Question 1

How should we enable product squads to self-serve past learnings?

Accepted Answer

Help product squads self-serve past learnings by creating an accessible insights library and weaving it into their daily routines. Start by consolidating previous research reports, customer feedback, and experiment results into a searchable repository - something like an internal wiki or a specialized insights platform - tagged with relevant keywords (e.g., "onboarding," "pricing experiment 2024") so teams can quickly find information by topic. To really enable self-service, provide digestible summaries or even an AI-powered search assistant: for example, a squad member could query, "Did we ever study why users churn in the first week?" and get a synopsis of the key findings from earlier work. Just building the repository isn't enough; you need to promote it. Encourage squads to check the archive as a first step in project kickoffs, and showcase "reuse wins" (cases where referring to past research saved time or prevented repeating mistakes). By making the process of accessing old learnings frictionless - and culturally rewarding people for using it - you ensure hard-won insights are actually leveraged, not lost in old slide decks.

Question 2

How do we balance the constant demand for more content with tight vetting?

Accepted Answer

Balancing the push for more content with the need for careful vetting comes down to streamlining quality control and smart prioritization. One tactic is to create templates or style guidelines that embed vetting criteria — if each piece of content follows a standard structure and checklist, it will inherently have fewer errors and require less intensive review. Another strategy is triage: not every article or report needs the same level of scrutiny. Identify high-stakes content (say, a whitepaper for clients or an insights brief for the C-suite) and apply your tightest vetting there, while lower-risk, quick-turn pieces get a lighter touch or a rapid peer review. Leverage tools to assist as well: grammar and fact-checking software, for instance, can catch basic issues automatically, allowing human editors to focus on substance. By baking quality measures into the content creation process and differentiating how you review pieces based on their importance, you can increase output without letting standards slip.

Question 3

Will AI summaries replace browseable decks in democratization programs?

Accepted Answer

Artificial Intelligence (AI)-generated summaries (often powered by large language models) offer a powerful way to distill insights, but they likely won't completely replace browseable decks in democratization programs. A concise AI summary can give busy stakeholders quick answers or highlight key findings, making data feel more accessible. However, interactive decks or dashboards let users explore details, see visuals, and drill into areas of interest-capabilities a static summary can't fully provide. There's also nuance: an AI might oversimplify or miss context that a well-crafted slide deck or report includes. In practice, AI summaries are emerging as a complement to traditional deliverables: the AI can provide instant, chat-like answers to specific questions, while the detailed deck remains available for deeper dives. Together, they serve different needs in insight democratization rather than one completely replacing the other.

Question 4

Where should we add provenance checks to AI-generated summaries?

Accepted Answer

You should implement provenance checks at each step of the AI summarization process where content is processed or output. First, as you ingest source documents, tag each piece of information with its origin (such as document ID or URL). Next, during the actual summarization, use an approach that preserves those tags - for instance, some AI summarizers can annotate which source a particular summary sentence came from. If that's not built-in, consider a retrieval-based summary method where the AI pulls in supporting excerpts along with the summary. Finally, at the output stage, include citations or reference links with the summary and perform a spot-check (either manually or with a script) to verify that each key statement matches the source material. In practice, this means the final summary isn't just free-floating text; it comes with a traceable lineage for its facts. By adding these checks from the data ingestion phase through to the final review, you ensure any AI-generated summary can be audited for accuracy and trustworthiness.

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.

Sharpr

What is Sharpr?

Research Software and Platform Details

Sharpr Services and Expertise