Customer research repository template: three tabs and a rule about who sees what

The best customer research repository template for a small team is three linked records: sources, findings and decisions. It should let a teammate answer three questions. What did we learn, what supports it, and does it apply to the decision in front of us? Start there before you buy software or design a tagging system.

A spreadsheet and a few approved folders may be enough. What matters is how the records link and who can see them. An archive everyone can search and nobody can interpret is an attic with a search bar.

1. Keep the source, the finding and the decision in separate records

A source points to the evidence. A finding states what the team believes it supports. A decision records what someone chose to do with it. This follows the split between observations, findings and actions in GOV.UK's analysis guidance; the template is our own small-team adaptation.

They can be three tabs, linked documents or tables in a tool you already have approved. Do not adopt a complicated system just to reproduce the column names.

2. Keep participant details out of the shared index

Use a session reference in the shared index. Keep the identity mapping and raw materials somewhere restricted, with the access needed to run the study and respond to data requests.

A participant code does not make material anonymous: a distinctive role, incident or company can identify someone. Review the content before widening access.

GOV.UK's data-management guide recommends collecting only necessary data, restricting access, linking consent records to the relevant materials and setting a retention process. It is UK government guidance; your organization sets its own privacy and retention requirements.

Record permitted use in a form the team can act on. "Consent: yes" is too vague when one participant agreed to internal analysis and another also agreed to a specific external quotation. Keep the detailed record restricted and show readers the limits that matter.

3. Fill in one complete chain before importing everything

Here is a made-up example of how the three records connect:

Source S12: Interview conducted in September with an operator responsible for stock reconciliation. Evidence is a paraphrased account of comparing two exports when their update order was unclear. Raw notes are restricted. The source record links to its actual use and retention terms.

Finding F04: In the studied multi-system workflow, uncertainty about the latest update contributed to manual comparison. Supported by S12 and S15. S18 describes a separate approval requirement, which remains a counterexample to a single explanation. The finding does not estimate how common the problem is.

Decision D03: Test a clearer update-history view with relevant operators before committing to a broad dashboard redesign. The product owner owns the test; the research owner will revisit F04 when results are available.

A reader can now see why the test exists, and which decisions need another look if F04 changes.

4. Add a tag only when it answers a real search

Start with a few consistent fields: workflow, user responsibility, product area and evidence method. Define each in a short data dictionary, or "onboarding" will mean account creation to one person and a six-month implementation to another.

Do not tag every adjective in a transcript. Try three real queries first:

• "What do we know about stock reconciliation?"
• "Which findings support this proposed change?"
• "What evidence contradicts this claim?"

If the repository cannot answer them, improve the links and descriptions before adding more tags.

GOV.UK's planning guide recommends storing findings where teams can use them and connecting research to decision-making routines. The repository should serve those routines instead of becoming a separate report nobody reads.

5. Give maintenance an owner

After each round, add the sources, update the findings and link any resulting decision. On a regular review, check broken links, expired access, retention obligations and findings that may no longer match the product or market.

When a source is corrected or removed, inspect the findings and decisions that depended on it. Follow the actual deletion and retention process: a forbidden quote stays forbidden even if it survived in a summary.

Automated search and summaries can help people find records, but each answer should point to its sources and respect their limits. Fill in your first source, finding and decision this week.