Why users weren't activating on a B2B SaaS platform
The product team had built an onboarding flow they were proud of. The research showed that most users never completed it - not because it was confusing, but because they were trying to do something entirely different first.
An activation problem that metrics couldn't explain
The platform - a workflow management tool for professional services teams - had strong trial sign-up numbers. Conversion from trial to paid was the problem: a significant proportion of users who started the trial never reached the point of genuine activation, and were churning before the sales team could intervene meaningfully.
Product analytics showed where users dropped off in the onboarding sequence. They didn't show why. The team's working hypothesis was that the onboarding flow itself was too long and too complex - a reasonable assumption that had already led to two rounds of simplification without measurably improving activation rates.
The brief was to understand what was actually happening during those first sessions - not in the aggregate, but at the level of individual users navigating a new tool in the context of their actual working day.
Following users across their real working context
Participation Studio designed a two-phase research programme. The first phase used a diary study methodology: new trial users were recruited and asked to document their experience of the platform over the first ten days, capturing what they tried to do, what happened, and how they felt about it - in short entries made in the moment rather than retrospective accounts.
The diary data was used to identify patterns and formulate specific questions before a second phase of in-depth contextual interviews. These interviews went beyond the platform itself to understand the broader work context: what the participants were trying to accomplish, how their team worked, what tools they were already using, and what "getting value from the platform" would actually mean in the context of their role.
Workflow mapping during the interviews externalised the relationship between the platform and the participant's wider working environment - revealing where the product fitted into an existing ecosystem of tools and processes, and where it was competing with established habits rather than complementing them.
What the research involved
A different problem than the one being solved
Users weren't failing to complete onboarding because it was too complex. They were bypassing it entirely to try to do the specific thing that had motivated them to sign up - and when they couldn't immediately achieve that thing, they concluded the platform wasn't for them. The onboarding flow was solving the wrong problem.
The diary studies revealed a consistent pattern: users arrived at the platform with a specific, concrete task in mind - often something a colleague had mentioned or a demo had shown. The onboarding flow asked them to set up their workspace before they could do that task. Many tried to skip ahead, got confused about the state of their account, and disengaged.
The contextual interviews added the wider picture. Several participants were evaluating the tool against an existing solution they were already using. The onboarding experience was their evidence base for that evaluation - and it was giving them the wrong evidence. Instead of experiencing the platform's core value, they were experiencing the friction of getting started.
A secondary finding concerned the team adoption dimension. The platform was most valuable when used collaboratively, but trial accounts were typically set up by one person evaluating it alone. The research surfaced the specific moment in the trial when users realised team adoption would be needed - and found that the platform provided no support for that transition.
Reframing the activation problem
The research shifted the product team's framing from "how do we make onboarding less complex?" to "how do we get users to value faster?" - a different question with different design implications. A revised onboarding approach was developed that surfaced the platform's core value proposition within the first session rather than after setup completion.
The team adoption finding informed a new collaborative trial feature that allowed single evaluators to invite colleagues during the trial period rather than after a purchase decision. Both changes were developed directly from research insight rather than product assumptions.
We fully recognise the effort your team invested in recruitment, moderation, and analysis, and we genuinely appreciate the quality of the discussions and reporting.
- Usability problems in an insulin device surfaced before manufacturing locked anything in, with human factors evidence supporting the regulatory submission.
- An NHS patient portal team got a prioritised, evidenced list of adoption barriers, and the highest-leverage fix wasn't the one they expected.
- Patient involvement changed a trial's primary endpoint before the protocol was finalised, cited by the ethics committee as a model for evidencing PPIE.
Trusted PPI and PPIE delivery partner to the NIHR HealthTech Research Centre in Accelerated Surgical Care.
Facing a similar decision?
Tell us what you need to decide and who you need to hear from - we will come back with a clear, proportionate proposal.
Get a QuoteWe reply within one working day.
Prefer to talk it through first?
Book a free 20-minute call. No obligation, no sales pitch. We'll tell you honestly whether research is worth it for your decision, and what it would cost.