Decision making could be more fun. What is buy-a-feature?
Recently I have been thinking about different research methods, their purposes and how often we actually get to use different research methods, other than of course our beloved interviews and usability tests.
The why?
It made me think back on one unconventional research method, which I have used in the past. I believe it is most often known as ‘Buy-A-Feature’, and it is actually a product prioritisation method. I wanted to apply it in a research setting, and get our participants to help us to make a decision. At the time, we were struggling to prioritise workstreams and features that we should go forward with. We were working on a new product and had so many routes to go down, we were simply overwhelmed. So, I did what researchers do best, and threw the question back to our users.
The how?
Buy-A-Feature, as the name suggests, consists of letting your participants buy a feature. The way that I structured my test, was within a closed card sort. I mapped all of the potential ‘routes’ we could go down, i.e. features, and gave them a price tag. The price tag was dependent on the time and effort implementing this feature would take. I would then set the participant a budget and let them go shopping! Participants were able to ‘shop’ i.e. categorise their features into either ‘Definitely Buying’, ‘Would Buy if I Could’, ‘Wouldn’t Buy, Ever!’.
The what?
Personally, I thought this was a really fun exercise for our participants. It is definitely not a method that is applicable in every project, but our participants were really excited to be sent on a shopping spree. I would still follow up on any decisions of course, ensuring I understand their thinking behind their thought process, as you would in a normal card sort. But this had an element of fun to it, which I thought was really valuable for our participants. It also made this more real, even though, of course the budget we gave them was not real, a lot of the participants really seemed attached to it and were careful not to overspend and ensure they get all the features that matter the most to them. Some even tried to barter with me and get a little leeway in their budget, which of course I declined.
What is next?
Well, I guess that is up to you. For us, this exercise was really helpful and it also helped us understand the thinking and priorities of our participants. This can also be done with internal stakeholders, to really get them to think about features and give them a realistic limit i.e. the budget. It can also be done in a group setting, where participants are able to try to work together to e.g. combine their budget if they so wish, to ensure they can collaborate to get the features they really want to get but cannot afford on their own.
Considerations
When you are working with groups, it could be a good idea to price one feature out of the budget of a single participant, to try to encourage working together so they can get that feature they really want. Also, be mindful of the currency that you decide to use. If you are doing international research, it could be worth considering matching the currency to something that your participants will be familiar with, or using something unbiased altogether.
Pros:
- Can be done virtually or in person
- Does not take a long time to set-up
- Is usually very fun for the participants and engages them in decision making
- Could help understand if less is more, and focusing on one aspect of a product is better than introducing a lot of different features
Cons:
- It is not appropriate in every situation
- Can require a higher number of participants to get reliable results
Further Reading:
If you are curious about hearing about this method from a product management perspective, I recommend checking these articles out:
