Research Plan

Background

The Unified Certification Platform (UCP) is designed to improve and streamline the initial application, evaluation, and recertification processes for the following SBA programs – 8(a), WOSB/EDWOSB, VOSB/SDVOSB, HUBZone, and MPP.

The External Experience product focuses on the needs of the business user to provide firm owners with unified tools/interfaces that improve efficiency and mitigate friction.

Currently, 8(a) Entity-Owned Businesses go through the same process as individual 8(a) businesses when utilizing UCP. The SBA recognizes that Entity-Owned firms have different eligibility requirements and therefore different needs than individually owned businesses in the 8(a) program. This study’s purpose is to understand the business practical differences between 8(a) Entity-Owned firms and individual 8(a) firms and how this affects the features and workflows Entity-Owned business owners should encounter using UCP. With this data, the SBA will work toward prioritizing and customizing UCP to the Entity-Owned experience.

UCP is a product currently used by business owners and SBA staff, so the user experience research team wants to present an environment that is representative of the current iteration of UCP to end-users to solicit feedback & refine design requirements to meet/fulfill user needs and reduce user pain points.

Project/SBA Objectives

1. Further the SBA’s understanding of Entity-Owned business needs as they navigate UCP and tailor the site to better align those needs with the user experience.

2. Refine the current application workflow that allows external users to manage active certifications and apply for new certifications considering Entity-Owned status and eligibility requirements.

3. Increase efficiency and reduce actions which cause friction to Entity-Owned users while starting, completing, and submitting applications.

4. Provide a central application that serves as a system of record for user certifications and supplementary documentation.

Research Goals

1. Receive overall feedback on current designs and features of UCP as they relate to Entity-Owned requirements.

2. Make recommendations supported by user feedback that will tailor UCP to the Entity-Owned experience.

3. Solicit and refine design requirements to align the 8(a)-user experience with Entity-Owned end-user needs.

4. Keep UCP team members apprised of user feedback and foster beneficial engagement.

When using UCP, which features or processes are causing the most friction to Entity-Owned users when completing and managing applications and certifications?

Research Question

Outcome

This research will advance UCP by identifying features and processes that are causing the most user errors and creating friction for Entity-Owned users trying to complete main user flows of the website. From the user needs, wants, and pain points identified, the user experience team will be able to work toward improving UCP by fulfilling user needs/wants and mitigating user pain points. This will provide the SBA with substantiated recommendations to prioritize and customize UCP to the Entity-Owned user experience.

Hypothesis

Going into the study, the research team is aware of consistent issues in the following areas. It is expected that users may express gaps between our team’s intended design and the user experience provided in these areas:

• Mismatch of information between Certify and SAM.gov when claiming a business

• The Contributor Invite Section

• Selecting Intended Programs

• Uploading required documentation multiple times, rather than having certain documents saved in the system

Methdology

Moderated usability testing will be utilized to conduct this study. By engaging with users active in current systems, this type of testing will solicit user feedback of designs and workflows and inform future iterations. Each successive round of user testing will gather feedback on both a new iteration of previously viewed design and the next stage of the workflow. In this way, each user testing session moves the UCP design forward to approach a system that operates in a way that meets users’ needs.

Location

Sessions will be conducted remotely via Microsoft Teams and take place in UCP’s virtual training environment. The meeting and environment links will be provided on the day of the session.

Materials

• Conversation Guide

• Training Environment

• Booking Link

• Test Materials

Recruitment Approach

Recruitment Email

The intended audience for this research is Entity-Owned business users of the 8(a) Business Development Program. Users will be recruited via email.

Hello [Participant Name],

I am a UX Researcher on behalf of the Small Business Administration. I am currently working on a project for the Unified Certification Platform (UCP) where I need to conduct usability testing. This study will focus on identifying the specific user needs, wants, and pain points of Entity-Owned business users as they navigate the website. This will fulfill the objective of providing context to issues faced in UCP and reduce friction as users manage their applications and certifications. The SBA strives to improve UCP and needs your assistance in aligning the Entity-Owned user experience with your needs.

Location: Remote via Microsoft Teams

With your permission, we will record each test session to help us decide how to improve our product. Recordings will only be shared with project team members for the scope of this project. Recording test sessions is essential to most accurately collect your data. If you are uncomfortable with your test session being recorded or unwilling to provide consent, you will not be eligible to participate.

If you have any questions, please contact me by email at [insert my email here]

If you are interested in being tested, please respond to this email and select a test date and time using the following link:

The SBA greatly appreciates your time and input as we work toward improving the Entity-Owned user experience in UCP.

