by Strengthening UX Research: What Coca-Cola, Yahoo, ADP & The Weather Company Are Rebuilding to Stay Relevant
UX research is not lacking recognition. In most product organizations, its purpose is well understood, its outputs are familiar, and its presence in the product lifecycle is expected.
What is far less stable is the extent to which that work influences decisions.
Product organizations are moving faster, relying more heavily on aggregated data, and integrating AI into their workflows. These changes do not eliminate the need for research, but they do alter how it is used—and, in many cases, how much weight it carries.
To understand how UX research is evolving under these pressures, we gathered perspectives from leaders shaping UX at scale—who will also be presenting their work at UX360 North America 2026. These include: Sarah Bentley, Director of User Experience at Coca-Cola; Gloria Osardu, Senior Director and Global Head of UX Research, Brand and Consumer Insights at Yahoo; Joe Kleinwaechter, Vice President, UX, ADP; Cheryl Abellanoza, Associate Director, Experience Strategy at Verizon Connect; Liz Freeman, Director, UX Research at The Weather Company; Jordan Cooke, Head of Design, Digital Transformation at Pepsi; and Paige Maguire, Director of User Experience and Research at Fueled.
1. The real problem is not that research is excluded. It is included too late to matter.
In many organizations, research has secured a place in the product development lifecycle. However, that inclusion often occurs after the most consequential decisions have already been made.
By the time research begins, the problem has been defined, the solution space has been narrowed, and stakeholders are already aligned around a direction. At that point, research is no longer shaping the trajectory—it is assessing it.
Jordan Cooke from Pepsi articulates this clearly: “The mistake many teams make is treating research as validation at the end of a process.” Paige Maguire from Fueled observes a similar pattern, describing research as “a gate or a handoff,” rather than an input that informs thinking from the outset.
This dynamic creates a structural limitation. Even well-executed research struggles to influence outcomes when it is introduced after key assumptions have solidified. The issue is not the quality of the work, but the point at which it enters the conversation.
Teams that are addressing this are making deliberate changes to when research is engaged. They are involving researchers earlier—during problem definition, not just solution evaluation—where insights can still meaningfully alter direction.
2. Dashboard culture has created a false sense of confidence
Most product teams now operate with unprecedented access to behavioral data. Dashboards provide real-time visibility into user activity, and metrics are often treated as the primary lens through which performance is evaluated.
However, visibility alone does not equate to understanding. As Gloria Osardu from Yahoo explains: “Data reveals what happened, research provides the context that explains why it happened and what should happen next”.
This distinction becomes critical when metrics are expected to function as explanations rather than indicators. A change in conversion rate, engagement, or retention can be observed immediately, but the underlying reasons for that change are rarely self-evident.
This tension sits at the center of Gloria’s opening keynote at UX360 NA 2026, “Next-Level Product Research & Insights Alignment: Architecting the Future of Great Brand & User Experience.” The focus is not on choosing between data and research, but on aligning them so that insight directly informs decision-making—rather than retroactively justifying it.
When organizations rely too heavily on metrics without complementary research, several patterns tend to emerge:
- Observable trends are interpreted without sufficient context
- Short-term movement is prioritized over long-term behavioral insight
- Decisions are driven by what is measurable, rather than what is meaningful
More mature teams recognize that metrics and research serve fundamentally different roles. Data provides directionality; research provides interpretation. When those roles are conflated, confidence increases—but clarity declines.
3. AI is not reducing the need for research—it is redefining what qualifies as valuable research
The introduction of AI into research workflows has undeniably increased efficiency. Tasks that once required significant manual effort—such as drafting discussion guides or summarizing interviews—can now be completed in a fraction of the time.
Liz Freeman from The Weather Company points to these gains as meaningful, particularly in reducing operational overhead and enabling teams to move more quickly. At the same time, this efficiency exposes a deeper issue. When parts of the research process become easier to automate, the value of the remaining work becomes more visible.
Jordan Cooke captures this shift succinctly: “When design becomes formulaic, it becomes automatable.” Joe Kleinwaechter from ADP highlights the broader context in which this shift is happening:
“There’s a lot of anxiety in the system right now, and it’s not just UX—it’s everybody. And that big, wonderful two letters of AI have caused a lot of fear, a lot of uncertainty, and a lot of doubt.”
This is where the conversation around AI becomes more practical than theoretical.
What remains differentiated is work that demonstrates:
- Careful problem framing
- Nuanced interpretation of behavior
- The ability to connect insights to strategic decisions
These are precisely the areas where AI falls short.
