Below is a 5-week, decision-oriented UX research program tailored to your legal case-management SaaS. The central goal is not simply to learn why lawyers churn; it is to identify the specific moments between trial activation and subscription decision where confidence breaks down, then translate those findings into sprint-ready product and conversion hypotheses. 1. Research Strategy & Planning 1.1 Research objective Primary research question > What specific moments of friction, doubt, or missing capability during the free trial prevent solo and small-firm lawyers from confidently committing to a paid subscription, and what would need to be true about the product or conversion experience for them to subscribe? Supporting questions 1. What are trial users actually trying to accomplish? 2. What triggers them to evaluate the product seriously? 3. Where does the experience fail to meet their expectations? 4. Which capabilities are essential for perceived product-market fit? 5. Which problems are genuine blockers versus merely annoyances? 6. What causes uncertainty about paying? 7. What alternatives/workarounds do lawyers use? 8. What concerns exist around reliability, security, billing, migration, or client data? 9. What happens immediately before a user abandons the trial? 10. What evidence would make a lawyer confident enough to subscribe? Business decision By the end of Week 5, the team should be able to answer: > What 3–5 product or conversion problems should we address in the Week 6 product sprint to improve trial-to-paid conversion? --- 1.2 Critical framing: don't assume "engagement = buying intent" Your strongest clue is: > High trial engagement + low conversion That suggests the product may already provide meaningful value but fail somewhere in the confidence-to-purchase journey. Possible explanations include: The product is useful but not indispensable. Users haven't experienced enough value during the trial. A critical workflow is missing. Users encounter friction at a specific point. Users don't trust the product enough with legal/client information. Migration/setup feels too costly. Pricing isn't perceived as justified. The trial doesn't demonstrate the paid value. Users don't know what happens after the trial. They are comparing competitors. They intend to subscribe but procrastinate. They encounter a workflow that prevents full adoption. They cannot justify switching from an existing system. Research should distinguish these rather than treating all non-conversion as "pricing resistance." --- 1.3 Recommended research design With only 15 hours/week, don't attempt a large mixed-method study. Use a focused mixed-method funnel: Phase 1 — Quantitative behavioral segmentation Analyze the 380 non-converters. Phase 2 — Qualitative interviews Conduct approximately 12–15 interviews. Phase 3 — Usability/conversion testing Test the current experience with 6–8 participants. Phase 4 — Synthesis Combine behavioral data + interviews + usability evidence. Phase 5 — Product recommendations Translate findings into prioritized sprint opportunities and testable hypotheses. The key methodological advantage is triangulation: What lawyers did → What lawyers say happened → What lawyers actually struggle with --- 1.4 Participant strategy Your 380 non-converters are an excellent research population. Don't recruit randomly. First segment them using whatever behavioral data you have. Recommended segments Segment Definition Research value Highly engaged / no conversion Heavy usage but didn't pay Highest priority Moderately engaged Meaningful use but stopped High Low engagement Started but barely used Medium Almost converted Reached pricing/checkout but didn't purchase Very high Feature-heavy Used many core capabilities High Single-workflow users Mainly used one capability High Trial abandoned early Stopped early Useful comparison Priority recruitment pool Start with: A. High engagement + no conversion These people have demonstrated that the product can attract sustained usage, making their reasons for not paying particularly valuable. B. Users who reached pricing/checkout These can reveal conversion-specific friction. C. Users with contrasting behavior For example: heavy users who didn't pay light users who didn't pay This helps distinguish product-value problems from activation problems. --- 1.5 Incentive budget You have $1,500. A practical allocation: 15 interviews × $75 = $1,125 Reserve: $375 contingency This gives you flexibility for: additional interviews difficult-to-recruit segments follow-up sessions If lawyers are particularly difficult to recruit, use fewer participants at a higher incentive rather than trying to maximize sample size. --- 1.6 Research timeline Week 1 — Diagnose and recruit Hours: 15 PM activities Align on research questions Identify available product analytics Define trial funnel Segment the 380 users Build screener Recruit participants Audit current trial/conversion journey Deliverables Research brief Participant segments Interview screener Interview guide Usability protocol Initial funnel map --- Week 2 — Interviews Hours: 15 Target: 5–6 interviews Start with your highest-value segment. After each session, record: Trigger Goal Important workflow Friction Doubt Workaround Trust issue Missing capability Conversion barrier Don't wait until all interviews are finished before noticing patterns. --- Week 3 — Interviews + usability Hours: 15 Complete: 6–9 additional interviews 6 usability/conversion sessions At this point you should have approximately: 12–15 interviews + 6 usability tests You can overlap participants if necessary, but ideally use usability participants separately so you don't prime them with interview questions. --- Week 4 — Synthesis Hours: 15 Activities: 1. Normalize observations. 2. Cluster friction points. 3. Map the trial journey. 4. Compare behavioral segments. 5. Identify conversion blockers. 6. Identify missing capabilities. 7. Separate product problems from conversion problems. 8. Prioritize opportunities. 9. Develop hypotheses. --- Week 5 — Recommendations and sprint handoff Hours: 15 Deliver: Executive summary Top 5 insights Trial journey map Conversion friction map Opportunity backlog Prioritized recommendations Product hypotheses Prototype hypotheses Experiment hypotheses Week 6 sprint recommendations --- 1.7 Stakeholder alignment Before beginning, get agreement on five things. Question 1 What does "conversion" mean? For example: > Paid subscription within X days of trial expiration. Question 2 What behavior counts as strong engagement? Define this using actual product data. Question 3 What product decisions can this research influence? Don't allow stakeholders to request research while simultaneously declaring certain conclusions untouchable. Question 4 What assumptions are we testing? Create an assumption list: Assumption Evidence Confidence Lawyers need feature X Analytics Medium Pricing is the main blocker Anecdotal Low Setup is too complicated Support tickets Medium Users don't trust data security Unknown Low Question 5 What would change our mind? This is especially important because stakeholders may already believe: > "They don't convert because it's too expensive." That should be treated as a hypothesis, not a finding. --- 1.8 Ethics and legal-specific considerations Because this is a legal-product context, be particularly careful about: Client names Case numbers Matter details Confidential communications Personally identifiable information Sensitive legal documents Tell participants: > Please don't disclose confidential client information or identifying details during the session. For usability testing, use fictional/demo data whenever possible. Do not ask: > "Tell me about your client's case." Instead: > "Imagine you are managing a typical matter of this type. Show me how you would handle it." --- 2. Complete User Interview Guide LEGAL CASE MANAGEMENT SaaS — NON-CONVERTER INTERVIEW GUIDE Session length 45–60 minutes Research objective Understand why engaged trial users did not convert and identify the product, trust, workflow, pricing, or conversion conditions required for confident subscription. --- INTRODUCTION Hi, thank you for taking the time to speak with me. We're researching how lawyers evaluate case-management software during a free trial. We're particularly interested in what happened during your trial: what you were trying to accomplish, what worked, what didn't, what you expected, and what ultimately influenced your decision not to subscribe. There are no right or wrong answers. We're not evaluating you or your legal practice, and we're not trying to sell you anything. I'm interested in your honest experience, including anything that was confusing, frustrating, disappointing, or missing. This session should take approximately 45–60 minutes. --- CONFIDENTIALITY AND CONSENT Your participation is voluntary. You may skip any question or stop the interview at any time. We'll use your feedback for product research and will combine it with feedback from other participants. Please don't share confidential client information, names, case numbers, privileged communications, or other identifying legal information during this session. Would you like to ask any questions before we begin? --- RECORDING With your permission, we'd like to record the session so that we can accurately review your feedback afterward. The recording will be used for research purposes and handled according to our research/privacy procedures. Is it okay for us to record? [Obtain explicit permission before recording.] --- WARM-UP 1. Practice background Could you tell me a little about your practice and the types of matters you typically manage? 