Project Snapshot
Overview
Not a single deliverable, but a system of reusable research tools built across client projects (2025–2026) — designed so non-research stakeholders can scope research, engage with findings, and keep researching without a researcher in the room.
- Product Research Consultant
- Research Systems Designer
- Research Enablement
- Research Intake Forms
- Discussion Guides & Testing Scripts
- Planning Templates
- Reporting Frameworks
- Stakeholder Review Process
- 3 client projects accelerated
- Stakeholders scoped research themselves
- Toolkit reusable beyond the engagements
The Recurring Problems
Stakeholders knew something wasn't working but couldn't articulate what they needed to know or what they wanted changed.
Each project rebuilt testing scripts, discussion guides, and reporting structures from scratch — even for similar project types.
Reports were delivered, but stakeholders couldn't always tell which findings were actionable or how to turn insight into decisions.
Proven Across Three Engagements
Workflow maps and an issue taxonomy the client team kept using to steer the renewed implementation after the engagement.
View case study →Domain-expert judgment formalized into a reusable evaluation framework the product team could apply to new builds.
View case study →A founder-intake and workflow-mapping process that defined an unmapped admin layer — and can be re-run as the product evolves.
View case study →Design Focus
The questions that shaped each component of the toolkit.
Approach & Toolkit
Infrastructure was built iteratively alongside the projects it supported — each component generalized for reuse, and revised whenever a stakeholder struggled with it.
- Discussion guide structures (fieldwork protocols)
- Observation note formats (ethnographic field notes)
- Intake form logic (IRB-style participant intake)
- Plain-language stakeholder intake forms
- Dashboard-linked reporting frameworks
- Stakeholder sign-off review process
- Task-based usability testing scripts
Six Core Components
Workflow & What Worked
A consistent research workflow — adaptable per project, with stable structure and stakeholder touchpoints.
What Worked
Structured intake forms helped stakeholders articulate what they actually needed to know — reducing scope creep and vague requests before a project began.
Reusable guides and scripts meant new projects began with a functional structure rather than a blank page — faster and more consistent.
Tying reporting to visual frameworks helped stakeholders distinguish findings from recommendations — making it clear what required a decision.
Adapting academic protocols for client audiences meant stripping jargon and reorienting toward practical decision-making — a design challenge in itself.
Intake and review are user research problems — the stakeholders are the users, and the research process is the product.
The best intake form is one a non-researcher can complete without a research background; the best report is one a decision-maker can act on without a debrief. That's what lets client teams keep researching after the engagement ends.
Outcomes
What the infrastructure changed across the engagements it supported.
Reflection
What building research systems taught me about research itself.
Infrastructure is easy to undervalue — but the difference between a project that starts with a clear intake form and one that starts with "just talk to some users" is enormous.
Intake and review design are user research problems: the "users" are stakeholders engaging with research they don't fully understand, and the "product" is the research process itself.
Infrastructure pays back quickly in quality and trust — but only if it's designed for the people who will use it, not just for researchers.