01 — Overview
The 30-second version
Paycom's platform had a bare-bones ATS. The business wanted to invest in it as a real offering. A Senior Designer and PM came to me with prototypes, mockups, and ambitions — and a research request that was trying to do everything at once. Before I could run a single study, I needed to turn one sprawling ask into a research program that would actually answer the right questions in the right order.
What followed was four sequential studies — a survey, discovery interviews, and two usability studies — each one informing the next. The result: a product roadmap grounded in recruiter behavior, design requirements shaped by real mental models, and a stakeholder team that learned how to collaborate with research rather than just request it.
02 — The Problem
Two problems, not one
The surface problem was clear enough: the team needed to understand how recruiters actually use an ATS system — what information they prioritize, what metrics they track, how they evaluate candidates. They also wanted feedback on early design mockups and usability validation of two prototype experiences.
But there was a second, less visible problem. The initial research request was unfocused and overly broad. The Designer and PM weren't sure how to structure their questions or prioritize what they needed to know. This wasn't a gap in their commitment — it was a gap in how they'd been taught to engage with research. Addressing this was just as important as the research itself.
Basically: understand user needs (discovery research) and evaluate the direction (evaluative research) — but framed as a single amorphous ask.
Proceeding without resolving the scope problem would have produced research that was technically valid but strategically meaningless. We had to fix the ask before we could answer it.
03 — Users & Audience
Who this was really for
Primary research participants: Recruiters — professionals who use ATS systems as a core part of their daily workflow. We needed to understand their mental models, the information they prioritize when evaluating candidates, how they structure their sourcing pipelines, and what "good" looks like for outreach and communication management.
Internal audience: A Senior Designer, a PM, and a UX Analyst — the cross-functional team who would act on these findings. A secondary audience expanded to include additional PMs brought into the final readout, increasing organizational exposure across the broader ATS and Talent Management product portfolio.
04 — Role & Responsibilities
What I owned
I served as lead researcher across all four studies, with responsibility for scoping, study design, participant recruitment, moderation, analysis, and synthesis. I also mentored the UX Analyst — who had limited user research experience — through studies 3 and 4 when my project priorities shifted mid-program, ensuring continuity without sacrificing quality.
An equal part of my role was building the research partnership itself: educating the Designer and PM on how to engage with research, running working sessions with them throughout the process, and creating the conditions for genuine collaboration rather than a handoff relationship.
05 — Scope & Constraints
What we were working with
The biggest constraint was the initial scope problem itself — significant upfront time was needed to clarify and reframe the ask before any research could begin. This wasn't time that had been budgeted for, which meant building stakeholder patience alongside the actual research program.
Partway through the program, my project priorities shifted, requiring a handoff to the UX Analyst for studies 3 and 4. Continuity planning became an unexpected but valuable part of the work.
06 — Process
Four studies, one thread
Rather than tackling everything at once, I reframed the work as a sequenced program where each study would build on the one before it. This turned an overwhelming ask into a clear research roadmap — and gave stakeholders a way to see how research evolves as understanding deepens.
Research plan & scoping framework used to break the initial ask into multiple targeted studies
Throughout all four studies, I maintained regular syncs with the team to share progress, address recruitment or prototype issues as they arose, and keep stakeholders invested in the process rather than just waiting for the final delivery.
07 — Outcomes & Impact
What moved because of this
08 — What I Learned
Honest reflection
The biggest challenge was scope creep at intake — not from a stakeholder trying to be difficult, but from designers who genuinely didn't know how to ask for what they needed. Many feel they should arrive with fully formed research questions, leading to either overly broad asks or delayed collaboration.
The upfront time spent reframing the ask added time we hadn't planned for. But it led to better outcomes. This experience made clear that the real work wasn't just the research — it was creating the conditions for research to succeed.
The gap wasn't in the team's commitment. It was in how they'd been taught to engage with research. That was fixable — and worth fixing.
As a result, our research team began actively encouraging designers to come to us earlier in their thinking — even without a polished request — and explored lightweight frameworks to help structure research questions upfront, so we could move faster from intake to execution.