Sincerely,

Gianna Pontrelli

Recruitment Criteria

The user experience team will test a total of 6 participants: 2 Native Hawaiian Organization (NHO) users, 2 Alaskan Native Corporation (ANC) users, and 2 American Indian Tribe (AIT) users.

Primary criteria: Must belong to an 8(a) firm of the Entity-Owned status. Required to have previously used Certify and UCP to apply for and manage active certifications.

Preparation

Materials for the usability test should be finalized by 8/11/25. The staging environment will be accessed, and all test accounts will be tested prior to participant recruitment. During this process, a short trial video will be made to ensure the visual and audio content will be recorded and saved accurately. Test materials will be sent to participants the morning of their test session providing the environment link, email address, blank documents, and supplementary information to prevent the use of the user’s PPI.

Research Sessions

Planned dates of research: 8/26/25-9/5/25

Length of sessions: 1 hour

Buffer time between sessions: Minimum of 30 minutes to reset between sessions, review notes of session, and to account for a participant arriving late or a session going over time.

Availability

Sessions will all be scheduled within a 2 week period if possible. Participants will be provided with a link to a booking tool that will allow them to schedule their testing session within a date range and time range. Ideally, testing sessions will be booked Monday-Friday and between 1pm and 5pm, but accommodation can be made for users who cannot complete testing during typical business hours or who are located in different time zones.

Team Roles

• Moderator

• Research Guide Writing and Task Development

• Participant Recruiting & Screening

• Project Point of Contact

• Note-taker

• Observers

Research Findings & Recommendations

Key Findings

The following findings are listed in order of priority to fix.

Details of Findings

Language of prompts & descriptions could be more expansive. This would make UCP more user friendly to beginner users not familiar with UCP or the overall process.

Throughout the entire session, experienced users provided feedback that several prompts were clear to them due to their expertise, but would not be clear to a newer, less experienced user. Two different users had familiarity with the process, but had never used UCP before. These users asked an array of clarifying questions (regarding the meaning of the questions, definitions of roles, & what information to provide) which supported this feedback. This was evidenced in the every section of the application and during the process of claiming your business.

· “The process of filling out the section is clear to legacy users, but more clarifying language could help newer users. (referring to Ownership section)

· “It’s not clear to a brand new entity user if this page is wanting to invite contributors who are exclusively with the parent entity or if the user is supposed to be providing just individuals who will be directly a part of the firm.” (referring to Contributor Invitation section)

· “The process begins with an assumption that the user has thorough knowledge of 13 CFR, you understand the goal and how the process begins, and that this is just a new portal to work in. This doesn’t take new users into account that don’t come to UCP with that background knowledge.” (referring to the Claiming Your Business process)

· “Provide more links to the knowledge base & regulations (CFR 13)”

· “This page is clear to me since I have used UCP before, but this would be confusing to someone as a 1st time user.” (referring to the Ownership page)

· “A note should be added to the top of the screen stating that any person that you enter under Control & Operations, those are the people that are going to be required to do the contributor invite.” (referring to the Control & Operations page)

Refine the Individual Questionnaire Section

Every participant who moved through the sections of the individual questionnaire felt that several screens/prompts needed to be altered or removed as they were not relevant to Entity-Owned applications in their current state. The issues that are causing friction to the Entity-Owned user experience are outlined below by section of the Individual Questionnaire.

Individual Questionnaire Dashboard Layout:

· 8/8 users liked the layout with the subsections in tile format and the workflow of moving through each tile to complete the Individual Questionnaire. (I.Q.)

· 3/8 users found it difficult to navigate back to the I.Q. Dashboard once they started the subsections.

· 2/8 users hadn’t fully completed the Individual Questionnaire section and had to navigate back to it when they tried to sign and submit their application.

· Each info icon should have additional information in them. Several icons repeated the text in the prompt or provided additional information that users did not find helpful.

o 3/8 users wanted a link to the Regulation(s) the question was referring to so they could access more information.

· 2/8 users wanted the name of this section changed to Applicant Questionnaire or Entity-Owned Questionnaire.

Prior/Current SBA Program Participation:

· 8/8 users did not understand why this section was already marked as completed and thought it should be removed if the information is not necessary.

Professional Licenses:

· 7/8 users needed/wanted clarification of what licenses were being requested.

Applicant Information:

· 7/8 users thought this page should be removed for Entity-Owned applications. Several users reported that they would fill this out with dummy information and that they were unsure who’s information is being requested.

