What we did

We conducted remote usability testing of a Figma prototype for a new service that brings together ESFA funding information in one place.

We tested the prototype with 20 participants, all of whom were finance professionals at single academies and multi-academy trusts (MATs). We asked them to carry out a series of tasks to test the navigation and understanding of the service.

We also asked them for their feedback on the overall service and the suggested service names.

The research was split into two parts:

Week 1: Testing of prototype version 1 (v1)

Users entered the service on a trust level overview page showing a list of academies and a total expected allocation. Many users assumed the total allocation only related to General Annual Grant (GAG) funding, not all funding streams. They also felt the page lacked detail about trust-specific funding.

Week 2: Testing of prototype version 2 (v2)

Based on user feedback from week 1, we redesigned the landing page to show a more detailed payments page including:

  • total trust allocation
  • a breakdown of expected payments by funding month

We also added a navigation bar, allowing users to switch between trust and academy level views.

What we found

Overall, users were pleased with the service. They found it to be helpful and easy to use, and they liked being able to access all the information in one place.

Information hierarchy

MAT users wanted to see more information about their trust at the trust level view, rather than payments per month.

Recommendations:

  • amend the trust and academy level views so the landing page for each shows an overview of annual allocations, broken down by funding stream
  • remove the payments tab at a trust level

We have detailed the recommended information architecture for the service on Lucid

Users were confused about information referencing years. They expected years to be referencing the academic year by default and not the financial year.

Recommendation:

  • make it clear whether years are referencing the academic year or the financial year

Guidance

We tested a concept feature called 'DfE Chat', an AI-powered chatbot that helps users find relevant guidance and support. Users were split on how useful they found this feature.

We found that users were unable to find the DfE Chat on their own and assumed it would be a direct route to Helpdesk support. They also expected to find guidance on the same page as the information it related to.

However, once users were shown the DfE Chat, they found it helpful and were able to find relevant information within seconds. Some users had concerns about the accuracy of the information provided by the chatbot, and some users felt that it was redundant.

Recommendation:

  • provide guidance links on the same page as where the detailed allocation statements are

Service name

Users felt that the suggested service names worked well, with the majority preferring “Get funding information for your school”, with the proviso that it is clear on whether the service is for individual schools, trusts, or both.

Recommendation:

  • choose a service name that is more specific and clearly indicates whether the service is for individual schools, trusts, or both

Next steps

The next steps are to:

  • update the prototype based on the findings from this research
  • conduct further usability testing with the updated prototype
  • develop an information architecture map for the service

Share this page