CHALLENGE
A global beauty company aimed to enhance inclusivity in their product research. The objective was to establish a structured approach to measure and integrate diverse perspectives, ensuring their products resonate with a broader consumer base.
A global beauty company aimed to enhance inclusivity in their product research. The objective was to establish a structured approach to measure and integrate diverse perspectives, ensuring their products resonate with a broader consumer base.
EXPERTISE PROVIDED
User Research, Process Mapping, Benchmark Development, Workshop Design & Facilitation
User Research, Process Mapping, Benchmark Development, Workshop Design & Facilitation
OUTCOME
The project resulted in a structured framework to measure and integrate diversity into the company’s product research processes. By aligning global stakeholders, we defined short-, mid-, and long-term priorities for implementing inclusive practices. Additionally, we provided actionable strategies to help the company develop products that better represent the diversity of their global consumer base.
The project resulted in a structured framework to measure and integrate diversity into the company’s product research processes. By aligning global stakeholders, we defined short-, mid-, and long-term priorities for implementing inclusive practices. Additionally, we provided actionable strategies to help the company develop products that better represent the diversity of their global consumer base.
Phase One: Research and Benchmarking
To lay the foundation for a more inclusive approach to product development, we undertook a comprehensive research process that included global interviews, direct observations, and secondary research. The goal was to understand how diversity was currently approached, the methods and tools used, and where improvements could be made.
1. Global Interviews:
We conducted in-depth interviews across seven diverse regions: Brazil, the United States, South Africa, Japan, China, France, and India. These interviews targeted key stakeholders involved in research and testing processes, such as lab teams, marketing, and local leadership. Our aim was to understand:
• Local definitions and perceptions of diversity. For example, regions like Brazil and the United States demonstrated a broader understanding of diversity, while other regions focused on narrower aspects.
• Data collection practices during product testing, including the criteria used to recruit participants and the metrics prioritized in evaluations.
• Challenges faced by each region in implementing inclusive research methods.
We conducted in-depth interviews across seven diverse regions: Brazil, the United States, South Africa, Japan, China, France, and India. These interviews targeted key stakeholders involved in research and testing processes, such as lab teams, marketing, and local leadership. Our aim was to understand:
• Local definitions and perceptions of diversity. For example, regions like Brazil and the United States demonstrated a broader understanding of diversity, while other regions focused on narrower aspects.
• Data collection practices during product testing, including the criteria used to recruit participants and the metrics prioritized in evaluations.
• Challenges faced by each region in implementing inclusive research methods.
2. Desk Research and Benchmarking:
We conducted extensive desk research to explore various dimensions of diversity, which we categorized into actionable groups:
• Physical and Biological Factors: Age, gender, skin tone, and biological traits.
• Cultural and Social Dimensions: Ethnicity, religion, geographic diversity, and cultural practices.
• Cognitive and Situational Diversity: Neurodiversity, educational backgrounds, socioeconomic status, and physical impairments.
We conducted extensive desk research to explore various dimensions of diversity, which we categorized into actionable groups:
• Physical and Biological Factors: Age, gender, skin tone, and biological traits.
• Cultural and Social Dimensions: Ethnicity, religion, geographic diversity, and cultural practices.
• Cognitive and Situational Diversity: Neurodiversity, educational backgrounds, socioeconomic status, and physical impairments.
We also analyzed benchmarks from other leading brands to showcase best practices in incorporating diversity into research and product portfolios. This included understanding how these brands used innovative strategies to include underrepresented groups.
3. Shadowing Sessions:
To complement the interviews, we conducted shadowing sessions with researchers. During these sessions, we observed their interactions with the primary data collection app used for recruiting test participants, managing studies, and analyzing results. This provided key insights into:
• How researchers navigated the app and its functionalities.
• The types of data collected and any gaps in capturing diversity metrics, such as racial or ethnic representation.
• The integration (or lack) of diversity considerations into their workflows.
• Pain points, such as rigid fields in the app that limited researchers’ ability to record nuanced participant details.
