Insight Activation and Socialisation

Why does research get ignored even when it is good?

Usually for a structural reason rather than a quality one. The commonest are that it reached the commissioner rather than the people whose work would change, that no one in the business owned the question, that it arrived after the decision was made, or that it had no owner once the project closed. Diagnose which before doing anything, because the remedies are different and only one of them is about formats.

How do I make findings memorable without oversimplifying?

Compress until, but not past, the point where someone acting on the short version would act differently from someone acting on the full one. A useful rule: a statement may lose precision as it gets shorter, but it may never gain scope. Dropping a decimal place is precision. Turning "among claimants" into "customers" is scope, and it is a different claim.

What formats work better than a research report?

It depends on the audience and the moment, but the highest-leverage option is usually an embedded reference: putting the finding into a document people already open, such as a design principle set, a brief template, a service standard or a decision checklist. That removes the requirement that anyone choose to read your artefact. Decision briefs, one-pagers and team summaries all beat a full report for activation; a talk builds belief but leaves no durable record.

Can you write different versions of findings for different teams?

Yes, and it is often necessary, but versions may differ only in which findings they include and how those findings are framed in the audience's language. They must never differ in what a finding claims, what number it carries, what confidence it holds, or whether its caveat is present. Make every version cite numbered core findings so the check can be mechanical.

How do you measure whether research was actually used?

Distinguish exposure from use. Views, downloads and attendance measure exposure. Use is evidenced by traces: the finding appearing in a brief, a business case, a roadmap justification or a specification. The cheapest instrumentation is to ask owners to cite the finding reference when they use it. Be honest about attribution: a decision consistent with the research is not proof the research caused it.

What do you do when a finding contradicts something the organisation has already committed to?

Recognise it as a political problem rather than a communication one. Better formats will not help. Brief a sponsor privately before any wider distribution, frame the finding against the decisions still open rather than the one already closed, and do not put the researcher in the position of being the only person holding it.

Who should own a finding after the project ends?

Someone in the business whose decisions the finding bears on, with a written remit and an explicit acceptance. A handover contains the core findings with references, what they are for, where the artefacts live, what the owner is expected to do, a review date, and who to ask about interpretation. If no owner can be found, that is itself a finding worth recording rather than an obstacle to work around.

When should you plan activation?

Before fieldwork. If you know the decision, its date and its forum while the design is still open, the study measures what the decision needs and the format constraint is known while there is time to design for it. Activation planned after delivery is recovery work.