I’ve written more about why and when user discovery interviews should be done as a form of UX research here. In this post I will talk about how they should be done.
The way I run interviews feels more like a free flowing conversation, digging into nuggets as they arise, but I always have a base set of questions and a very strict set of goals for each interview. I view it as being a therapist. I don’t know how the conversation will branch out, that’s why it’s discovery. But I have a core set of goals regarding the conversation, I typically want to uncover problems they face about a very specific activity. I also have a core set of questions and guidelines.
The predetermined questions just serve as a tool to get the conversation going, and open them up to opening up. The thing that makes the difference between an okay interview and an amazing interview are the follow up questions. Their answer will lead to me digging further with improvised questions that aim to dig deeper, typically “How” and “Why” questions, asked at the right time, going on conversation tangents. It shouldn’t actually feel like an interview.
The starting point questions are centered around the following:
Can you walk me through a typical process for [activity in question]? [The goal of this is to understand the status quo.]
What’s most frustrating about this process?
What do you enjoy about this process?
What does success look like [within this activity]?
What are your biggest hurdles to achieving that success you just defined?
Demographic info to see if there are any patterns in their responses based on their position, tech savviness, or other relevant factors
They should open the door to many follow up questions and let the conversation flow. I don’t mean it lightly when I say it’s like being a therapist.