Creating Intuitive Climbing Partner Matching Experience

Time Line: 8 weeks, June 2023 - July 2023

Role: UX Researcher

Stakeholders: CEO, Product Manager, UX Designer, and Developers

Research Method: Survey + In-depth Interview

Section Title

Background

Have you ever climbed up a steep rock surface or embraced the thrill of similar adventures?

Imagine hanging in mid-air, and the only reliance is the rope held by your climbing partner. It's these moments that make you value a reliable partner, one who not only ensures your safety but elevates the entire experience. That is why I'm passionate about our startup, Onbelay. We were working on an app to help climbers find ideal partners for safer, more enjoyable climbs.

Our team has created the initial partner-finding feature, which includes:

Partner Profile Page
Partner Matching Page, and used the following factors as primary matching criteria:
- Distance from me
- Home gyms
- Age
- Climbing types

Initial Partner Profile Page

Initial Partner Profile Page

Current Problems

However, we were not sure whether these factors were effective in helping climbers find their ideal climbing partner.

Social level: Our previous research shows that climbers struggle with finding the right partner.
- 'It's hard to find people you vibe with and who climb similar grades.'
Product level: Our existing partner matching experience does not seem to be intuitive.
- The monthly churn rate is relatively high.

Section Title

Research Goals & Questions

Research Goals

1. Summarize users’ behavioral model of partner seeking.

2. Understand users’ mental model and expectations in partner seeking.

3. Evaluate the current UX flow of seeking partners and identify areas of improvement.

Research Questions

What are users' typical behaviors when seeking partners online and offline?
What challenges and helpful aspects do they encounter during the partner-seeking process?

What factors do climbers consider when screening partners?
Among these factors, what information do climbers prioritize about partners?

How can we further segment user group?
For different segments, how do users expect to be engaged in the partner-seeking experience?

Challenges

No research budget.
Independently responsible for a UX project.
Narrowed scope of eligible participants on climbers.
Refining interview script within a 30-minute time limit.

Collaboration Process

Stakeholders are involved at every research phase.

Section Title

Methods

I began by reviewing our team's past research and studying competing apps to understand potential user needs. After thoroughly comparing potential research methods, I chose 1:1 moderated interviews to gather insights.

Compared to unmoderated interviews, moderated interviews were more effective in focusing on attitudes and follow-up questions.
While participatory design seems promising, it is too complex and time-consuming.
Focus groups required a substantial 1-2 hour commitment without incentives.
Field studies were ruled out due to dispersed users, budget constraints, and diverse partner-finding methods.

Screener

Based in the US.
Have engaged in climbing at least once a month in the last 6 months.
Rated the importance of climbing partners as above “slightly important" (Rating > 2 on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not important and 5 is very important).

Qualtrics survey (N= 37)

5 minutes
Screening questions
Open-ended questions of their current ways of seeking partners
Two ranked-order questions: Climbers ranked 10 factors by their preferences to learn about potential climbing partners & to share with potential climbing partners to find suitable partners.
- The 10 factors are generated through an analysis of prior research and competitive applications.

1:1 moderated interview (N=7)

30-minute Zoom call
Live observation by stakeholders
Questions related to their previous partner-finding experiences and previous tools.
Questions about important aspects of climbing partners.
Questions related to the tools climbers use to find climbing partners in the survey and interview.
Questions related to the pros and cons of these tools from a user perspective in the interview.

Sample interview questions:

[Understanding their online partner-finding experience] Have you or have you not ever connected with a climbing partner through online platforms? (If yes) Could you share your most recent experience in finding a climbing partner online?

Participant recruitment

To recruit participants, I extensively searched through numerous Facebook groups, explored numerous climbing-related keywords, and submitted over a hundred group membership requests. After successfully gaining access to 25 Facebook groups, I sent out my improved invitations.

In the end, I received 37 valid survey responses and recruited 7 participants for in-depth interviews based on our screening criteria.

Facebook Groups I joined for participant recruitment

Section Title

Results Analysis

Survey result analysis

Graphic and Climbing Data: Presented demographic and climbing-related data using tables and graphs to facilitate clear understanding for stakeholders.

Competitor Analysis: Collected tools utilized for finding partners and their frequency of use.
Quantitative Insights: Offered numerical evidence of climbers' preferences regarding information in potential partners' profiles.

Prioritized factors: Personality, Available climbing schedule, Climbing type.

Factors used in our app, are considered as not that important.

Quantitative insights: The rank of factors.

Rank of Factors Climbers Consider:

Personality
Available climbing schedule
Climbing type
Past climbing experience
Level of climbing
Distance from me
Transportation availability of partners
Certification/Qualification
Gear owned by partners
Gender
Home gym(s)

Rank of Factors Climbers Want to Share:

Available climbing schedule
Past climbing experience
Level of climbing
Climbing type
Personality
Distance from me
Gear owned by partners
Transportation availability of partners
Gender
Certification/Qualification
Home gym(s)

Interview Result Analysis

Affinity mapping using Miro

Generated ideas into sticky notes & pre-organizing data

On belay interview data analysis-before.jpg

Grouped them into different themes:
- Prioritized factors
- Desirable factors
- Partner-seeking experience

One of the Prioritized Factors: Personality

Section Title

Key Insights and Recommendations

Key finding 1: Discovered climbers' actual partner preferences, contrary to stakeholder assumption.

Primary Considerations: Climbers prioritize partner’s climbing type, availability, location, grade, experience, personality, gear and transportation, when seeking climbing partners.
Desirable Traits: A comprehensive 'About Me' section, shared interests, openness with last-minute changes, and access to other personal information are also preferred while looking for potential partners.

