(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Sure, it saves time to skip official research deliverables and just apply the research knowledge you’ve learned directly to the design, but it’s shortsighted. Unlike design, which leaves behind a tangible artifact that you can see, feel, and use; user research consists of abstract knowledge locked in the brain of the researcher until it’s presented effectively in a deliverable. If that knowledge isn’t officially captured and presented understandably to others, it tends to get lost over time.

That became clear to me recently when I was asked to take over a project for a Researcher who was leaving our company. Because of a very short timeframe, there was no official deliverable from her contextual inquiries, only informal notes. She was asked to give me a “knowledge transfer,” and provide me with her high-level notes. Needless to say, the knowledge transfer didn’t go very well, and she left the company taking her brain with her, including all the research it contained.

A similar mistake occurs when multiple researchers work on a project, dividing up the sessions between themselves. To project managers and clients, that can sound like a great idea. Two researchers can either get the research done in half the time, or they can double the number of participants in the same time frame. The problem is that instead of building up knowledge through repetition, each researcher only has the knowledge of half of the sessions. To analyze the results, they have to then somehow combine what they observed.

So until they invent a direct brain-to-brain transfer device: attend every session, don’t split up sessions between multiple researchers, and produce effective and comprehensive deliverables to document your findings for future generations.