Rather than replacing research, AI compresses the value of average work—raising expectations for what qualifies as meaningful, decision-shaping insight.
4. Rigor is still widely misunderstood because most of it happens before anyone sees the work
A common misconception about research is that its value is primarily reflected in its outputs. In reality, the credibility of those outputs is established much earlier, during stages that are rarely visible to stakeholders.
Cheryl Abellanoza describes this as the “unseen labor” of research, while Gloria Osardu reinforces the principle behind it:
“Research hinges on rigor, not just execution.”
This rigor is embedded in decisions that precede any interview or usability test. It includes how the problem is defined, how participants are selected, how questions are structured, and how methods are chosen.
However, because this work is largely invisible, it is also frequently misunderstood—particularly at the executive level. As Joe Kleinwaechter explains: “The most common one is—I get this from executives all the time—I hear, ‘I don’t want any research on this. I don’t have six months to research a project.’”
This perception reflects an outdated view of research as slow, academic, and disconnected from business timelines—overlooking the fact that rigor is not about duration, but about the quality of decisions made before the work even begins.
For example, the strength of a study can depend on factors such as:
- Whether the research question accurately reflects the business problem
- Whether participants represent the intended audience
- Whether the methodology aligns with the type of insight required
When these elements are weak, the output may still appear polished, but the reliability of the insight is compromised. High-performing teams treat this early-stage work as critical, even when it is not immediately visible. They understand that rigor is not something that can be added at the end—it must be built into the foundation of the research itself.
5. UX is expanding beyond interfaces, requiring a broader research lens
The scope of UX has extended well beyond individual screens or interactions. Increasingly, experiences are shaped by systems of touchpoints, many of which exist across different channels, devices, and environments.
Paige Maguire describes this evolution as a move toward systems thinking, where the focus shifts from isolated interactions to the relationships between them. Jordan Cooke extends this perspective into multimodal environments, including voice, augmented reality, and virtual reality.
As Cooke notes: “When interaction becomes embodied, many of our traditional usability methods start to strain.” This shift is already playing out in practice. Jordan’s session, “Beyond the Screen: UX in AR, VR, Voice, and Multimodal Experience,” explores how interaction is evolving across environments—and what that means for design and research.
This shift introduces new complexity for research. Methods designed for evaluating discrete tasks are not always sufficient for understanding experiences that unfold over time or across contexts.
Researchers are now required to account for factors such as:
- The influence of environment on user behavior
- The cumulative effect of multiple interactions
- The role of trust, perception, and adaptation over time
Sarah Bentley’s work on measuring physical-world experiences underscores how far this expansion has progressed. UX is no longer confined to digital interfaces; it increasingly includes physical environments and hybrid experiences.
6. The role of UX leadership is evolving from advocacy to decision enablement
For many years, UX leaders focused on establishing credibility within their organizations—advocating for research, increasing visibility, and securing a place in strategic discussions.
While those efforts remain relevant, they are no longer sufficient. The more pressing challenge is ensuring that research directly informs decisions once it is included. Cheryl Abellanoza frames this as a translation challenge: “My focus now is on learning how to translate our work — how to speak different languages so our insights land with different audiences“.
This requires a shift in emphasis. Rather than focusing solely on clarity of insight, leaders must also consider how that insight is positioned within the decision-making process.
In practice, this often involves:
- Framing findings in terms of business risk and opportunity
- Highlighting trade-offs rather than presenting conclusions in isolation
- Adapting the level of detail to match the speed of decision-making
Liz Freeman’s approach reflects this adaptability, particularly when time constraints limit the scope of research. By adjusting depth rather than defending process, her team maintains relevance without compromising impact.
As Jordan Cooke describes it, the role of UX is to translate human insight into strategic action. That translation is what ultimately determines whether research influences outcomes.
UX360 North America — Where UX Research Is Being Rebuilt
April 21-23, Atlanta, USA
The pressures facing UX research are not signs of decline—they reflect a discipline being pushed to operate with greater precision, under tighter constraints.
Teams are expected to move faster, work within more complex systems, and demonstrate clear business impact. In response, leading organizations are becoming more deliberate.
Across two days in Atlanta, UX leaders from companies like Coca-Cola, Yahoo, ADP, Verizon Connect, The Weather Company, Pepsi, Fueled, and more will share how they are evolving their practices under real constraints.
Register today to gain practical frameworks, connect with senior peers, and see how leading teams are turning insight into business impact.
