Why 60% of users are undecided between career advancement and a career switch, and how that hurts conversion.
CareersFinder (CF) is a MyCareersFuture product that matches users to career opportunities via a short quiz. When users choose "open to both" instead of a clear path, results become less relevant, which weakens match quality and the likelihood they take action. During my internship at GovTech Singapore, I ran user research to understand this "broad middle" and how CF could better serve them.
Role
UI/UX Designer
Timeline
8 weeks
Tasks
User Research
User Interviews
User Testing
Qualitative Analysis
Prototyping
User research and conversion blockers
I ran in-depth interviews with five participants across different age groups and sectors. Despite the diversity, consensus emerged early: the same core themes surfaced in every session. A common theme was the need for more clarity and support before making career decisions. That uncertainty showed up as conversion blockers in testing:
Skills comparison section of the comparison tool
Uncertainty and comfort zones: Participants were hesitant about a career switch (comfort zone, work-life balance) but also hesitant to stay due to limited progression, so they leaned "open to both" and got less relevant matches.
Preference and fear of starting over: Most gave a 70:30 weight to switch vs advancement and saw it as a high-stakes decision. Worry about starting from scratch added to indecision and reluctance to act on results.
Irrelevant match results and mixed opinions on the skills match score; weaker relevance reduces the chance users act on recommendations.
The product felt too broad with limited quiz inputs (e.g. job role and skills), so the product couldn’t deliver enough depth to support decision-making.
Solution: comparison tool
Findings were transcribed and synthesised on FigJam; the team voted on priorities. The comparison tool ranked highest because it directly addressed the top conversion blocker: irrelevant results from vague intent. I created a persona to anchor design decisions and took on the comparison tool mockup (desktop and mobile). The tool has two parts: (1) Skills comparison (skills required across career options) and (2) Job information (salary and government grants).
I placed job information below skills comparison so users see skills first and can reflect on fit before salary, reducing decision friction. The yellow donut at the top acts as a clear focal point when discovering the tool.
Deliverables: research synthesis and persona, prioritised feature set, and a comparison tool prototype. Stakeholders adopted the persona and mockups for subsequent design and product decisions. The comparison tool, additional filters, and access to career coaches were added to the team's roadmap. If shipped, the tool is expected to reduce decision friction and improve match relevance so more users move from results to action.
Retrospective
Collaboration: Working with content and engineering from the start helped align on feasibility, especially for the non-standard comparison tool, and kept the project moving in one direction.
Resource management: With a limited incentive budget, I focused recruitment on key demographics and combined interviews with user testing to maximise insights. Coordinating around participants’ schedules, including outside working hours, helped participation.