2. Case-management process How do you currently keep track of matters, deadlines, documents, billing, and client communication? 3. Current tools What software or other tools do you currently rely on? 4. Software evaluation When you consider adopting new software, what usually makes you seriously consider it? 5. Recent trial experience Thinking back to your trial of our product, what originally motivated you to try it? --- CORE QUESTIONS A. Trigger and expectations 6. What problem were you hoping the product would solve when you started the trial? 7. What did you expect the product to help you accomplish? 8. During the first few days, what were you trying to figure out? 9. Was there a particular moment when you first thought, "This could actually be useful for my practice"? Tell me about that moment. --- B. Trial behavior 10. Walk me through how you actually used the product during the trial, from when you started until you stopped. 11. Which parts did you use most frequently? 12. Which parts did you try once and then stop using? 13. Were there any workflows where you started doing something in the product but eventually went back to another tool or method? What happened? --- C. Friction 14. Tell me about the most frustrating moment you experienced during the trial. 15. Was there anything you expected to be easy that turned out to be difficult? 16. Were there any points where you weren't sure what to do next? 17. Were there any tasks that required more steps, effort, or explanation than you expected? 18. Did you encounter anything that made you think, "I don't want my firm working this way"? Tell me more about that. --- D. Missing capability 19. Was there anything you wanted the product to do that it couldn't? 20. Did you have to use another application, spreadsheet, email system, calendar, or other workaround? 21. Was there a point where a missing capability prevented you from fully adopting the product? 22. If you could add one capability to the product, what would have made the biggest difference? --- E. Trust and risk 23. When you think about using software to manage legal matters and client information, what makes you trust or distrust a product? 24. Did you have any concerns about reliability, security, privacy, data ownership, backups, or the safety of your information? 25. Was there anything during the trial that reduced your confidence in the product? 26. What would you need to see before feeling completely comfortable relying on this product for important matters? --- F. Value and switching cost 27. At the end of the trial, what did you feel the product was worth to your practice? 28. What would make paying for it feel worthwhile? 29. What would make switching from your current system worth the effort? 30. Was there anything about importing existing cases, configuring the system, training staff, or changing your workflow that made adoption difficult? --- G. Conversion decision 31. Take me back to the moment you decided not to subscribe. What happened? 32. Was it a single decision or something you gradually decided? 33. What were the main factors you considered? 34. Did you compare the product with another option? If yes, what mattered in that comparison? 35. Did pricing influence your decision? If yes: "What specifically about the pricing affected your decision?" Avoid suggesting that price was the primary problem. 36. Was there anything the product could have shown, explained, or done differently during the trial that might have changed your decision? 37. What would have needed to be true for you to confidently subscribe at the end of the trial? --- H. Conversion experience 38. How did you experience the transition from trial toward subscription? 39. Was anything unclear about what you would receive as a paying customer? 40. Did you feel you had enough information to make a confident decision? 41. Was there anything you expected to happen during the trial that never happened? --- I. Mental model 42. When you think about "good case-management software," what capabilities come to mind first? 43. Which capabilities are essential versus merely nice to have? 44. How do you personally think about the relationship between case management, deadlines, billing, documents, and client communication? 