Before Research:
Prioritized Factors

Climbing type
Home gyms/crags
Availability
Distance from me
Age
Gear
Grade
Q&A prompt

After Research:
Prioritized Factors

Climbing type
Availability
Location
Grade
Experience
Personality
Gear
Transportation

After Research:
Desirable Traits

Comprehensive 'About Me' section
Shared interests
Openness level with last-minute changes
The availability of other personal information

Recommendation
→Focus on available climbing schedule, location, and climbing type as primary matching criteria.
→Include prioritized factors and desirable traits in matching and profile features.

Key finding 1: Two distinct goals in climbing with partners:
Prioritize comprehensive compatibility VS Prioritize efficiency and focus on enjoying climbing.

Two user personas were created to enhance our understanding.

Recommendation
→In the first-run experience (FRE), offer users the choice to either skip the detailed profile setup or create a comprehensive user profile to accommodate different preferences.

User Persona 1: Prioritize comprehensive compatibility

User Persona 2: Prioritize efficiency and focus on enjoying climbing

Screenshot 2023-09-09 at 11.14.44 PM.png

Section Title

Impact

The user churn rate decreased by 2%.
Clarified comprehensive factors that climbers value to create a more tailored user profile.
Simplified the sign-up process to offer a segmented experience.
Aligned our product with users' partner-seeking mental model.
The project also inspired our team to broaden our user base, encompassing not only climbers but all sports enthusiasts seeking partners.

My Learnings

To recruit participants without financial incentives, researchers can build connections within the target community to motivate study participation.
I have realized the importance of involving stakeholders carefully in the research process. To ensure the highest research rigor, it is crucial to provide these stakeholders with clear and detailed instructions.
Fast-paced research is essential for startups.
What would I do differently: consider alternatives for personas.
What would I do differently: Distinguish between outdoor and indoor climbers when conducting research due to their distinct partner-seeking goals and routines.

Creating Intuitive Climbing Partner Matching Experience

Section Title

Background

Our team has created the initial partner-finding feature, which includes:

Partner Profile Page

Partner Matching Page, and used the following factors as primary matching criteria:

​Distance from me

Home gyms

Age

Climbing types

​

However, we were not sure whether these factors were effective in helping climbers find their ideal climbing partner.

Social level: Our previous research shows that climbers struggle with finding the right partner.

'It's hard to find people you vibe with and who climb similar grades.'

Product level: Our existing partner matching experience does not seem to be intuitive.

The monthly churn rate is relatively high.

​

Section Title

Research Goals & Questions

​

Research Questions

What are users' typical behaviors when seeking partners online and offline?

What challenges and helpful aspects do they encounter during the partner-seeking process?

​

What factors do climbers consider when screening partners?

Among these factors, what information do climbers prioritize about partners?

​

How can we further segment user group?

For different segments, how do users expect to be engaged in the partner-seeking experience?

Challenges

No research budget.

Independently responsible for a UX project.

Narrowed scope of eligible participants on climbers.

Refining interview script within a 30-minute time limit.

​

Collaboration Process

Stakeholders are involved at every research phase.

Section Title

Methods

I began by reviewing our team's past research and studying competing apps to understand potential user needs. After thoroughly comparing potential research methods, I chose 1:1 moderated interviews to gather insights.

Compared to unmoderated interviews, moderated interviews were more effective in focusing on attitudes and follow-up questions.

While participatory design seems promising, it is too complex and time-consuming.

Focus groups required a substantial 1-2 hour commitment without incentives.

Field studies were ruled out due to dispersed users, budget constraints, and diverse partner-finding methods.

​

Screener

Based in the US.

Have engaged in climbing at least once a month in the last 6 months.

Rated the importance of climbing partners as above “slightly important" (Rating > 2 on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not important and 5 is very important).

​

5 minutes

Screening questions

Open-ended questions of their current ways of seeking partners

Two ranked-order questions: Climbers ranked 10 factors by their preferences to learn about potential climbing partners & to share with potential climbing partners to find suitable partners.

The 10 factors are generated through an analysis of prior research and competitive applications.

​

1:1 moderated interview (N=7)

30-minute Zoom call

Live observation by stakeholders

Questions related to their previous partner-finding experiences and previous tools.

Questions about important aspects of climbing partners.

Questions related to the tools climbers use to find climbing partners in the survey and interview.

Questions related to the pros and cons of these tools from a user perspective in the interview.

Sample interview questions:

[Understanding their online partner-finding experience] Have you or have you not ever connected with a climbing partner through online platforms? (If yes) Could you share your most recent experience in finding a climbing partner online?

Participant recruitment

To recruit participants, I extensively searched through numerous Facebook groups, explored numerous climbing-related keywords, and submitted over a hundred group membership requests. After successfully gaining access to 25 Facebook groups, I sent out my improved invitations.

In the end, I received 37 valid survey responses and recruited 7 participants for in-depth interviews based on our screening criteria.

​

Section Title

Results Analysis

Survey result analysis

Graphic and Climbing Data: Presented demographic and climbing-related data using tables and graphs to facilitate clear understanding for stakeholders.

Competitor Analysis: Collected tools utilized for finding partners and their frequency of use.

Quantitative Insights: Offered numerical evidence of climbers' preferences regarding information in potential partners' profiles.

​

Prioritized factors: Personality, Available climbing schedule, Climbing type.

​Factors used in our app, are considered as not that important.

​

Rank of Factors Climbers Consider:

Distance from me

Factors used in our app, are considered as not that important.

Generated ideas into sticky notes & pre-organizing data

Before Research:
Prioritized Factors

After Research:
Prioritized Factors

After Research:
Desirable Traits

Two user personas were created to enhance our understanding.

Recommendation
→In the first-run experience (FRE), offer users the choice to either skip the detailed profile setup or create a comprehensive user profile to accommodate different preferences.

The user churn rate decreased by 2%.