Fast Tracks, No Setbacks: Driving UX Success for Higher Ed

User experience is human experience. Did you know a shocking $2.6 billion is lost yearly due to slow website loading times? If you don’t offer a good user experience, how can you expect users to trust and rely on your brand?

Today’s tech-savvy learners have high expectations for digital experiences and carry those expectations into the edtech platforms they use.

This builds pressure on higher education publishers to deliver rapid improvements in user experience. The UX must satisfy diverse stakeholders – both inside and outside the organization.

Not being able to meet these standards can lead to disengagement with the edtech platform, resulting in decreased usage and negative word-of-mouth. More and more, we see review platforms flooded with learner comments about UX flaws. Users complain about technical glitches, adding unnecessary stress to the learning platform.

These experiences float upward to institutions that are criticized for their buying processes – leading to major revenue losses for edtech platforms.

So, how do you rapidly improve user experience in higher education platforms when the stakes are so high and the room for error is so small?

 

Balancing EdTech Platform Gaps with Conflicting Stakeholder Demands

As a product owner, one of the toughest parts of your job is juggling the varied needs of your stakeholders while providing an outstanding user experience (UX). There have been instances where higher education platforms struggled to meet the conflicting requirements of various user groups — students, faculty, and administrators — each with distinct priorities.

For example, learners might want interactive features (using gamification or social learning tools) while faculty members might resist, wanting a more straightforward, traditional learning experience. The result? It led to UX changes that benefited one group but pushed another away, highlighting the need for careful balance to keep everyone satisfied.

Lessons from Google Meet

One of the prominent examples of this is Google Meet. Google Meet gained rapid popularity during the pandemic, which was initially designed for business conferencing but quickly became a go-to tool for educators. However, since it was not for teaching purposes, the platform needed more essential features for effective teaching.

Educators reported that students were using the tool in unexpected ways that disrupted classroom management, leading to frustration for both teachers and learners. They would join meetings uninvited, use features inappropriately, and disrupt discussions, not letting educators maintain control and engage the class effectively.

The Google team eventually responded by adding features like attendance tracking and hand-raising to support teachers better while still considering students. This shows the fine balance in UX design. While teachers appreciated the changes, some students (obviously) felt more watched and uncomfortable in class. If not handled properly, these changes can upset users who feel their experience has worsened, showing the difficulty of meeting one group’s needs without bothering another.

 

Move Fast Without Breaking Things

Adding UX improvements to legacy systems is no easy task for the higher-ed platforms. These systems, though outdated, are deeply woven into institutional processes, so a quick redesign is challenging. If UX updates don’t account for legacy tech, it can result in expensive compatibility issues or disrupted migrations, leaving users frustrated.

Stakeholders know the risk here — downtime, resistance from the IT team, and unexpected costs. That’s why there’s often hesitation around major updates. For example, when institutions try switching from older LMS platforms, faculty might push back, worried about disrupting their familiar workflows.

The key insight here is that speeding up UX changes can’t come at the cost of disrupting the platform’s functioning. Rushing updates can cause confusion and data issues if the integration isn’t handled properly.

Instead, product leaders should focus on making gradual improvements, allowing time for testing and feedback, so users don’t feel left behind. Being open with stakeholders is the best way to ensure the UX gets better without compromising the stability of legacy systems.

One such notable case is Shopify. They started with a monolithic architecture that made it hard to scale as they grew. Instead of overhauling everything at once and risking disruptions, Shopify took a smart approach by turning its system into a modular monolith. This meant they kept one codebase but separated different components, allowing them to improve user experience step by step. It helped them avoid downtime and ensured core functions stayed intact during the transition.

However, institutional bureaucracy often slows down these changes.

 

The Internal Buy-in Paradox: Fast UX Changes vs. Institutional Bureaucracy

Dealing with institutional decision-making in higher education can be a real challenge. With multiple departments like IT, academic leadership, and purchasing each having their own priorities, it often leads to lengthy delays as proposed changes get put under the microscope by committees.

Let’s take the IT department of a university again. They might hesitate to adopt new technologies because of compatibility concerns, while faculty members may resist any shifts that affect their established teaching methods.

 

What ‘Fast UX Redesign’ Really Means

Managing unrealistic expectations is the key to keeping stakeholders satisfied and ensuring easy and faster implementation. It’s important to note that “fast” means a phased and measurable approach, not instant perfection.

Stakeholders often feel pushed by their superiors to deliver quick results, leading to rushed changes that might not solve the root problems. This pressure raises worries that quick fixes might lead to long-term problems or fail to meet key performance indicators.

To solve these challenges effectively, try a dual-path strategy. That means making quick fixes that address immediate issues while also focusing on long-term improvements for business goals.

For example, a higher education platform finds that users are having trouble navigating course materials. In such a scenario, a quick solution could be to simplify the navigation menu or add tooltips for help. These changes can be implemented quickly and can greatly improve the user experience without needing a complete system overhaul.

Product leaders should also focus on making thorough structural improvements, even if they take longer, to ensure long-term success. This can involve redesigning the platform’s architecture for better scalability and integration.

By balancing immediate fixes with these long-term strategies, higher education platforms can show progress and prepare for bigger upgrades. Give stakeholders updates on both short-term wins and long-term goals to help manage expectations and build trust.

A skilled higher education tech service provider who really understands the complexities and fears surrounding UX changes can be key to this process. An experienced edtech vendor can guide you through the delicate balance of implementing both quick fixes and long-term improvements.

This approach can ensure transitions are smooth and efficient, minimizing friction. Ultimately, by addressing the unique challenges faced in the education sector, a knowledgeable edtech partner can fuel positive user feedback and deliver better digital experiences for all.

Choose a partner company that’s skilled with higher education tech services and has adequate experience with the complexities and concerns of helping institutions overcome roadblocks.

To learn more about how we help higher education platforms enable quick, seamless upgrades, visit us!