Augusta Golfing Corp Case Study
Our Augusta Golf research plan revolved around the concept that we were going to be creating a new to market platform, with a new scoring system, and in many ways an entirely new way to golf with your coworkers remotely. The goal was to allow golfers to compete in online tournaments with their colleagues, in order to win prizes for regular play and eventually the chance to compete in a professional quality in-person tournament.
Our Augusta Golf research plan revolved around the concept that we were going to be creating a new to market platform, with a new scoring system, and in many ways an entirely new way to golf with your coworkers remotely. The goal was to allow golfers to compete in online tournaments with their colleagues, in order to win prizes for regular play and eventually the chance to compete in a professional quality in-person tournament.
The research problems we were looking to understand:
- How comfortable it was tor a user to navigate the platform
- Users need to be able to complete tasks set out once wireframes are completed
- User acceptance testing (focus on the Golf Platform scoring system/luck based element)
The approach we were taking was to get a full breadth of understanding about the customers ease of use, and adoption of the product through screening a cross section of users that represent who our users might be.
Our conceptual, ideal breakdown of candidates for in person interviews looked like this:
- Some gender balance, but were expecting predominantly male users
- A full range of ages (25 to retirement)
- Comfortable speaking about their golfing experiences
- Comfortable interacting with technology
- A golfing frequency between 10 – 20 times per year (since we were testing in Vancouver BC and the golf season is limited by the weather)
The format we decided for user testing session was that:
- Each session will take up to 1 hour and will be conducted by Kayla and Ed
- Sessions would take one of the meeting spaces in the Major Tom office in downtown Vancouver
- A prototype of wireframes supported in InVision that had been created to demonstrate the range of features / functionality and structures to be tested. (The same prototype would be used with all users
- Sessions would have 5 defined sections:
- Framing the session and introduction – consent forms, get comfortable, get in context
- Self-directed, think-out-loud exploration of prototypes to capture initial impressions
- Scenarios and tasks to test specific aspects of the prototypes (features, functionality, structure)
- Conversation / interview questions that cannot be uncovered in tasks and that help us expand on themes that came up during phase 1 research
- Wrap up and conclusion, giving the user a $50 Amazon Voucher for their time
Objective
Validate features, functionality and website structure approaches that address:
-
- Approach / Content Discovery: ways of presenting content that address expectations
- Engagement: how will the end user perceive their usage of the platform in their own golf game and tournament participation
- Community: do they perceive themselves participating in and advocate to their friends and colleagues about the app
We started screening for users through a google survey we released at golf clubs around Vancouver and on social media, our goal was to try and select suitable end users to participate in the testing sessions that would be representative of the average user.
Criteria we started out looking for:
- 2 men age range 65 and over
- 3 men from 45-65 years
- 1 man from 35-45 years
- 2 men age 35 and under
- 2 women (age group to be determined based on screener results)
- Some gender balance, predominantly male
- Comfortable speaking about their golfing experiences
- Comfortable interacting with technology
- A golfing frequency between 10 – 20 times per year
Who we really ended up interviewing:
- 1 man 65+
- 2 men 45-65
- 2 men 26-34
- 1 man under 25
- 3 women 26-34
- 1 woman 45 -55
- All very tech literate, and used not only golfing apps but many other different apps
- Golfing frequency ranged from 10-50+ times a year
We were excited to have a much closer spread in gender equality, and a large span of golfers that golfed on many courses in town and also traveled to play golf. We felt that they would be a stronger representation of the end users than we had hoped for.
Once we had our users, we knew we wanted to have them come into our office to test both the mobile version and the desktop version. We had planned a format, providing the users with context so they could all have the same idea to start:
“You just started a new job and found out that a bunch of golfers are part of an online golf platform and compete against each other for prizes. Your manager sends you a website link and encourages you to join and sign up for a tournament.”
We found that users were able to easily navigate the platform, and scores input mirrored what they had experienced with the Golf Canada Handicap system. This eased a lot of possible usability and on-boarding issues.
