DESNZ - Researching the Energy Efficiency Measures Tool

Sept 2023 - Jan 2024 | User Researcher | Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ)

Methods: Mixed-method usability testing, user interviews, persona mapping

The Mission: Reduce Fraud, Improve Access

Millions were being lost to fraud in the UK’s energy efficiency schemes. Individuals and companies were submitting duplicate applications, exploiting gaps in accountability, and undermining the intent of public funding. DESNZ had ran a discovery to learn more about the problem — I joined the Alpha phase as part of a user research team, working alongside a fellow researcher from Sparck/BJSS and a client-side researcher. Our task was to usability test our GDS prototype and understand how different actors would engage with it. We were looking for improvements and findings that would meaningfully shift the needle.

Understanding a Multi-User System

This wasn’t a simple user base. We were researching for:

Policy makers, trying to shape national strategy
Energy companies, aiming to stay compliant
Installers, navigating operational complexity
Third-party providers and the public, as indirect participants

Each group had distinct needs, motivations, and levels of digital literacy. We needed to understand what the tool was doing for them, and more importantly, what it wasn’t.

My Role: Research in Every Layer

I was involved at every stage of the research cycle:

Reviewed the Discovery phase and existing findings
Facilitated usability testing sessions and user interviews
Took structured notes, supported accessibility-inclusive recruitment
Synthesised results into key themes and insights
Created personas and grouped insights by user type
Logged systemic risks in a RAID log
Contributed to the final report and supported handover into Beta

I also worked closely with the client’s product manager and our team’s product designer to ensure findings were translated directly into interface improvements.

Key Discovery: It Wasn’t Just a Tool Problem

Through our sessions, it became clear: fraud wasn’t a UX issue — it was a service design and policy problem. The lack of a shared information framework between departments created cracks that fraudsters could slip through.

We advocated for a broader service mapping effort, one that could expose these gaps and potentially inform policy reform.

Unfortunately, this suggestion met resistance, despite putting together an initial draft service blueprint FOC. In government contexts, change is incremental — and radical service thinking isn’t always welcomed. The research was not ignored, but not fully embraced, either.

Ethical Awareness: Building Carefully

We discovered that showing too much data — even in the name of transparency — could unfairly disadvantage a small group of citizens already struggling to receive support. We worked to ensure:

Only necessary and non-prejudicial data was exposed
Information was framed in a way that supported fair decisions
Risks were clearly documented and reviewed by stakeholders

The Outcome: A Tool, Not a Transformation

The tool went live — a central place to verify application data and spot red flags. But despite its solid UX and strong reception, it fell short of its ambition. Fraud reduction requires policy reform and cross-departmental alignment — not just digital tools.

Still, our work laid a strong foundation for Beta, and I was recognised with a personal recommendation from the client’s Agile Project Manager.

What I’m Proud Of

Advocating for service-level thinking, not just product UX
Logging risks transparently and pushing for ethical implementation
Helping ensure our research was inclusive, actionable, and honest
Standing firm in uncomfortable conversations — knowing the tool alone wasn’t enough