in using the product, their unmet needs, etc.), and second through determining which new product features they should focus on developing.

Based on the objective, the project aims to answer the following research questions:

• What are the characteristics of current and potential users?
• • Habits and preferences concerning the product
  • Motivation for using the product
  • Demographic information
• What are current users’ pain points and unmet needs when using the product?
• What are potential users’ unmet needs prior to using the product?
• How might we expand the product based on customer demand and business impact?
• • E.g., New features, mobile app version, etc.

To start, a survey was designed and sent to the product’s mailing list and various research recruitment Slack channels. The survey received 88 responses.

From the survey, 62 participants indicated their interest in participating in a compensated, follow-up research. 15 participants that fit the participant criteria were invited to a 1 hour moderated usability testing and interview session.

Image 1. Recruitment message sent through Slack channel.
This is a fictional image for illustration purposes.

The research highlighted prevalent pain points and user needs, as well as user attributes (e.g., demographics, type of traveler, etc.) User personas and user journey were then assembled to consolidate the research results.

The personas provided information on each user group’s characteristics, pain points, and needs. Meanwhile, the amalgamated user journey visually highlights the users’ highs and lows when using the product. Recommendations are listed by phase to clarify when they become relevant, providing needed context.

As a result, the clients have a richer understanding of their existing and potential users in an easily digestible format.

Image 2. Diagram of the user journey (board view).
Details are omitted to maintain confidentiality.

The research resulted in 14 feature recommendations, yielding many ideas to the point of overwhelm. Thus, a stakeholder workshop was conducted to determine the ideas to prioritize developing.

Using a feature prioritization matrix, the clients mapped out the ideas based on their perceived value and effort. The diagram swiftly assists them in adjusting their focus to only the features they consider to be quick wins (”Do It Now” quadrant) or major projects (”Do it Next” quadrant).

Image 3. Diagram of the feature prioritization matrix.
‍Details are omitted to maintain confidentiality.

For more “objective” decision-making, the weighted scoring model was utilized while taking the clients’ criteria (i.e., drivers) in mind. Each feature was evaluated against these criteria and sorted based on priority score. In the end, the client was left with a robust recommendation that factors in the features’ contexts.

Image 4. Table of the weighted scoring model.
Details are omitted to maintain confidentiality.

As a result, the clients left the workshop feeling confident about their decision and optimistic about the feasibility of their next steps.

Although this topic was not a part of the initial research questions, its gravity is undeniable. The research revealed that the term used for product messaging has a negative connotation; deterring potential/new users and creating a barrier to entry.

As a result, a follow-up research was conducted to determine a suitable replacement for the term.

• The research results were overwhelmingly difficult to consolidate and highlight due to the amount of questions in the survey and moderated sessions. In the future, reducing the number of questions asked during research would be beneficial, perhaps through a more thoughtful prioritization.
• Different research methods bring different kinds of data, so there's no one way to present data. Being creative about your presentation approach will help your stakeholders digest the information better.
• Different people interact with the product differently. Depending on their wants and needs, different setbacks caused by the product affects them to a varying degree. Some people may not be affected by problem A, but to others, that problem can cause them to abandon the product completely.
• It’s important to remember since you are more familiar with the data than stakeholders, you should share the research limitations with them so they can have a more holistic summary.