Trusted by world-class organizations
Innerview — fast insights, stop rewatching interviews
Start for freeTrusted by world-class organizations
Innerview — fast insights, stop rewatching interviews
Start for freeResearch teams at most product organizations share a frustrating experience: someone asks "do we have research on this topic?" and the honest answer is "probably, but I am not sure where it is."
The research happened. The interviews were conducted. The findings were presented. But three months later, the slide deck lives in someone's Google Drive, the tagged transcripts are in a tool nobody logs into anymore, and the institutional knowledge exists only in the heads of the researchers who did the work.
This is not a research quality problem. It is a storage and retrieval problem. A research repository solves it, but only if the repository is actually used, maintained, and integrated into how your organization makes decisions. This guide covers what repository software should actually do, compares the leading purpose-built tools against general-purpose alternatives, and provides a practical rollout plan that avoids the most common failure mode: building a repository that becomes another digital graveyard.
Key Takeaways
In this article
Innerview helps you quickly understand your customers and build products people love.
A repository is not a file cabinet. Dumping PDFs and slide decks into a shared folder is storage, not a repository. A functioning research repository must deliver on three capabilities.
The most important function of a repository is helping people find relevant past research without knowing it exists. This means:
The test: can a product manager who joined the company last month find relevant research on their product area within 5 minutes, without asking a researcher for help?
Findings in a repository must be credible. Stakeholders need to trust that a finding is based on real data, not a researcher's opinion. This requires:
The test: can a skeptical VP click through from a finding to the original evidence in under 30 seconds?
Research has the most impact when it reaches people beyond the research team. The repository must support:
The test: do non-researchers voluntarily visit the repository at least once per sprint?
Many teams start their repository in Notion, Confluence, or Airtable because those tools are already in use. This can work, but it involves trade-offs that are worth understanding before you commit.
Notion, Confluence, or Airtable can serve as a research repository when:
The advantage of general tools is zero adoption friction. Everyone already knows how to use Notion. The disadvantage is that every research-specific feature (evidence linking, transcript search, theme aggregation, consent tracking) must be built and maintained manually.
Dedicated research repository software makes sense when:
The biggest cost of using Notion or Confluence as a repository is not the tooling. It is the labor required to maintain research-grade structure in a tool not designed for it:
What it does: Research repository built as a natural output of the analysis workflow. Every insight, theme, and tagged quote flows from analysis into a searchable repository with full evidence linking to timestamped source recordings.
Core strength: The repository grows automatically from research work. There is no separate "publish to repository" step. When you analyze an interview, tag quotes, and extract themes in Innerview, those artifacts are immediately searchable and linked to source evidence. This means the repository stays current without requiring dedicated maintenance effort.
Best for: Teams whose primary research method is interviews and who want a repository that builds itself from analysis output. Teams that value evidence linking as a way to build stakeholder trust.
Where it is less ideal: Teams that need a repository for non-interview research (survey results, analytics data, market reports) alongside interview findings may need to supplement Innerview with another storage layer for those data types.
Pricing: Free tier available. Paid plans from approximately $29/user/month.
What it does: Full research hub with repository as a central feature. Strong tagging infrastructure, search across projects, integrations with Slack/Jira/Confluence, and highlight reels.
Core strength: Comprehensive tagging and the integration ecosystem. Dovetail's tag structure supports hierarchical organization across projects, and its search can surface findings from any study in the system. The integrations mean research can be pushed to where stakeholders work rather than requiring them to visit the repository.
Best for: Research operations teams that manage a high volume of studies and need strong taxonomy governance. Organizations with established research processes that want a mature, well-integrated repository.
Where it is less ideal: Teams that want a lightweight repository without the overhead of a full research hub. The breadth of features can be overwhelming if all you need is a searchable findings store.
Pricing: Free tier available. Paid plans from approximately $29/user/month.
What it does: Structured research repository designed around a systematic approach to organizing qualitative data. European-made with strong GDPR focus.
Core strength: Structured data approach. Condens enforces a consistent structure for research data: each study has defined fields, participant metadata, and tagged observations that roll up into findings. The enforced structure means the repository stays organized even as the volume of research grows. Strong on GDPR compliance and data residency for European teams.
Best for: European teams with GDPR requirements. Research ops teams that want enforced structure rather than flexible freeform organization. Teams transitioning from spreadsheet-based research tracking.
Where it is less ideal: Less flexible than tools like Dovetail for teams with varied research methods. The structured approach can feel rigid for teams that prefer a more fluid, exploratory analysis style. Smaller ecosystem of integrations compared to US-based competitors.
Pricing: From approximately 20 EUR/user/month.
What it does: Insights management platform built around the concept of "nuggets" (atomic insight units) that can be tagged, grouped, and shared across studies.
Core strength: The nugget-based system. Each observation or insight is stored as a discrete, taggable unit that can be linked to multiple studies, themes, and projects. This makes cross-study analysis and pattern identification more natural than in tools where findings are locked within individual study containers.
Best for: Research teams that think in terms of atomic insights rather than study-level reports. Teams doing meta-analysis across multiple studies to identify organizational-level patterns.
Where it is less ideal: Smaller company with less development velocity than larger competitors. The nugget model requires buy-in from the team; if researchers prefer to work at the study level, the workflow may feel unfamiliar.