45. What language would you naturally use to describe the process? --- CLOSING Member check Let me summarize what I heard: [Summarize 3–5 important points.] Did I understand that correctly? Is there anything important that I've missed or misinterpreted? Final question If you were advising us on one thing we should change to make lawyers more likely to subscribe after their trial, what would you tell us? Closing Thank you. Your feedback is extremely valuable. We're combining your experience with other lawyers' experiences to identify patterns and improve the product. Thank you again for your time. --- 3. Usability Testing Protocol The usability study should focus specifically on the path to confident adoption, not merely whether users can click through the interface. 3.1 Eight tasks Task 1 — Set up a matter > Imagine you have just taken on a new client. Create a new matter using the information provided. Observe: Required information Confusion Setup burden Terminology Expectations --- Task 2 — Understand the matter dashboard > You need to quickly understand the current status of this matter. Show me what you would look at first. Observe what information lawyers consider essential. --- Task 3 — Manage a deadline > You have an upcoming legal deadline associated with this matter. Find it and show me how you would make sure it won't be missed. Watch for: Calendar expectations Alerts Confidence Redundancy/workarounds --- Task 4 — Communicate with a client > Imagine the client has contacted you asking for an update. Show me how you would record or manage that communication. --- Task 5 — Track billing > You've spent time working on this matter and need to make sure the work is properly captured for billing. Show me how you'd handle it. --- Task 6 — Find something important > Imagine you're about to speak with the client and need to quickly understand everything important about this matter. Show me how you'd prepare. This is particularly valuable because it tests the "single source of truth" proposition. --- Task 7 — Recover from a problem > Imagine you've discovered that something important in the matter information is incorrect. Show me what you would do. Observe confidence in editing/recovery. --- Task 8 — Decide whether you'd rely on it > You've been using this system for several weeks. Imagine you're deciding whether to move your practice onto it permanently. Show me the parts of the product you would evaluate before making that decision. This task exposes conversion criteria rather than simply usability. --- 3.2 Think-aloud script Before tasks: > As you work, please say out loud what you're thinking. Tell me what you're looking for, what you expect to happen, and anything that seems confusing. If silent: > What are you looking at right now? > What are you expecting to happen? If stuck: > What would you try next? If asking for help: > What would you expect to find here? Avoid: > "Try clicking..." That contaminates the test. --- 3.3 Observation template Task Expected behavior Actual behavior Friction Evidence Severity Matter setup Creates matter Searches several screens Navigation "Where do I start?" 2 Deadline Finds deadline Checks calendar instead Trust/workflow Uses external calendar 3 Billing Records work Cannot find workflow Discoverability Abandons 3 Also record: Time Errors Hesitation Backtracking Questions Workarounds Emotional response Confidence --- 3.4 Severity framework For this product, severity should consider legal-work consequences, not just interface inconvenience. S0 — No issue S1 — Minor Small annoyance. S2 — Moderate Creates delay, confusion, or workaround. S3 — Serious Prevents an important workflow or significantly undermines confidence. S4 — Critical Could cause a lawyer to miss, lose, mishandle, or incorrectly manage something materially important. For example: > "I don't like the color of this button" = S0/S1. But: > "I'm not sure whether this deadline reminder is reliable enough to trust" could be S3, even if the interface technically works. --- 3.5 Metrics For every task capture: Completion Successful Successful with difficulty Failed Time on task Record from task start to successful completion. Errors Count meaningful errors, not every click. Assistance None Prompt Significant assistance Moderator rescue Confidence > "How confident are you that you completed that correctly?" 1–5. Trust > "How comfortable would you be relying on this feature for real legal work?" 1–5. That final measure is particularly important for this product. --- 3.6 Post-session questions Ask: 1. What was the easiest part? 2. What was the hardest part? 3. What would prevent you from using this every day? 4. What would prevent you from paying for it? 5. What would make you trust it with important legal work? 6. What capability would you most want improved? 7. What would make switching from your current system worthwhile? 8. On a scale of 1–10, how likely would you be to subscribe? 