ExxonMobil: Upstream Operations Maintenance Application
This was a field research project I worked on as part of my internship at ExxonMobil during the summer of 2022. The central focus of this project was to provide foundational user-centered insights into an existing software application.
My Role: Lead UX Researcher
Dates: May 23rd - July 20th
Methods: Interviews, Contextual Inquiry, Thematic Analysis, Prioritization Workshop
Deliverables: Journey Maps, Empathy Maps, Personas, Research Report(s), Prioritized Development Recommendations List
Summary of Task
The focus of this project was a maintenance application used in the field at different unconventional oil and gas operations. Stakeholders wanted to know more about each user group’s challenges and have more visibility into the real-time use of the tool at these sites to evaluate maintenance requests.
This research effort aimed to provide actionable, user-centered insights to the application’s development team that could be applied to current features and items in their backlog.
Objectives
1
Provide clarity and enhanced visibility into user needs and unaddressed barriers
3
Supply development backlog list with opportunities to potentially improve interface design
2
Validate previous updates and improvements made to the application
4
Help provide insight into how the application can be designed to support operations on a larger scale
Project Timeline
Phase I
Stakeholder Engagement
The primary focus of Phase I was knowledge building and project alignment. I met with the Product Manager, Product Owner, and Business Services Advisor to get up to speed on the application's past, current, and future state. After these meetings, I understood their priorities and consolidated ideas to determine the best way(s) to provide value to the team within the 8-week timeframe of my project.
Business Value - This maintenance application is a business-critical tool for upstream operations. Proper use of the tool improves the turnaround of maintenance activities and increases the operating efficiency of plants, wells, and rigs.
By walking through the application with the subject matter expert (SME) and by myself, I familiarized myself with the primary workflows, recurring issues experienced by users, and upcoming changes/updates. I also browsed the development teams’ Azure DevOps (ADO) boards to better understand the end users’ priorities.
Requirements & Research Questions
Research Proposal
I then created a formal research proposal outlining my requirements, research questions, and plan. I shared this proposal with the product team.
Value - The product team had no previous experience with UX, so the research proposal was a great educational tool for the human-centered design process. Creating this was also beneficial for me, as I reflected on my research process and the intentionality of each research decision.
Phase II
Research Trip
The primary focus of Phase II was interacting with users and acquiring data. Due to the lack of UX precedent on the application, I took a broader approach to identify higher-level problems that have impacted its usability and implementation across sites.
We planned a 5-day research trip to 3 separate sites to speak with application users in person and obtain contextual information regarding their working environment(s). There were 3 primary types of users – admins, foreman, and resources – with different responsibilities in the application.
Interviews
I developed specific interview questions to uncover broader information about application usage across an operation. Below is an example of how I linked interview questions to one of my central research questions:
Contextual Inquiries
I developed a list of questions to guide my observations around the environmental factors surrounding specific users and their workflows within the application. Some of these include:
Summary
In total, 6 interviews and 4 contextual inquiries were completed during the trip. A diagramming outlining the research activities is displayed below.
Initial Findings
I shared an overview of findings with the Product Owner throughout the trip. Some of these findings include:
Users at all levels thought the application was user-friendly, has improved over time, and were motivated to use it.
The way the application was used at sites is different.
There were multiple – sometimes repetitive – data entry points in the field.
Current site processes did not suggest the need for instantaneous feedback and uploads from the application.
Thematic Analysis
The week after the trip, I reviewed all recordings, notes, and photos to identify high-level themes that emerged from the data. The themes are listed below with corresponding photos:
Onboarding & Training
Users were onboarded and trained intermittently to improve proficiency and long-term adoption
Frequent Documentation
Users engaged in frequent documentation and data entry throughout the day
At one site, individual training was done by the admin in an office with a foreman and resource
Resources made routine checks and recorded raw data in notebooks
One site used paper handbooks for application training/onboarding
One site brought individual paper inspection forms to the field
Limited Field Usage
Users rarely used the application in the field on their phone
Scheduling & Tracking
Users performed scheduling and tracking tasks outside the application
Resource work was often hands-on and in tight spaces not conducive to technology usage
Foreman work was usually done at the desk – using multiple screens to schedule, track, and organize information
Visual Information (no photo)
Users frequently sent and requested photos of work that had been done or needed to be done
Access (no photo)
Users experienced access issues that created site delays and increased workloads for users with access
Duplication
Identical information documented in the application more than once
Resources who completed their work in the field on the mobile application have to re-complete the work at the office because it shows up as unfinished when received by the foreman
Verification
Information previously documented in the application has to be verified, edited, or completed
Foreman have to make an additional phone call or leave their offie to visit a work site when resources fail to submit a photo or specific description of their work in the application
Report Out
I presented a report of my findings to the Product Owner and System Architect to discuss the themes I had identified and prioritize their importance. We prioritized the theme of Documentation, specifically instances of replication, duplication, and verification.
Replication
Information documented in the application that had already been documented in separate forms
Resources at one site having to fill out paper copies of forms in addition to similar work forms in the application
Phase III
Research Trip
We planned a second, single-day research trip to another site following the first round of data collection. I adjusted my research materials to dig deeper into user’s documentation practices and answer the following question:
How might we reduce instances of replication, duplication, and verification to improve documentation efficiency in the application?
***Due to unanticipated events and time conflicts, I could only observe a workshop and feedback session for the application. No additional data was collected.
Data Synthesis
A positive side effect of missing out on new data collection was that I could explore the existing data in greater detail to build out the theme of documentation with specific contextual information from users. I then conveyed this through personas, empathy maps, and journey maps.
Value – The product team had little to no experience in the field interacting with their end users. These deliverables helped bridge information gaps for the product team by personifying my insights and placing them in context. This newfound understanding allowed the product team to empathize more with their end users.
Personas
I created two personas — one for a “detailed-oriented power user” and another for an “ambivalent user”. These two personality types displayed observable differences in documentation practices.
Empathy Maps
I created an empathy map for each of the three user groups (admin, foreman, and resource) to highlight their unique documentation responsibilities, needs, and feelings about the application.
Journey Maps
I created journey maps to show problematic workflows (across users groups) regarding documentation, such as mobile usage, media uploads, and inspection completion.
Phase IV
Wrapping Up
Prioritization Workshop
I conducted follow-up research during Phase IV to strengthen my understanding of user documentation practices. Follow-ups revealed that documentation “replication” issues were not as significant as initially thought. As a result, I adjusted the prioritization of findings previously discussed with the product team.
I generated one or more recommendations for future development focus for each finding and discussed these recommendations in a prioritization workshop with the product team. During the workshop, we determined technical solutions for each of my recommendations and organized them according to user value and development effort.
Final Report
My final report to the product team consisted of the following:
Complete list of findings and observations from the field
Prioritized list of technical recommendations for future development work
List of recommendations for future UX work on the application
Reflection
Secondary research sets the tone
Unlike my previous UX Research projects in school, this was my first time conducting user research on a piece of software I had not developed or ideated. I developed a newfound appreciation for this initial project stage, as conducting proper secondary research proved valuable in formulating research objectives and a comprehensive research plan.
Adaptability and improvisation mitigate uncertainty
Field research can be very unpredictable. I came into both field research trips with a “game plan” but deviated from that plan fairly quickly. The impromptu nature of research activities was great practice in adaptability. Making research adjustments in real-time, changeable situations is an important skill that I hope to build as I continue my research career.