We learned about the idiosyncrasies between what ”T colours” were used at different golf courses, and that many users preferred the idea that this was an app for “league play” not “tournaments” as to them tournaments we a specific round of golf that happened on a specific day, with dinner and drinking at the end, versus league play which was more fun, relaxed and held a different concept for the users.
We asked then to complete these tasks:
- Please scroll around the landing page and tell us what your first impressions are
- Use the tournament landing page to sign up for a tournament
- Use the platform to input a round of scores
- Use the platform to review your scores on the tournament leader-board
- Use the platform to review your scorecards
We decided that the user testing would be evaluated using these criteria:
Relevancy: Does the page meet user expectations – both in terms of content and design?
Clarity: Is the content/offer on this page as clear as possible?
Value: is it communicating value to the user? Can we do better? Can we increase user motivation?
Friction: what on this page is causing doubts, hesitations, and uncertainties?
Distraction: what’s on the page that is not helping the user take action? Is anything unnecessarily drawing attention?
We found that users were able to easily navigate the platform, and scores input mirrored what they had experienced with the Golf Canada Handicap system. This eased a lot of possible useability and onboarding issues.
We learned about the idiosyncrasies between what ”T colours” were used at different golf courses, and that many users preferred the idea that this was an app for “league play” not “tournaments” as to them tournaments we a specific round of golf that happened on a specific day, with dinner and drinking at the end, versus league play which was more fun, relaxed and held a different concept for the users.
Beginners and many of the women users were more interested in playing 9 holes after work instead of the full 18 holes. Which was not something we had anticipated, nor had our other research uncovered
Users were reluctant when it came to the payment structure and felt that if this was a work related investment that their company should pay for the entry fees (this app was geared towards companies hosting corporate tournaments). They were also confused about the newly proposed scoring system, as the International Golfing Committee was changing how handicaps were calculated in 2020.
An unexpected research discovery was that users were very interested in using the platform as a means to play golf with and against their friends and family spread out over the country. They were wanting to engage with each other for fun but also as a way to connect during the year before they all went on large golfing vacations together. They were also interested in more “gamification” and ways to “win” recognition for cool things that happened while they were playing golf, things like “first hole in one” stickers, or “worst score on one hole” awards as a way to have fun with each other and stay more interested in the platform
MVP suggestions based on the research:
- Refine landing page copy around Rufus as the “host” and “host platform” – Enforce that you can “only play” in this tournament IF you play on Rufu
- Refine sign up page: consider adding the ‘how it works video” to the sign up page or make it more prominent on the landing page
- Assess ability to include 9 hole game or 9 hole submission option for beginners or after work players
- Assess options for user play outside of corporate tournaments
- Change “home course” to city name – users find it more relevant to see where other users are from
- Pull course information (like name and location) from database and add it to steps 2 and 3 of round submission
Future testing recommendations:
Lots of questions came up about the scoring system:
- How does it work?
- If you are using par, does it include a handicap?
- What if I score a hole in one, will it show?
Scoring and the micro-site will hopefully be able to clarify these and other scoring related questions
Add more gamification as motivation (fun, winning elements)in to the app for more frequent usage
- Badges for hole in ones etc
- Points system for “exciting” or “funny” things that happen on the golf course (getting a ball stuck in a tree, or having a run of specific type of holes shot, as a means to collect “reward” points and win prizes
- Verified accounts (influencers/famous golfers)
- Points/discounts for recruiting people to join the app
- More opportunities to challenge your friends and colleagues
Add more stats so users can track growth or progress as a golfer, and also to boast to their friends
- Update tournament cards with more stats and dates
- Number of rounds
- Number of putts per hole
- Hit the green
Add in GPS functionality
- To confirm a user was at a golf course
- To add in more course info
- To collect stats
- To enhance gamification options
We presented the findings to our client and are looking forward to running a mini tournament to provide further user testing on the scoring system and our MVP/Release including suggested changes.