9. Why did you give that score? --- 4. Research Synthesis Framework 4.1 Build a "Trial-to-Paid Friction Map" This should become your central synthesis artifact. Map: Trial stage → User goal → Behavior → Friction → Doubt → Workaround → Consequence → Conversion impact Example: Stage User goal Friction Doubt Consequence Setup Import matters Too much manual work "This will take forever" Delays adoption First matter Understand workflow Terminology unfamiliar "Is this really for lawyers like me?" Reduced confidence Deadline management Trust reminders Unclear notification behavior "Can I rely on this?" Uses external calendar Trial end Evaluate value Paid features unclear "What am I actually paying for?" Doesn't subscribe --- 4.2 Affinity categories Create initial clusters around: Value Useful workflows Time savings Organization Visibility Friction Setup Navigation Data entry Configuration Learning Missing capability Feature gaps Integrations Reporting Automation Customization Trust Reliability Security Data Accuracy Notifications Switching cost Migration Existing tools Habits Training Commercial Price Billing Trial length Plan structure ROI Conversion Unclear value No urgency Decision timing Competitive comparison Procurement/approval --- 4.3 Separate four different problem types This is crucial. Type A — Product usability problem > "I couldn't figure out how to do X." Type B — Product capability problem > "I know how to do X, but the product doesn't support what I need." Type C — Adoption/trust problem > "It works, but I don't trust it enough for real matters." Type D — Conversion problem > "I like the product, but the subscription decision doesn't feel justified." These require completely different solutions. --- 4.4 JTBD synthesis Your likely JTBD structure should be tested rather than assumed: > When I am evaluating case-management software, I want to quickly determine whether I can safely and efficiently manage my practice's important workflows in one place, so I can decide whether switching is worth the cost and disruption. Break this into: Functional job Manage matters efficiently. Emotional job Feel confident nothing important will be missed. Switching job Move away from fragmented tools without creating chaos. Financial job Know that the subscription generates enough value to justify its cost. --- 4.5 Journey map Create this specific journey: Trigger → Trial signup → Setup → First value → Core workflow → Habit formation → Evaluation → Trial expiration → Subscription decision For each stage document: User goal Expected outcome Actual behavior Friction Doubt Emotional state Trust Workaround Product gap Conversion effect --- 4.6 Opportunity scoring Use a Conversion Opportunity Score: > User impact × Evidence strength × Conversion relevance × Reach Score each 1–5. Example: Opportunity Impact Evidence Conversion relevance Reach Priority Improve matter setup 5 5 5 4 P0 Clarify billing 3 4 4 5 P1 Improve dashboard colors 1 2 1 5 P3 This keeps the research focused on the actual business question. --- 5. Design Recommendation System 5.1 Convert findings into HMW questions Don't write: > "Add automated deadline reminders." Instead: > How might we make lawyers confident that important deadlines will never be overlooked? Don't write: > "Improve onboarding." Instead: > How might we help a lawyer reach their first meaningful outcome before the initial setup effort becomes frustrating? Don't write: > "Show pricing better." Instead: > How might we make the value of continuing after the trial obvious before the subscription decision? --- 5.2 Design principles Based on this research question, I'd initially test these as hypotheses, not final principles: 1. Demonstrate value before asking for commitment The trial should allow lawyers to experience meaningful value before the paywall/conversion moment. 2. Build confidence, not just functionality For mission-critical workflows, users need to understand why they can trust the system. 3. Minimize switching friction The product must account for migration, existing habits, and parallel tools. 4. Make the first meaningful outcome fast A trial should rapidly move users from: "I'm evaluating software" to: "This is helping me run my practice." 