Question 1

How do we capture unmet needs without leading or priming?

Accepted Answer

To uncover unmet needs without leading participants, use open-ended and observational research methods that let people reveal their challenges in their own words. For example, instead of asking a leading question like "Would feature X help you?", you ask them to describe a recent difficult experience or a workaround they use in the relevant area. Techniques such as in-depth interviews, diary studies, or ethnographic observation encourage participants to talk about their routine and pain points naturally, bringing up needs you didn't explicitly mention. Moderators remain neutral and probe gently with follow-ups ("Can you tell me more about that?" or "Why was that frustrating?") rather than suggesting solutions. By giving people the space to explain problems and desires on their own, you capture authentic unmet needs without priming or biasing them with your assumptions.

Question 2

Which UXR recruitment mix avoids bias while meeting timelines and budget?

Accepted Answer

The best approach is to use a blended recruitment strategy - combining a diverse panel or third-party recruiter with targeted outreach - so you get a broad, unbiased sample without blowing time or budget. In practice, this might mean sourcing some participants from a reputable panel provider (which quickly delivers vetted candidates across demographics) while also recruiting directly from your user base or niche communities to fill specific gaps. This mix helps avoid the bias of relying on just one pool: the panel adds speed and scale, and your targeted recruits ensure voices of key user segments (or marginalized groups) are included. The key is to set clear screening criteria up front to filter out any "professional testers" and ensure diversity. By splitting recruiting channels (and negotiating rates or using in-house lists where possible), you can meet tight timelines and budget constraints while still getting a well-rounded participant sample for your UX research.

Question 3

How should we adapt innovation pipelines to manage disruption?

Accepted Answer

Managing disruption requires making the innovation pipeline more agile and proactive; companies should shorten development cycles and set up early warning practices so they can pivot quickly when new technologies or market shifts emerge. For example, some firms now include a 'horizon scanning' step to regularly monitor emerging trends and inject those insights into pipeline decisions. It also helps to adopt an iterative approach (rapid prototyping and test-and-learn) instead of a rigid stage-gate process that might slow down reactions. Building a diverse innovation portfolio balances core improvements with some higher-risk, disruptive bets, ensuring the company isn't caught off guard by change. Finally, empowering teams to make swift decisions and adjust priorities in real time keeps the pipeline resilient in the face of disruption.

Question 4

When is it cost-effective to centralize vs decentralize fieldwork coordination?

Accepted Answer

Centralizing fieldwork coordination is most cost-effective when studies are similar across regions and can benefit from standardized processes and economies of scale. If multiple projects use the same methods or vendors, a central team can negotiate better rates, eliminate duplicate effort, and maintain consistent quality, thus driving costs down. In contrast, decentralizing (having local teams handle their own fieldwork) is economical when each project or market has unique needs that a one-size-fits-all approach would only inflate. For example, highly localized studies might require specific cultural knowledge or on-the-ground flexibility that a distant central team cannot provide efficiently. In those cases, giving autonomy to regional coordinators avoids the overhead of central management. As a rule of thumb: centralize coordination to save money when projects are homogenous and scalable, and decentralize when local agility and customization are critical to avoid waste.

Question 5

What regulatory hurdles complicate medical device research globally?

Accepted Answer

Global medical device research is often slowed by a patchwork of regulations, as each country imposes its own approval process, safety standards, and data rules. For example, a device trial that meets U.S. FDA (Food and Drug Administration) requirements might need a completely different submission to satisfy European regulators under the CE marking system or newer EU Medical Device Regulation. Some countries demand local clinical trials or partnering with a domestic entity, adding to timelines and complexity. On top of that, patient data privacy laws like GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) can restrict how trial data is shared across borders. All these varying requirements mean companies must plan for extra steps — multiple ethics reviews, translating documents, differing reporting formats — in order to run a truly global device study.

Sago Houston

Why choose Us

What is Sago Houston?

Research Facility

Research Facility Details

Facility Rooms

Services and Expertise

Market Research FAQs with Expert Insights

How do we capture unmet needs without leading or priming?

Which UXR recruitment mix avoids bias while meeting timelines and budget?

How should we adapt innovation pipelines to manage disruption?

When is it cost-effective to centralize vs decentralize fieldwork coordination?

What regulatory hurdles complicate medical device research globally?