Pricing: From approximately $20/user/month.
What it does: General-purpose workspace that can be configured as a research repository through databases, templates, and relational properties.
Core strength: Your team already uses it. Zero adoption friction for a tool everyone knows. Extremely flexible: you can design any structure you want. Databases with filters, views, and relations can approximate many research repository features. AI features can help with search and summarization.
Best for: Small teams (1-3 researchers) with low study volume who want minimal tool sprawl. Teams where the alternative is "no repository at all" because nobody will log into a separate tool.
Where it is less ideal: No evidence linking to source transcripts or recordings (you must maintain manual links). No transcript search. Taxonomy enforcement requires discipline rather than tooling support. No consent management or data retention controls. Search quality degrades significantly as the repository grows beyond 50-100 studies.
Pricing: Free tier available. Paid plans from approximately $8/user/month.
What it does: Database platform with custom fields, views, linked records, and automations that can be structured as a research repository.
Core strength: Highly customizable structure. If you know exactly what fields, relationships, and views you want, Airtable can model it precisely. Multiple view types (grid, kanban, gallery, calendar) let different stakeholders see the same data in their preferred format. Automations can trigger notifications when new research is published.
Best for: Teams with a research ops person who enjoys building systems. Organizations that want a bespoke repository structure that matches their specific taxonomy and workflow.
Where it is less ideal: Requires significant setup and ongoing maintenance. There is no out-of-the-box research repository template that works well without customization. No evidence linking, transcript search, or analysis integration. The system is only as good as the person maintaining it, which creates a bus factor risk.
Pricing: Free tier available. Paid plans from approximately $20/user/month.
Before selecting a tool, make four architecture decisions that will shape how your repository functions.
Your taxonomy is the classification system that makes research findable. Key decisions:
Not all research should be visible to everyone:
Design your access model before you populate the repository. Retrofitting access controls is painful.
Decide how granular your evidence links will be:
Timestamp-level linking is ideal but only practical with tools that natively support it (Innerview, Dovetail). If you are using Notion or Airtable, quote-level linking is the realistic ceiling.
Research findings have a shelf life. A usability study from two years ago may be irrelevant after a major redesign. Build freshness management into your repository:
The graveyard problem is the most common repository failure mode. Teams build a beautiful repository, populate it with a few studies, and then stop using it because the maintenance overhead is not justified by the usage. Here is how to avoid that.
Do not try to migrate all past research into the repository at launch. Instead:
The goal is to create enough value that people have a reason to visit the repository. An empty repository with perfect structure is worth less than a partial repository with content people actually need.
Repositories fail when they are treated as a documentation project. They succeed when they are treated as a decision support tool. Every piece of content in the repository should exist because it helps someone make a better product decision, not because someone felt obligated to document their work.
A repository without usage metrics is a repository you cannot improve. Track these indicators to understand whether your repository is working.
A healthy repository at a mid-size product organization (5-10 researchers, 50+ studies per year) should show:
A research repository is only valuable if people use it to make better decisions. The software matters less than the practices: consistent taxonomy, evidence linking, freshness management, and integration into decision workflows.
For teams starting out, choose a tool that minimizes the gap between doing research and publishing to the repository. If that means Notion because your team already lives there, start with Notion and upgrade later. If you can invest in a purpose-built tool, Innerview and Dovetail offer the strongest combination of analysis integration and repository features. For teams with strict compliance requirements, Condens provides strong GDPR controls with structured organization.
The most important decision is not which tool to use. It is whether to commit to maintaining the repository as a living decision support system rather than a documentation archive.
How long does it take to set up a research repository? Initial setup (tool configuration, taxonomy design, first batch of studies) takes 2-4 weeks. Reaching a useful critical mass of content takes 2-3 months. Full organizational adoption, where non-researchers regularly visit the repository, typically takes 4-6 months with active effort.
Should we migrate all past research into the new repository? No. Migrate the 10-20 most frequently referenced studies first. Older research can be migrated incrementally based on demand, or simply linked from the repository to its current location. Full migration of years of research is rarely worth the effort because most of it will never be accessed again.
Who should own the research repository? Ideally, a research operations person or senior researcher who is responsible for taxonomy governance, quality standards, and adoption metrics. In smaller teams without a dedicated research ops role, the most senior researcher should own it with explicit time allocated for maintenance (2-4 hours per month).
How do we prevent the repository from becoming a graveyard? Three practices: make publishing mandatory (the study is not done until findings are in the repository), integrate repository links into existing team rituals (sprint planning, design reviews), and track usage metrics monthly. If usage drops, investigate why and address the cause rather than hoping it will self-correct.
Can we use our existing Notion or Confluence as a repository? Yes, with caveats. General tools work for small teams with low volume. The limitations become painful when you need transcript search, evidence linking to recordings, enforced taxonomy, or consent management. If you start in Notion and outgrow it, migration to a purpose-built tool is possible but time-consuming.
What is the biggest mistake teams make with research repositories? Treating the repository as a documentation project rather than a decision support tool. Repositories that exist to "capture knowledge" without a clear connection to product decisions become maintenance burdens that nobody uses. Every feature and process in your repository should answer the question: does this help someone make a better product decision?