5. Make paid value concrete Users should understand what continuing to pay enables them to accomplish. --- 5.3 Feature prioritization When findings arrive, categorize recommendations into: P0 — Conversion blockers Problems directly preventing confident adoption. P1 — Adoption accelerators Problems preventing users from reaching habitual value. P2 — Value enhancers Features that improve an already-functional experience. P3 — Nice-to-have Useful but unlikely to affect conversion materially. Your Week 6 sprint should primarily target P0 and selected P1 opportunities. --- 5.4 Prototype hypotheses Use this structure: > We believe [intervention] will increase [desired behavior] for [segment] because [research evidence]. Examples: Setup > We believe guided matter setup will increase activation because lawyers perceive manual configuration as a switching cost. Trust > We believe clearer deadline reliability information will increase confidence because users currently hesitate to rely on the system for important deadlines. Value > We believe showing accumulated time/value during the trial will increase subscription intent because users struggle to translate product usage into economic value. Conversion > We believe contextual subscription messaging tied to demonstrated usage will increase conversion because generic pricing information doesn't necessarily connect the product to the user's experienced value. These are hypotheses to validate, not conclusions. --- 5.5 A/B test framework Once research identifies a candidate intervention: Hypothesis > If we [change experience], then [conversion behavior] will improve because [research finding]. Primary metric Trial → paid conversion rate Secondary metrics Activation rate Core workflow completion Feature adoption Trial-to-checkout rate Checkout completion Subscription intent Guardrails Trial abandonment Support contacts Refund/cancellation rate User satisfaction Task success Don't optimize only for clicks into the pricing page. The goal is quality conversion, not simply pushing more people toward checkout. --- 5.6 Research-to-design handoff TRIAL-TO-PAID RESEARCH → DESIGN HANDOFF Research question What friction, doubt, missing capability, or conversion issue prevents trial users from confidently subscribing? Target population Lawyers at solo and small firms with 1–10 attorneys who completed a free trial but did not convert. Key behavioral segments [Insert high-engagement / low-engagement / checkout / feature-use segments.] Finding [Evidence-based finding.] Evidence [Behavioral data + interview evidence + usability observation.] User insight [Underlying user need, motivation, mental model, or concern.] Conversion consequence [Explain how the issue affects willingness or ability to subscribe.] Problem type Usability / Capability / Trust / Switching Cost / Conversion / Other Opportunity [What opportunity exists?] How Might We [HMW question] Design recommendation [Recommended design direction.] Prototype hypothesis We believe that [intervention] will help [user] achieve [outcome] because [research evidence]. Validation Test with [segment]. Measure: - [Primary behavioral metric] - [Secondary metric] - [Confidence/trust metric] Experiment hypothesis If we [change], then [metric] will change because [reason]. Priority P0 / P1 / P2 / P3 Evidence confidence High / Medium / Low Open questions [Remaining uncertainties.] Sprint recommendation [What the product/design team should do in Week 6.] --- 6. Research Communication & Impact 6.1 Final presentation Your final presentation should be approximately 12–15 slides, not 40 slides of research detail. Slide 1 — The question > Why do engaged trial users not subscribe? Slide 2 — Executive answer Three major findings. Slide 3 — Who we studied Sample + behavioral segmentation. Slide 4 — Trial journey Where users experience friction. Slide 5 — Finding #1 Evidence + implication. Slide 6 — Finding #2 Evidence + implication. Slide 7 — Finding #3 Evidence + implication. Slide 8 — Conversion barriers Product vs trust vs switching vs commercial. Slide 9 — What users need to believe For example: > "This will reliably manage important work." > "Moving my practice here won't be painful." > "The value is worth the subscription." Slide 10 — Opportunity areas Top 5. Slide 11 — Prioritization P0/P1/P2/P3. Slide 12 — Recommendations What should change. Slide 13 — Experiment hypotheses What to test. Slide 14 — Week 6 sprint Specific proposed actions. Slide 15 — What we still don't know Important uncertainties. --- 6.2 Executive summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY — TRIAL-TO-PAID CONVERSION RESEARCH Objective We researched why lawyers who actively engage with the product during their free trial nevertheless choose not to subscribe. Participants We analyzed trial behavior among 380 non-converting lawyers and conducted [X] qualitative interviews and [X] usability sessions across key behavioral segments. Three most important findings Finding 1 — [Finding] [Evidence and implication.] Finding 2 — [Finding] [Evidence and implication.] Finding 3 — [Finding] [Evidence and implication.] What prevents confident conversion The research indicates that non-conversion is primarily driven by: 1. [Barrier] 