To complement the interviews, we conducted shadowing sessions with researchers. During these sessions, we observed their interactions with the primary data collection app used for recruiting test participants, managing studies, and analyzing results. This provided key insights into:
• How researchers navigated the app and its functionalities.
• The types of data collected and any gaps in capturing diversity metrics, such as racial or ethnic representation.
• The integration (or lack) of diversity considerations into their workflows.
• Pain points, such as rigid fields in the app that limited researchers’ ability to record nuanced participant details.
Outputs:
This phase culminated in a strategic report, which included:
• A detailed map of the current research process, identifying bottlenecks and areas for improvement.
• A categorized diversity benchmark, offering a structured way to evaluate inclusivity.
This phase culminated in a strategic report, which included:
• A detailed map of the current research process, identifying bottlenecks and areas for improvement.
• A categorized diversity benchmark, offering a structured way to evaluate inclusivity.
Phase Two: Collaborative Workshop and Validation
Building on the insights and benchmarks developed in Phase One, we designed and facilitated a collaborative online workshop to engage stakeholders from all seven hubs. The purpose of this phase was to validate the proposed diversity benchmarks, deepen participants’ understanding of D&I dimensions, and collaboratively prioritize actionable categories for implementation.
This phase included the following activities:
1. Introduction and Individual Presentation:
Each participant was asked to use their hub’s existing certification framework or internal processes to describe their current practices related to diversity. This activity highlighted the varied ways hubs approached and defined diversity while also creating a baseline understanding among participants.
Each participant was asked to use their hub’s existing certification framework or internal processes to describe their current practices related to diversity. This activity highlighted the varied ways hubs approached and defined diversity while also creating a baseline understanding among participants.
2. Group Discussions on D&I Dimensions:
Participants were divided into smaller groups to discuss specific dimensions from the diversity categories outlined in our benchmarks. These dimensions were pre-aligned with the project leader to ensure relevance and focus. Each group:
• Explored the dimensions in detail.
• Shared perspectives on how these dimensions could or should be incorporated into their research.
• Identified challenges and opportunities unique to their region or hub.
Participants were divided into smaller groups to discuss specific dimensions from the diversity categories outlined in our benchmarks. These dimensions were pre-aligned with the project leader to ensure relevance and focus. Each group:
• Explored the dimensions in detail.
• Shared perspectives on how these dimensions could or should be incorporated into their research.
• Identified challenges and opportunities unique to their region or hub.
3. Presentation and Prioritization Exercise:
After group discussions, participants reconvened to share their findings with everyone. The next step involved prioritizing which dimensions to implement first. This prioritization was structured into:
• Immediate Priorities (Short-Term): Dimensions that could be quickly integrated based on existing tools and processes.
• Mid-Term Priorities: Dimensions requiring additional resources, training, or minor process changes.
• Long-Term Priorities: Dimensions with broader, more complex requirements that would be integrated at a later stage.
After group discussions, participants reconvened to share their findings with everyone. The next step involved prioritizing which dimensions to implement first. This prioritization was structured into:
• Immediate Priorities (Short-Term): Dimensions that could be quickly integrated based on existing tools and processes.
• Mid-Term Priorities: Dimensions requiring additional resources, training, or minor process changes.
• Long-Term Priorities: Dimensions with broader, more complex requirements that would be integrated at a later stage.
The prioritization exercise was interactive and structured to ensure alignment across hubs, encouraging collaboration and shared ownership.
4. Report Compilation and Next Steps:
Following the workshop, we compiled a comprehensive report documenting:
• The activities conducted during the workshop.
• The prioritized diversity dimensions with rationales provided by participants.
• Feedback and insights gathered during discussions.
• Recommendations for adopting the stratification of dimensions into short-, mid-, and long-term horizons.
Following the workshop, we compiled a comprehensive report documenting:
• The activities conducted during the workshop.
• The prioritized diversity dimensions with rationales provided by participants.
• Feedback and insights gathered during discussions.
• Recommendations for adopting the stratification of dimensions into short-, mid-, and long-term horizons.
This report served as both a record of the workshop and a strategic roadmap for the company to begin implementing diversity improvements globally.
