Pre-HTB designs - user research (Round 3)

# Date the work was done

May 2021

# Overview

# Research goals and objectives

  1. Evaluate whether users can complete key sections of the Head Teacher Board template using our service.
  2. Evaluate whether the users can easily navigate to the reference sections and submitted application to aid section completion.
  3. Explore whether the service supports the handover of projects between team members.

# Research participants

  • We ran one-to-one research sessions with five project leads.
  • Due to availability of volunteers, our sample was skewed, with four participants from the North region and one from another region. This is more likely to affect the answers to research questions about working practices than observations from the usability testing.
  • The participants had different levels of confidence in using IT systems and varying levels of experience in managing academy conversion projects.
  • One participant uses a Read&Write tool in their daily work to help with their dyslexia. They use it to check the writing of longer pieces of text. A couple of users used zoom to increase the text size on screen.

# Research scenario

  • To test the usability of the prototype as realistically as possible, users were given a scenario to work through.
  • In the scenario, users were picking up a project from a colleague and needed to complete the remaining tasks before the head teacher board. The intention was that this would allow the session to focus on completing more complex tasks without guiding the user. However, in some cases the scenario may have affected the research, as users had not seen a version of the prototype where no action had been taken.
  • In the research sessions, users were given limited guidance and context, so we could observe their initial reactions. This means that sometimes the users were unsure what to expect.

# Can users complete key sections of the HTB template using our service?

# Editing the rationale

[Rationale] – “We don’t normally just copy and paste…it may not read right… maybe I would change it and cut it down a bit.” [P15]

“The thing for me is does it have the same features as Word does with spell check and correcting grammar? If not I would just copy and paste it out of here into a Word document.” [P16]

# Can users easily navigate to the reference sections and submitted application to aid section completion?

# Rationale for the project

  • Some users didn’t try and edit the rationale because there was already text appearing.
  • Some users thought that the previous project lead had entered the text (problem with scenario).
  • Users would need to edit the rationale that came from the school to make it more consistent with standards.
  • One user spoke about their need to check spelling and grammar and their preference for using Word.
  • This same user was unable to use the Read&Write tool in conjunction with our service to check their content.

# Rationale for the trust or sponsor

  • Users would need to see the trust template so they can complete the rationale but we hadn’t provided this.

# Risks and issues

  • The school finances, land, pupil numbers, Ofsted report and trust template would also be used to assess risks.
  • With the scenario given, users would need further information from PMO, the LA, and the school before they could complete this section.
  • No specific usability issues were found with this section.
    One user wanted to add further details in the finance section.

# LA Proforma

  • Some users expected this to be sent automatically to the LA

# Continue

  • Some users were confused about the button behaviour for continue and whether it would save their work.

“For me personally, it’s because I start with pasting in with what I’ve got already and then I re-write, for me personally it’s easier if it’s in there to start with and I can edit it.” [P18]

[Risk and issues] Ahead of completing the section they would check the application first. UR asked how would you nav to the app? They clicked back link, then back to Task list, then went back onto the Application tab. [P15]

# Does the service support handover of projects between team members?

“It’s not very often [projects are handed over] and we have a project we kind of like to baby it a bit… we like to see it all the way through” [P14]

Handover – “The process should definitely be better, the handovers aren’t great, it’s almost an agreed thing that everyone does that you would write in Word a history of a project, you’d have a handover meeting, and that’s it really.” [P16]

# General feedback about the service

“I love it. It just makes our lives a lot easier as delivery leads because as I’ve explained, sometimes we’re juggling a lot of cases so if you’ve got something like this that generates all that information… it’s often the time this takes that is the most frustrating because you are having to go into various places and various systems to pull off the information like the finances, like the performance data (Ofsted) whereas this obviously pulls it together and pre-populates it which is absolutely brilliant and what we need” [P17]