CMU Degree Selection Tool

Project Overview

The Integrated Innovation Institute (III) at Carnegie Mellon University offers two advanced graduate degrees: the Master of Integrated Innovation for Products and Services (MIIPS) and the Master of Science in Software Management (MSSM). These programs combine business, engineering, and design to prepare students for careers in innovation, product development, and software management. The Degree Selection Tool was developed to guide prospective graduate students through a series of personalized questions and recommend the most suitable program based on their background, career goals, location preferences, and financial considerations.

Problem Statement

Prospective graduate students often face challenges in comparing the MIIPS and MSSM programs, which differ in location, program formats, and cost. This information is spread across 10+ webpages, making it difficult for students to determine the best fit for their goals. The Degree Selection Tool consolidates these details into a single, easy-to-use interface, simplifying the decision-making process.

• Location: MIIPS is offered in Pittsburgh, and MSSM is offered in Silicon Valley.

• Program Formats: Various options including full-time, part-time, residential, and online formats.

• Duration: Programs vary in length, including options of 6 months, 12 months, 16 months, and part-time formats.

• Cost: Tuition and other costs differ based on location and format.

*Based on 2024-2025 admissions cycle

Audience + User Persona

The primary users of the Degree Selection Tool are prospective graduate students considering the MIIPS or MSSM programs. These students typically:

• Are in the early stages of their career or looking to pivot to a new field (e.g., transitioning to a career in product management or software management).

• Come from diverse backgrounds, including students with undergraduate degrees in business, engineering, or the arts.

• Have varying financial and location preferences, with some looking for full-time, on-campus experiences, and others preferring part-time or online options.

• Value clear, concise guidance to help them make the best decision regarding their educational and career goals.

*User persona

Design Goals

• Guide users through a series of personalized questions to determine the best-suited program (MIIPS or MSSM) based on their background, career goals, location preferences, and financial constraints.

• Simplify the decision-making process by consolidating key decision factors into one clear, easy-to-navigate tool.

• Ensure accessibility for all students, making the tool universally easy to navigate and understand, particularly for the diverse range of applicants to the III graduate programs.

Information Architecture

The Information Architecture behind the Degree Selection Tool relies on the combinations of responses to personalized questions, which lead to different program recommendations. The tool processes each answer to guide the user toward the best program (MIIPS or MSSM) and the optimal degree format. Key factors influencing the outcomes include:

• Career Goals: Determines whether MIIPS (for innovation and product/service design) or MSSM (for software management and leadership) is the best fit.

• Location Preferences: If the user prefers to study in Pittsburgh, they’ll be directed toward MIIPS; if they prefer Silicon Valley, MSSM will be recommended.

• Program Format Preferences: The tool takes into account whether the user wants a full-time, part-time, residential, or online program.

• Financial Constraints: Users can indicate their financial preferences, which will influence the recommended program format (as some formats may be more cost-effective than others).

• "No Preference"/”Other” Option: If a user selects "no preference"/”other” for certain aspects (such as career post-graduation), the tool broadens the recommendations and offers more flexible program options.

*Based on the user's desired career path, preferred learning format, program duration, location preference, and budget, the tool will recommend the most suitable degree, format, and duration, along with notes and reasoning

Lo-Fi Wireframe

*Lo-Fi Wireframe

Hi-Fi Wireframe

*Hi-Fi Wireframe

Iteration Process & Testing

*First Iteration

After testing this first iteration, I received feedback that users weren’t sure how long the process would take, which felt discouraging. Additionally, users found the process to be sterile and uninviting, which contributed to a less engaging experience.

Final Solution

*Final solution, based on user persona selections

To improve the user experience, I introduced colors and icons to make the process more visually engaging. A status bar was added to indicate progress, and the "Learn More" button on the output screen directs users to the specific degree and program page for additional information and application details. Additionally, I included an easy exit button in the top right-hand corner for users to seamlessly leave the tool at any time.

Icons & Components

*Elements utilized in final design

Key Features

• Personalized Program Recommendations: Suggestions based on user responses, helping students find the program and format that best suits their needs.

• Relevant Resource Links: After receiving a recommendation, users are directed to admissions officers, program pages, and other resources to guide them in their decision-making.

• User Feedback: The number of questions and the status bar give users a sense of progress, ensuring they feel in control throughout the process.

• Streamlined User Interface: A simple, intuitive design that minimizes confusion and keeps users focused on key information.

Accessibility Considerations

In designing the tool, I made sure to consider accessibility to ensure that it is usable by all students:

• Fitts’ Law: Ensured that interactive targets are large enough to be easily clickable, improving the overall usability.

• Color Contrast: Paid close attention to color contrast to ensure readability for users with low vision or color-blindness, ensuring that no important information relies solely on color to convey meaning.

• Clear Visual Cues: Used clear visual cues and simple language to make the tool easy to understand for all students, regardless of their prior experience or technical background.

Nav Bar Update

*Nav bar change highlighted with a blue rectangle

To seamlessly integrate the new tool into CMU's Integrated Innovation Institute website, I updated the nav bar. Positioned between "Admissions" and "Graduate Programs," this location strategically targets prospective students browsing these sections.

Key Features

To evaluate the efficiency of the Degree Selection Tool, I conducted 7 tests with participants who were unfamiliar with the programs. Each participant completed two tasks:

• Task 1: Navigate through multiple webpages to compare the programs, formats, and costs, evaluating the options based on the same set of constraints and interests.

• Task 2: Use the Degree Selection Tool by answering personalized questions to receive a tailored program recommendation, based on the same constraints and interests.

I measured the time it took for each participant to complete both tasks. After averaging the times, I found that the Degree Selection Tool was 68% more efficient than the traditional method of flipping through webpages. This result highlights the tool’s ability to save time and simplify the decision-making process for prospective students.

However, it's important to note that these interactions were not completely natural, as participants were instructed to follow a specific set of tasks. Ideally, I would like to sample more data and measure how many users actually engage with the tool via the website’s nav bar for a more accurate assessment of its impact.

Next Steps

Along with testing, there’s potential to expand the Degree Selection Tool to include EDIE, the Engineering, Design, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship undergraduate major offered by the Integrated Innovation Institute, providing personalized recommendations for undergraduate students. Additionally, tracking how many applicants and enrolled students come from the tool will help measure its real-world impact. Expanding the tool’s functionality to mobile devices, in addition to desktop and tablet, is also a priority.

Key Takeaways

• I learned that simplicity is key. By focusing on clean, minimal design, I was able to create a tool that was both functional and easy to use without overwhelming the user.

• Accessibility and aesthetics can go hand in hand. I was able to prioritize color contrast and intuitive navigation while still creating an engaging, visually appealing design.

• Small design tweaks, like adding icons, color-coding, and progress bars, made a significant impact on user experience, showing me the power of iteration.

• Every design choice was made with the user in mind, ensuring the tool was not only visually pleasing but also easy to navigate and use.