2. [Barrier] 3. [Barrier] 4. [Barrier] What users need to believe before subscribing Lawyers need confidence that: - [Need] - [Need] - [Need] Highest-priority opportunities P0 [Opportunity] P0 [Opportunity] P1 [Opportunity] Recommended Week 6 sprint We recommend prioritizing: 1. [Action] 2. [Action] 3. [Action] Expected outcome These changes are intended to increase the proportion of trial users who reach sufficient product value and confidence to make a positive subscription decision. Research limitations [Sample limitations, behavioral-data limitations, recruitment limitations, etc.] Next validation step Prototype/test [intervention] with [target segment] before full implementation. --- 6.3 Insight card INSIGHT CARD — TRIAL CONVERSION Insight [One clear statement describing what users experience or believe.] Evidence [Behavioral evidence.] [Interview evidence.] [Usability evidence.] User segment [Which lawyers experience this?] Trial stage [Where does it happen?] User impact [What does it make harder?] Conversion impact [Why might this prevent subscription?] Problem category Usability / Capability / Trust / Switching Cost / Conversion Confidence High / Medium / Low Opportunity [What could be improved?] How Might We [HMW question] Recommended action [Potential product/design direction.] Validation [How we'll determine whether the intervention works.] --- 6.4 Empathy map For this product, don't build a generic persona-style empathy map. Build it around the trial decision. SAY > "I like how it handles X." > "I already have a way of doing this." > "I'm not sure I'd trust it with everything." THINK > "Will this actually replace my current tools?" > "What happens if something goes wrong?" > "Is this worth changing my workflow?" DO Tests multiple workflows Uses existing tools alongside SaaS Searches documentation Abandons certain features Compares alternatives Delays subscription FEEL Curious Interested Uncertain Concerned Overwhelmed Confident PAINS Setup effort Missing capabilities Trust uncertainty Switching costs Unclear ROI GAINS Confidence Centralized information Less administrative work Better deadline visibility Predictable workflow --- 6.5 Research repository Given you're a solo PM, don't build a complicated research repository. Use six folders/databases: 01 — Research briefs Objective Questions Method Timeline 02 — Participants Participant ID Firm size Usage segment Trial behavior Interview status Consent 03 — Evidence Quotes Observations Analytics Usability results 04 — Insights Finding Evidence Segment Confidence Implication 05 — Opportunities Opportunity Impact Evidence Priority Design hypothesis 06 — Decisions Product decision Research evidence Owner Date Outcome --- 6.6 Democratizing research with a solo PM Don't try to create a formal research program during this five-week project. Instead, create a simple research evidence wall. Every important finding gets: Insight → Evidence → Implication → Recommendation Invite the designer/developer/stakeholder into one 60-minute synthesis workshop rather than making yourself solely responsible for interpreting everything. Workshop structure 10 min: Research objective 15 min: Behavioral evidence 15 min: Interview/usability patterns 10 min: Cluster opportunities 10 min: Prioritize At the end, stakeholders should have participated in the reasoning rather than simply receiving your conclusions. --- Your Most Important Research Artifact For this particular problem, I would make the Trial-to-Paid Conversion Map the centerpiece of the entire project. Structure it as: Trial stage → User goal → What they actually do → Moment of friction → Doubt/question → Workaround → Impact on perceived value → Conversion consequence → Design opportunity This will make the research much more actionable than a conventional list of "pain points." The key analytical question At every stage, ask: > "What would have to be true here for this lawyer to become more confident about paying?" That question keeps the research tightly connected to the Week 6 product sprint. The final output should ideally produce these five decisions Decision Research should tell you What to fix Highest-impact conversion blockers Where to fix it Exact stage of the trial journey For whom Highest-value user segment What to build/test Evidence-backed design hypotheses How to know it worked Conversion + behavioral success metrics One important constraint: with 15 hours/week, resist trying to answer every question about the product. The research should optimize for decision quality, not research volume. The 380-user behavioral analysis should tell you where to look, interviews should tell you why, and usability testing should tell you what specifically needs to change.