Research Projects
My Research Statistics
68 Studies
Over 7 years
Thousands of insights
Hundreds of product changes to improve user experience
-
Knowledge Base: Use Cases & Expectations
Purpose of the study: Understanding potential usecases & expectations of a knowledge base.
Research Questions
- In which cases do legal professionals work with knowledge or the same documents frequently?
- How do they work with that knowledge and related documents?
- How would they expect a knowledge base in an AI tool to be structured to serve their needs?
- How would they use the files and interact with them in the AI tool?
Key Insights
- Users expect the AI to help them set up and maintain the Knowledge Base.
- Identifying new rulings or further information
- Updating legislation if needed in samples/ playbooks
- Initial structuring and filling of meta data should be AI supported
- The documents need to be precisely cited.
- Most types of documents users used at least the terminology has to be the exact same, for some even the whole clauses.
- Users require granular control over access rights.
- Most users say that most of the knowledge is company knowledge, they want only curated knowledge to be made available to all.
- Some cases require strict limitation of knowledge to one team (e.g. due diligence or two teams working for two different parties.)
- Users main use cases:
- Company-wide knowledge (rulings, former cases, format templates)
- Document comparison (playbooks, clauses)
-
Workflows: Userflows & Building Blocks
Purpose of the study: Within two sessions, with a group of legal professionals, we want to identify and define detailed user workflows that would benefit from AI automation and which building blocks would need to be offered by the tool.
Research Questions
- What kind of workflows would users benefit most from if automated?
- Which steps are included in these workflows?
- What is needed to realize these workflows in an AI tool?
- How would roles and access rights need to be set up?
Key Insights
- Users highlighted knowledge management and review flows as having the highest potential for automation.
- Both examples share a lot of common building block which should be considered in a workflow tool case.
- User identified three different roles with different rights for the management and usage of workflows: Admins, Lawyers, Assistants
Note: This workshop has been conducted in german, therefore most of the content is also created in german.
-
Persona Research: Law Firms
Purpose of the study: Gaining insights into everyday work, challenges, and needs of law firms to create personas for a legal software product.
Research Questions
- What does a typical day in their life look like?
- What are their main challenges and pain points?
- What software do they use in work and private life? And what do they like and dislike about it?
- What is their main motivation to use AI for their work?
- What are their main pain points in using AI in their work?
- What do they expect or need an AI tool to bring in order to be useful for them?
Key Insights
- Users described that a lot of their day is filled by drafting of documents, closely followed by administrative tasks.
- Users address documentation and the changes that come with the usage of AI as their biggest challenges
- User highlight that most of their work is happening in word or outlook.
- Users highlight that they appreciate apple for its eco-system approach and simplicity.
- Users describe their main motivation for using AI as to become more efficient and to enhance quality of their work.
- Users describe the quality of results and the AI not fitting their tools and processes as their biggest pain points with current AI tools.
- Users most mentioned expectations and needs address a seamless embedding into their daily workflows and tools.
-
Workflows: Competitor Analysis
Purpose of the study: Within two sessions, with a group of legal professionals, we want to identify and define detailed user workflows that would benefit from AI automation and which building blocks would need to be offered by the tool.
Research Questions
- What functionality do competitors offer when it comes to workflows?
- How do they realize the user interaction with the workflows?
- What is worth replicating in our own workflow tool?
- What are weaknesses of the competitor solutions?
Key Insights
- Most competitors offer a visual builder for workflows.
- Most competitors only cover parts of the actual workflows that the legal professionals are using in their daily work.
- Most workflow builders are highly complex to use.
-
Word-Add-In: Expectations & Usability
Purpose of the study: Exploring expectations of legal professionals towards a Word Add-In and evaluating the usability of a prototype.
Research Questions
- What are general expectations on what a Word Add-In should do?
- What is needed to make changes easily comprehensible?
- What are the main usability issues in using the prototype?
Key Insights
- Users have different styles of working for which they need individualized settings.
- Users should be enabled to choose whether they want to track changes and whether they want to preview changes or whether they want to auto apply.
- The layout depends on individual preference whether its horizontal or vertical to scroll through changes.
- Users should be guided to make the settings when first opening the add-in.
- Users value transparency in how AI changes are made and applied.
- User appreciate the integration of tracked changes that are automatically inserted by the AI.
- User want to have the option to add the reasoning as a comment to the applied change automatically.
- appreciate the revert function and wish also for a revert all or accept all functionality.
- Users expect a Word Add-In to be seamlessly integrated into their existing workflows.
- Users expect all functionalities of the AI to be available in the add-in (research, workflows, document access, citations etc.)
- Users expect the other functionalities to be adjusted and seamlessly integrated into the word functionalities.
- Users were already quite content with the usability and functionality the prototype offered and mainly requested more initial guidance on usage.
-
Cycle Concept Evaluation 1: Conditionally Automated Driving
Purpose of the study: Evaluation of the holistic level 4 concept with special focus on the phases of deactivation.
Research Questions
- Do users understand their roles with their rights and responsibilities during each phase?
- Is the concept holistic and consistent?
- How is the concept (and each phase) evaluated by users?
Key Insights
- After 2 test drives the majority of the users understands their rights and responsibilities in each of the phases (activation, active, deactivation).
- The steering decoupling is not perceived by the users and is also not self-explanatory.
- The cycle is not yet consistent, mainly decoupling and recoupling have major improvement potential.
- Nonetheless, the concept is rated well by most of the users.