Federal Relationships:

· 3/8 users thought clarifying language needs to be provided to state who these questions are asking about. “These questions should populate for the firm.”

· “I’m answering this halfway as the firm and then the other half as the General Manager individual.”

Other Ownership Experience:

· It’s not clear whose information/experience the applicant should be entering in the 1st textbox.

· “I would make a note that this information is for the management team or the manager associated with the application. This still seems to be referring to individually owned.”

· 4/8 users want to be able to upload the resume instead of being asked to enter the person’s previous employment experience.

· “Is this (the 1st textbox) in lieu of providing the resume of the manager”?

8(a) Character:

· This section is geared toward individual 8(a)s. Several users knew they were answering this on behalf of the organization, but the wording indicates this is geared toward an individual.

Entity-Owned Specific:

· 2/8 users thought the format should be MM/DD and not require a year. 4/8 users were unsure of which fiscal year they were supposed to provide. 1 user thought the name of this section should be changed to be more relevant to the 1 question the section has.

Entity-Owned Specific for 8(a):

· 2/8 users thought this should be a “Select All That Apply” question.

· 3/8 users always select the 3rd option and didn’t understand the other options.

· 5/8 users thought more information should be provided in the information icon to explain each of the options.

“I don’t think one of the newer NHOs would know which one to select.”

Control & Operations

The following outlines changes users want to see implemented to this section of the application.

• 6/8 users did not understand what licenses were being referenced in the license holder questions and automatically selected 'no'.

• 4/8 users enter the information of their day-to-day manager/general manager and wanted this option as a principal type.

Ownership

The following outlines several changes users want to see implemented to this section of the application.

· It’s hard to add layers if you have a holding company. A lot of Entity-Owned firms have multiple holding lines and multiple subsidiaries underneath those holding lines. There’s been confusion over where some ownership information should go especially if the Controlling Entity holds most of the ownership.”

· “Entity-owned firms should only detail the first layer of ownership of the applicant firm, any additional information will be requested as part of the controlling entity profile.”

o Needs to clarify who is the “1st layer of Ownership” and this should be two sentences not one.

o This is open to interpretation. A less experience user could assume to put the holding company or the parent here.

· “Is this (business structure info) coming from the tribal side or the firm side?”

· 2/8 users expressed confusion over the 2 Organization Types. They wanted more clarification of which one Entity-Owned applicants were supposed to select.

Entity-Owned Page

The following outlines several changes users want to see implemented to this section of the application.

· 5/8 users wanted an N/A option provided. Several users have become accustomed to uploading blank documents to sections that are not applicable to them.

· 3/8 users needed a place to upload “orphan” documents.

· The table provided with the uploaded document should remove “Author” & change “Created” to “Uploaded”.

o Whoever uploaded the document may not be the document’s author. Also, the document was most likely created before the day it was uploaded to the application.

· 2/8 users wanted “resolutions” added as a document type to the “meeting minutes” upload.

Document Upload

The following outlines feedback & wanted additions users provided about this section of the application.

· 4/8 users expressed confusion over how the businesses displayed in the Controlling Entity Search drop-down populated there.

· 3/8 users loved the link to submit a request in the Controlling Entity Search

· 2/8 users found the 2nd verification of Entity-Owned status to be redundant

· 2/8 users thought more information could be provided explaining the purpose of this page. (specifically the purpose of the Controlling Entity Search for beginner users)

After Application Submission

The following feedback explains that users want more information and status updates provided once they have submitted their application.

· “I like the pending status, but when the application goes into review, does the status change to in review?”

· Wants to see steps in the status as the application moves through the reviewal process. This will provide more transparency to users on the status of their application and minimize users reaching out to SBA and UCP support with application status inquiries.

Final Steps & Key Takeaways

Once I had completed my report of research findings, I met with internal & external team members to share my results. From there, team members began to collaborate discussing which solutions to apply to identified issues, what research recommendations were feasible given the business requirements of the project, and the timeline of making improvements to the site. The next step involved the creation of work tickets that were implemented in the project's next Entity-Owned sprint. All of the improvements were implemented within 3 months and the project came to a close. I am thrilled with the results of this project and the opportunity it provided. This is the first UX Research Project that I completed from start to finish and was the Point of Contact for. I learned invaluable skills including the creation of a project's research plan, conversation guide, testing materials, usability session booking tool, and research findings report. I also learned how to recruit test participants, moderate a usability study, and prepare a presentation of results to team members. I am excited to utilize the tools I learned from this project to inform research studies of future products.