STANDARDS
Check best practices and design-system standards.
THE CHALLENGE
Context & Problem
As the team's UX practice developed, methods, documentation, and research outputs varied between designers. Knowledge was dispersed, making reuse, onboarding, and stakeholder alignment more difficult.
MY CONTRIBUTION
Approach & Ownership
Working with two other designers, I helped shape practical UX guidelines, research-method guidance, shared templates, and a research repository organised around Evidence → Insight → Recommendation. In January 2026 I introduced the Buddy System and those research guidelines as shared team practices. I also mentored two designers and co-led Figma workshops with another design lead.
Buddy System
Introduced in January 2026 to encourage earlier feedback, collaborative problem-solving, and knowledge sharing between designers. Participants reported the following.
- 01
Earlier identification of design issues.
- 02
Faster alignment, as reported by participants.
- 03
More opportunities to explore alternative solutions.
- 04
Better preparation before formal design reviews.
UX research guidelines & repository
Established UX research guidelines and a shared repository in January 2026 so documentation would be more consistent and findings easier to find. At a reported checkpoint, 3 of 6 designers were using the repository — 50% adoption at that point in time. That figure is a historical checkpoint, not a claim about current adoption.
Mentorship
Mentored two designers through one year of formal mentorship, about 18 months including training. The emphasis was guidance, structured feedback, professional development, and supporting each designer to own their decisions.
Figma & engineering workshops
Co-led more than five cross-functional Figma workshops with another design lead. The following changes were observed in how the group worked together.
- 01
Clearer understanding of design system components.
- 02
More use of design documentation.
- 03
Developers using exact Figma measurements rather than manual ruler-based approximations.
- 04
A stronger shared understanding between design, development, and QA.
RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
Research Protocol
I proposed this five-step system and the names of its phases, from problem definition through conclusion.
Other designers aligned with it after testing the steps in practice. It is a way of structuring an inquiry, not a completed study, and not a record that every method was used.
PHASE 1
Problem definition
- 01
Identify the problem
What is wrong?
- 02
Goal
What should we achieve?
- 03
Team
Who can help?
- 04
Objectives
What will get us there?
- 05
Data
What data do we already have?
- 06
Knowledge
What do we already know?
- 07
Uncertainty
What is still unclear?
- 08
Restrictions
What constraints apply?
PHASE 2
Hypothesis definition
Organize and prioritize questions. This phase does not set a hypothesis.
- 01
Question
What do we need to know?
- 02
Structure
Group the questions.
- 03
Priority level
Rank urgency, importance, and uncertainty.
- 04
Concentration
Focus on what matters most.
PHASE 3
Choose methods
Match methods to accepted standards and the lifecycle stage.
Part 1 — Standards and categories
CATEGORIES
Group methods by lifecycle stage.
Part 2 — Method library
Options by lifecycle stage. A method may appear more than once. Choose for the question. It is not a checklist. 19 methods across three stages.
Before — Foundational research
Conversation Mining
Analyze existing customer conversations.
Cloze Testing
Ask users to fill in missing words to assess comprehension and readability.
Card Sorting
Ask participants to group related content to help create intuitive information architecture.
User Interviews
Conduct one-on-one sessions with target users to gather in-depth qualitative insights.
Thematic Analysis
Identify, analyze, and report patterns within qualitative text data.
Surveys
Distribute questionnaires to a large group of users to collect quantitative data.
Benchmarking
Compare a product's performance, features, or user experience against industry standards or direct competitors.
User Journey Analysis
Map and understand the complete path a user takes to accomplish a goal within a product or service.
During — Design research
Multivariate Testing (MVT)
Test multiple variations of several elements on a single page simultaneously to determine which combination performs best.
Usability Tests
Observe users completing tasks with a product or prototype to identify difficulty or confusion.
User Interviews
Conduct one-on-one sessions with target users to gather in-depth qualitative insights.
Benchmarking
Compare a product's performance, features, or user experience against industry standards or direct competitors.
Affinity Diagram
Analyze and structure raw data to identify patterns, uncover insights, and build shared understanding across teams.
After — Post-launch research
A/B Testing
Compare two versions of a webpage or element to see which performs better.
User Interviews
Conduct one-on-one sessions with target users to gather in-depth qualitative insights.
Surveys
Distribute questionnaires to a large group of users to collect quantitative data.
Heatmaps
Visualize user behavior on a webpage, including areas receiving the most clicks, scrolling, or attention.
Log Analysis
Examine server, application, or database logs for insights into user behavior, system performance, and errors.
Customer Service Data Analysis
Analyze customer support interactions, such as emails and chats, to identify recurring issues and pain points.
PHASE 4
Testing
Conduct research
Run the selected methods and gather evidence.
Use only what the question, constraints, and stage require.
PHASE 5
Conclusion
- 01
Analyze and synthesize
Find patterns and name the opportunities.
- 02
Share findings
Share what the team can act on.
- 03
Follow up and integrate
Apply findings to design, the backlog, or the roadmap.
Follow-up feeds the next problem definition.
RETURN TO PROBLEM DEFINITION →SCOPE
Contribution in Numbers
2
DESIGNERS MENTORED
One year of formal mentorship, about 18 months including training.
2
UX PRACTICE INITIATIVES
Buddy System and research guidelines with a repository, January 2026.
5+
FIGMA WORKSHOPS
Cross-functional sessions co-led with another design lead.
50%
REPOSITORY ADOPTION
3 of 6 designers at a reported checkpoint, not current adoption.
KEY DECISIONS
Strategic Choices
- 01
Make guidance lightweight enough to use in everyday delivery.
- 02
Define consistent research documentation and minimum required fields.
- 03
Organise evidence, insights, and recommendations so findings are easier to understand and reuse.
- 04
Support designers with different experience levels through clear standards and knowledge sharing.
OUTCOME
Results & Evidence
The practice work gave the team a common language for research, a peer path for earlier feedback, and a clearer handoff conversation with engineering and QA. Repository use reached 3 of 6 designers at one reported checkpoint. Intended benefits include easier onboarding and more reusable research.
LEADERSHIP LENS
What This Demonstrates
Shows how I strengthen the conditions for good design: shared practices, mentorship, and cross-functional influence beyond a single product. The repository figure is one historical checkpoint of early uptake.