Interview: Petr Špringr – From Marketing Research to Digital and UX

Originally published on Medium.com

In the digital world, UX research is a key factor in the success of products and services. I had the pleasure of speaking with Petr Špringr, an experienced UX researcher with over 15 years of experience, who shared his journey from traditional marketing research to modern UX research in the digital space.

Q: Petr, could you start by telling us a little about yourself?

A: I'm a researcher—today primarily a UX researcher—with a career spanning nearly 15 years. Time flies! I began in classic marketing research at an agency, which laid a strong foundation for my work in UX. This experience exposed me to a wide range of methods and techniques, and I learned a lot from seasoned psychologists and sociologists. I still draw on those fundamentals today. If I had to highlight one key takeaway, it would be the importance of a holistic approach to problem-solving—the ability to see and analyze issues within a broader context. In my view, that's the most valuable ingredient for creating great UX.

Q: What led you toward UX research?

A: Around 2010, interest in digital products started to surge. Clients began requesting research on digital environments—primarily websites and online stores at that time. We examined aspects such as efficiency, clarity, and increasingly, usability. At the agency where I worked, we even used some unique methods like eye-tracking and neuromarketing. Over time, I built a strong expertise in digital research, which eventually steered me toward finance and led me to work for large corporations, particularly banks.

Q: Can you explain the difference between working at an agency and working in-house?

A: In an agency, you receive a clear brief from a client with a one-off goal—to find out something specific. However, you don't have a direct impact on how the results are implemented within the company. By contrast, an in-house researcher can more directly influence how findings are distributed and integrated within the organization. Agency work tends to be more varied and dynamic, which is great for those who enjoy working on different projects and avoiding routine. Working in-house, on the other hand, allows you to become a true specialist in one area by combining research insights with internal company data, without having to split your focus across different business segments.

Q: Is there a particular aspect of UX research that you're especially passionate about?

A: Yes, I'm really enthusiastic about digitalization. I see enormous value in how digital products simplify users' lives. It's incredibly rewarding for me to help create interfaces that are intuitive and accessible for everyone, including those in disadvantaged groups. I love seeing a well-designed digital product make a positive impact on users and, by extension, on society as a whole.

Q: What does "discovery" mean to you, and which methods do you use during this phase?

A: For me, discovery is the cornerstone of a great digital product—it's the very foundation of UX research. During discovery, you need to combine qualitative and quantitative data, which opens up a wide range of research methods. It's also a phase where a researcher can really enjoy experimenting. This includes desk research, data analysis, surveys, in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, and specific UX methods like card sorting and tree testing. While there are many techniques available, the focus shouldn't be on the methods themselves but on truly understanding the market, users' needs, and stakeholder perspectives. Methods should serve as tools, not as the ultimate goal. I often see people assume that discovery is just about conducting a few user interviews—but that's far from enough. It's crucial to obtain a comprehensive view and deep understanding.

Q: Which methods do you use most frequently?

A: I always start with available data analysis and review any previous research. I also keep an eye on what the competition is doing. When I still feel there's missing information—which happens more often than I'd like—I turn to primary research. Most commonly, we conduct in-depth interviews in various formats, and in the later stages of the design process, we employ concept and user testing. Ideally, research should cover the entire design process, but the realities of working in banking often force shortcuts. This can sometimes lead to a reliance on familiar techniques without exploring other possibilities, which may result in a vague understanding and, ultimately, a vague design.

Q: What challenges do you see in your current work?

A: The biggest challenge is engaging real stakeholders in the research—not just in collecting data, but also in working with the results. Ideally, stakeholders should be involved directly in the research process so they can understand users' needs and contribute their own solutions. Another challenge is the effective sharing and preservation of knowledge and research insights, which could be greatly improved by new technologies and AI tools.

Q: How do you envision the future of tools for UX research?

A: I see a future where we create annotated video outputs that present research findings in an easily digestible and engaging way for a broader audience. This is especially challenging for large companies with many involved teams. While current tools like digital whiteboards are excellent for live collaboration and findings workshops, they fall short when it comes to sharing insights with a wider audience or archiving them within the organization. A video format that includes dynamic stimuli could enable better understanding and interaction with research outputs.

Q: Do you use any AI tools in your research?

A: So far, I haven't been using AI intensively because I typically work with smaller data sets—apart from interview transcripts, which I no longer process manually. However, AI is undoubtedly very useful for analyzing larger volumes of text and generating summaries from interviews, which could be a significant help in the future.

Q: What's your balance between remote and in-person research?

A: I prefer in-person interviews because they allow for deeper interaction and a better understanding of users. Remote research is effective for reaching a broader audience, but face-to-face meetings tend to capture more details and foster empathy. I try to strike a balance and avoid long journeys to meet respondents unless absolutely necessary.

Q: What advice would you give to students who want to enter the field of UX research?

A:

1. Don't limit UX research to just user testing. UX research involves a deep understanding of people's needs, the market, and the product within the context of the organization.

2. Don't be afraid to talk to users and clients to gain genuine insights.

3. Adopt the right mindset: be eager to understand users' needs, be their advocate, and act as a voice within your organization.

Additionally, I recommend following expert sources like the Nielsen Norman Group, joining UX groups on LinkedIn, and attending networking events.

Q: Where do you find inspiration and continue to develop your skills?

A: I regularly follow websites such as the Nielsen Norman Group, where expert articles and UX research trends are published. I also bookmark pages that showcase various methodologies from different institutions, like "100 Methods" from KISKU MUNI. In the Czech Republic, our active UX community organizes events like UX Monday and Research Tuesday, which are fantastic for networking and sharing experiences.

Petr, thank you very much for the interview and for sharing your insights into the work of a researcher.

Author: Tomáš Kamenec