The Customer Question:
A venture capital firm partnered with a tech startup to create an AI tool to locate instances of Medicaid fraud. Before creating the new tool, the team needed to understand the current process of fraud detection as conducted by humans.

The Approach:
Our researcher conducted a series of contextual inquiry sessions with state employees whose job it was to scan and flag suspicious Medicaid activity in large pharmaceutical and medical databases. We sat at the shoulders of these professionals, watching them work as they narrated their process. In short, we learned how humans identified fraud so the team could then create AI tools to do so at scale.

The Impact:
The contextual inquiry was a necessary element of the product development process. The tool could not have been designed and built without understanding the “as is” process conducted by humans. Our input enabled the team to create both the back end AI engine as well as the user interface.

The Customer Question:
A global online resume building leader needed clarity on a fundamental business question: Who are our users, and how different are they from one another? Without validated user segments, the product, design, and marketing teams were making decisions based on assumptions rather than evidence.

The Approach:
We employed a rigorous mixed methods approach to identify and validate distinct user segments. The process began with workshops involving product managers to gather existing knowledge about the user base. This was followed by in-depth interviews with current subscribers to understand their needs, goals, pain points, and challenges. Finally, we applied advanced data mining techniques including cluster analysis and discriminant analysis, along with statistical significance tests, to validate the existence of these segments and measure the degree of separation between them.

The Impact:
The statistically validated personas provided a shared foundation of user understanding across the entire organization. UX teams gained clear direction on feature prioritization, designers created more targeted experiences, and the marketing department launched campaigns grounded in real user needs rather than guesswork. The company moved from fishing in dark waters to operating with confidence, knowing who they were serving and how to reach them effectively.

The Customer Question:
BlueCross BlueShield of North Carolina (BCBSNC) was experiencing low return rates due to incomplete or incorrectly filled-out application forms. They needed to understand why applicants were struggling with their forms and how to redesign them to improve completion rates and processing efficiency.

The Approach:
We partnered with Caroline Jarrett, one of the world’s most respected consultants in forms design, to apply an iterative design and usability-testing approach. The process combined user feedback with stakeholder knowledge to identify where the original forms confused applicants and how easily they could be processed. We limited “fill in the blank” questions, standardized check boxes, and created new verbiage to clarify each page of the application, ensuring the redesigned forms better supported users throughout the completion process.

The Impact:
The redesigned forms delivered measurable improvements: a streamlined application process, reduced user errors, and fewer applications returned for clarification. Most significantly, BCBSNC saw 23% more successful applications that required no human intervention compared to the previous year, directly addressing their challenge of incomplete submissions and improving operational efficiency.

The Customer Question:
The National Institutes of Health, working within the University of Michigan, created a web-based group health benefits planning application. The importance of health-related decisions made it critically important to ensure ease of use of this new tool so that it could successfully support users in independently making their health benefits choices. The tool also supported group discussion and negotiation presented in a gamification style, requiring additional focus on these more social elements of the interface.

The Approach:
We recruited 30 representative participants, many of whom had somewhat limited computer literacy to use the tool to perform a set of basic tasks. We observed and probed as they worked, noting points of friction and confusion, as well as noting what was working well for them. We presented a prioritized list of issues and worked with the design and development team to address the issues through design improvement. We then conducted a second set of usability sessions to validate the changes and identify additional issues. Finally, we conducted a third round of sessions for further validation and issue identification.

The Impact:
The iterative, collaborative approach to usability testing allowed our customer to roll out a new, high-impact solution with minimum risk of failure. Interface improvements made along the way improved task completion from an 50% to 90% in the third round. This approach of design/develop/test/redesign allowed the team to validate design changes made in-between testing sessions.

The Customer Question:
Intuit, a leading provider of accounting software for individuals and small businesses, wanted to ensure its solution was easier to use than its key competitors. By testing and measuring comparative ease of use, Intuit would be able to market its solution as superior as measured by a third party, and also, gather the data to continually improve its current solution in subsequent iterations.

The Approach:
We recruited 50 typical users of the tool and observed them performing typical tasks using the tool and its chief market competitor. We collected and analyzed both qualitative and quantitative data such as time on task, error rates, and customer satisfaction. We presented these results in a way that allowed Intuit to gauge its competitive advantage as well as prioritize future improvements to maintain and expand its advantage, even as new competitors entered the marketplace.

The Impact:
Intuit learned that their tool was deemed superior to its key competitors. Our findings were packaged for the team to ensure the results were immediately actionable. Our sponsor said,  “Our team has been talking about how comprehensive and professional Tec-Ed’s report is. I’m so thankful we selected you as a vendor. The overwhelming response is, ‘this is so clear, understandable, informative, and well done.” (Laurel Lee, QuickBooks Product Manager, Intuit)