Question 1

How do we prove repository use leads to fewer ad-hoc research requests?

Accepted Answer

To prove that using a research repository leads to fewer ad-hoc requests, you'll want to show a correlation between repository engagement and a drop in new project commissions. Start by tracking how often teams access or search the repository (usage analytics) and then see if there's a corresponding decline in one-off research requests on similar topics. If, for example, the marketing team frequently pulls past study insights from the repository and you observe, say, a 20% reduction in new survey requests quarter-over-quarter, that's evidence of deflection. Supplement quantitative data with anecdotes: team members might report that finding existing answers prevented them from launching a redundant study. Together, usage metrics and a measured decrease in duplicative research build a compelling case that the repository is cutting down ad-hoc requests.

Question 2

Where should conversational agents replace traditional screeners or probes?

Accepted Answer

Conversational AI agents (chatbot-style screeners or virtual moderators) are best used in place of traditional questions when a back-and-forth exchange will improve clarity or depth of response. One ideal use-case is complex screening: if qualification criteria have many nuances, a chatbot can ask dynamic follow-ups in real time, ensuring respondents meet the criteria without confusion. Another is probing in qualitative research or long surveys — an AI agent can pose context-aware follow-up questions like "Can you tell me more about that?" based on someone's previous answer, yielding richer detail than a static form. Essentially, deploy these agents where human-like engagement adds value in clarifying answers or encouraging elaboration at scale. Routine, straightforward screeners (or very sensitive topics requiring a human touch) might not need an AI agent, but for nuanced screening and open-ended feedback, conversational agents can enhance both respondent experience and data quality.

Question 3

How should we validate LLM outputs against human-coded ground truth?

Accepted Answer

Validate a Large Language Model's outputs by directly comparing them to a high-quality human-coded ground truth set and quantifying the differences. Start by having experienced human analysts code a representative sample of the data, ensuring strong agreement among coders so the "ground truth" is reliable. Then run the LLM on the same sample and measure how closely its results match using metrics like accuracy, overlap, or Cohen's kappa for categorical coding tasks. Pay special attention to where the AI disagrees with humans: these discrepancies can reveal biases or blind spots in the model's understanding. For example, if an LLM is categorizing open-ended survey responses, you might find it misclassifies subtle responses that humans group differently, indicating areas to retrain or refine the model. By combining statistical validation and targeted review of differences, you can confidently assess whether the AI's performance is on par with manual coding.

Question 4

Where should retrieval-augmented search sit in our insights portal?

Accepted Answer

Retrieval-augmented search works best as a central feature of an insights portal, essentially serving as the intelligent search bar or virtual analyst that users interact with first. Instead of burying it in a submenu, it should be prominently accessible, often as a main search box or chatbot on the portal homepage, so researchers can ask natural-language questions and instantly retrieve synthesized findings from the knowledge base. The retrieval-augmented system (often powered by a Large Language Model tapping into your repository) should sit on top of your existing reports and data, meaning it indexes and references those sources to answer queries with context. For example, a user might type a question about past consumer trends, and the AI-driven search would pull relevant snippets from various research reports to provide a concise answer. By placing this capability front-and-center in the portal, you make it a go-to entry point for insights, ensuring that valuable knowledge is easily discoverable without manual digging through documents.

Question 5

How do I know whether democratization improved speed, quality, and rework rates?

Accepted Answer

Set clear metrics for speed, quality, and rework, then compare them before vs. after democratizing research. For speed, measure the average project turnaround time pre- and post- (e.g., if it used to be 6 weeks and now it's 3). For quality, look at stakeholder satisfaction or have an expert review a sample of outputs from the new DIY approach versus the old centralized approach to see if they meet the same standards. For rework, track what percentage of projects needed significant re-dos in each scenario. Ideally, you'll see projects finishing faster, quality staying high, and rework rates low or dropping. Also collect anecdotal feedback: do the "clients" of the research feel they get answers faster and trust them just as much as before? If the numbers show quicker turnaround, solid quality, and minimal rework, democratization is delivering value. If not, those metrics highlight where it's falling short (maybe speed is up but quality dipped), so you know what to fix.

Indico Labs

Why choose Us

What is Indico Labs?

Recognition

Research Software and Platform Details

Services and Expertise

Market Research FAQs with Expert Insights

How do we prove repository use leads to fewer ad-hoc research requests?

Where should conversational agents replace traditional screeners or probes?

How should we validate LLM outputs against human-coded ground truth?

Where should retrieval-augmented search sit in our insights portal?

How do I know whether democratization improved speed, quality, and rework rates?