- ZeroBlockers
- Posts
- Ranking Different Research Insight Documentation Approaches
Ranking Different Research Insight Documentation Approaches
Not all documentation methods are equally effective at capturing and communicating research insights. This article presents a framework for evaluating and ranking different documentation approaches based on their effectiveness in making insights accessible, maintainable, usable, and actionable for product teams.
Rory Madden
January 06, 2025
To effectively rank different documentation methods, we must first establish clear criteria for each dimension of evaluation. We are going to look at how some common documentation approaches work across three different dimensions:
Accessibility. How easily can team members find and access the documented insights?
Maintainability. How well does the documentation method support ongoing updates and management?
Actionability. How well does the method translate insights into actionable next steps?
The Importance of Actionability
Actionability is perhaps the most critical aspect of research documentation. The biggest risk with research is that it sits on a shelf gathering dust instead of influencing product decisions.
We might have the highest quality research, the most beautiful presentations and the most intuitive information architecture, but if people are not readily using it in product development then it is not effective.
We can break down actionability into four key components:
User Problem Connection
How clearly does the documentation method connect user problems to insights?
Strategic Alignment
How well does the method tie insights to strategic objectives?
Decision Support
How effectively does the method facilitate decision-making?
Priority Guidance
How well does the method help teams prioritize actions?
Ranking Documentation Approaches
There are dozens of different documentation approaches available but we have chosen some of the most popular ones for this comparison.
Approach | Accessibility | Maintainability | Actionability |
|---|---|---|---|
Research Repository | High. Consistent, searchable structure | Medium. Requires dedicated maintenance | Medium. Requires features to surface insights. |
Reports | Low. Can be hard to find later | Low. Static documents | Medium: Have recommendations but quickly outdated |
User Journey Maps | Medium. Can become complex | Medium. Good for stable journeys, but may need regular revisions | Medium. Good for customer insights but lacks clear strategic alignment |
Opportunity Solution Trees | Medium: Can have lots of trees | Medium. Trees can get messy | High: Clear alignment to strategy and customer needs |
Affinity Maps | Medium. Can become cluttered | Low. Difficult to scale | Low. Weak customer and strategic alignment |
Conclusion
The key is to choose methods that not only document insights, but actively support decision-making. When evaluating documentation methods through the lens of actionability, Opportunity Solution Trees clearly stand out. They excel in all four components of actionability: problem-solution connection, strategic alignment, decision support, and priority guidance. This makes them particularly effective for teams focused on turning research insights into product decisions.
However, as highlighted above Opportunity Solution Trees are not the most accessible format for long term insight storage. This is where you can benefit from combing Trees with a research repository to make all of the underlying research available and accessible to more people.
You don’t need to go for the latest and most expensive research repository tool; you can start with a simple shared folder structure until the pain of maintenance and searching exceeds the cost of a dedicated tool.