Trusted by world-class organizations
A practical guide to evaluating research repository software for discoverability, evidence quality, and cross-team reuse in product organizations.
Introduction
Research 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.
10x your insights without 10x'ing your workload
Innerview helps you quickly understand your customers and build products people love.
What a Research Repository Should Actually Do
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.
Find: Discoverability
The most important function of a repository is helping people find relevant past research without knowing it exists. This means:
- Full-text search across findings, quotes, and source transcripts, not just titles and tags
- Faceted filtering by topic, product area, research method, date range, and researcher
- Related research suggestions when someone is viewing a study ("teams who looked at this also found...")
- Cross-study views that surface themes spanning multiple studies rather than requiring someone to open each study individually
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?
Trust: Evidence Quality
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:
- Evidence linking: every insight traces back to specific quotes, clips, or data points from the source study
- Methodology visibility: the study design, participant criteria, and sample size are accessible alongside findings
- Freshness signals: clear dates and staleness indicators so readers know whether a finding from 2024 still applies
- Confidence levels: the ability to distinguish between a robust finding from 20 interviews and a preliminary signal from 3
The test: can a skeptical VP click through from a finding to the original evidence in under 30 seconds?
Reuse: Cross-Team Access
Research has the most impact when it reaches people beyond the research team. The repository must support:
- Non-researcher-friendly views that do not require learning coding schemes or analysis terminology
- Role-based access so sensitive research can be restricted while general findings are broadly available
- Integration with decision-making tools (Jira, Linear, Notion, Confluence, Slack) so findings appear where work happens
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.
When General Tools Work
Notion, Confluence, or Airtable can serve as a research repository when:
- Your team is small (1-3 researchers) and the volume of studies is manageable (fewer than 15-20 per year)
- Your organization already lives in that tool and adding a separate platform would mean one more login nobody visits
- You have a dedicated research ops person who will build and maintain the structure, templates, and taxonomy manually
- You do not need evidence linking back to source transcripts and recordings (or you are comfortable maintaining manual links)
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.
When Purpose-Built Tools Are Worth It
- Research volume exceeds what manual structure can handle (20+ studies per year, multiple researchers)
- Evidence linking is important to your organization's decision-making culture
- You need search quality that general tools cannot provide (searching within transcripts, filtering by evidence type, cross-study theme views)
- Compliance requirements demand consent management, data retention controls, and audit trails that general tools do not support natively
- You want the repository to grow naturally from analysis output rather than requiring a separate "repository input" step after each study
The Hidden Cost of General Tools
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:
- Taxonomy drift: without enforced tag structures, different researchers use different terms for the same concepts. Six months in, the taxonomy is inconsistent and search quality degrades.
- Broken links: manual links between findings and source evidence break when files are moved, renamed, or reorganized.
- No transcript search: you can search page titles and body text, but you cannot search within source transcripts or filter by who said what.
- Consent management gaps: tracking which participants consented to what, and when their consent expires, requires custom database work that is easy to get wrong.
Top Research Repository Software Compared
Innerview
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.
Dovetail
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.
Condens
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.
Aurelius
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.
Notion (as Research Repository)
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.
Airtable (as Research Repository)
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.
Repository Architecture Decisions
Before selecting a tool, make four architecture decisions that will shape how your repository functions.
Taxonomy Design
Your taxonomy is the classification system that makes research findable. Key decisions:
- Flat vs. hierarchical tags: Flat tags ("onboarding", "pricing", "mobile") are simpler but create a long, unwieldy list as research grows. Hierarchical tags ("onboarding > first-run experience > tutorial completion") provide more precision but require more governance.
- Product-aligned vs. theme-aligned: Do you organize by product area ("checkout flow", "search", "dashboard") or by insight theme ("usability friction", "unmet need", "competitive advantage")? Most teams need both, which means supporting multiple tag dimensions.
- Who owns the taxonomy: Ungoverned taxonomies drift within months. Assign one person (typically a senior researcher or research ops lead) as the taxonomy owner with authority to create, merge, and deprecate tags.
Access Control
Not all research should be visible to everyone:
- Sensitive research (employee experience, competitive intelligence, pre-launch concepts) may need restricted access
- Draft vs. published findings should be distinguishable to prevent stakeholders from acting on incomplete analysis
- External collaborators (agency researchers, consultants) may need temporary access with different permissions
Design your access model before you populate the repository. Retrofitting access controls is painful.
Evidence Linking Strategy
Decide how granular your evidence links will be:
- Study-level linking: an insight references the study it came from (minimal effort, lower credibility)
- Quote-level linking: an insight links to specific participant quotes (moderate effort, high credibility)
- Timestamp-level linking: an insight links to the exact moment in a recording (highest effort, highest credibility)
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.
Freshness Management
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:
- Date every finding with the study date, not the publication date
- Flag potentially stale findings automatically (e.g., any finding older than 12 months gets a "may be outdated" indicator)
- Schedule periodic reviews (quarterly or semi-annually) where the research team reviews flagged findings and marks them as still valid, updated, or archived
- Archive rather than delete: old research may become relevant again during retrospective analysis or when revisiting a product area
How to Roll Out Without Creating Another Graveyard
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.
Phase 1: Seed with High-Value Research (Weeks 1-2)
Do not try to migrate all past research into the repository at launch. Instead:
- Select 5-10 studies that are most frequently referenced in current product discussions
- Populate them fully: findings, evidence links, proper tags, participant metadata
- Make them genuinely useful: each study should answer at least one question that a PM or designer has asked in the past month
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.
Phase 2: Build the Habit (Weeks 3-6)
- Integrate repository links into existing rituals: include relevant repository links in sprint planning, design reviews, and roadmap discussions
- When someone asks "do we have research on X?", answer with a repository link rather than sending a file or summarizing from memory
- Track who visits and what they search for: this data tells you what content to prioritize and where the gaps are
- Celebrate reuse: when a product decision references repository research, make that visible to the organization
Phase 3: Make It Self-Sustaining (Weeks 7-12)
- Build repository publishing into the research workflow: the study is not done until findings are in the repository, just as a developer's task is not done until the code is merged
- Automate what you can: if your analysis tool feeds into the repository automatically (as Innerview does), there is no separate publishing step to skip
- Run a quarterly repository review: archive stale findings, merge duplicate tags, and identify gaps where research is needed
- Report on repository health metrics to research leadership: number of studies, search frequency, cross-team access patterns
The Key Insight
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.
Measuring Repository Health
A repository without usage metrics is a repository you cannot improve. Track these indicators to understand whether your repository is working.
Usage Metrics
- Monthly active users: how many unique people visit the repository each month? Segment by role (researcher, PM, designer, executive) to understand cross-functional adoption.
- Search frequency and success rate: how often do people search, and how often do they find what they need? A high search frequency with low click-through suggests the content does not match what people are looking for.
- Time to first finding: when someone arrives at the repository, how long does it take them to find relevant research? Measure this through session analysis or user feedback.
- Referral sources: do people arrive from Slack links, Jira tickets, direct navigation, or search engines? This tells you which distribution channels are working.
Quality Metrics
- Evidence linking rate: what percentage of findings in the repository link back to source evidence (quotes, clips, recordings)? Target 80%+ for credibility.
- Taxonomy consistency: audit a sample of 20 studies quarterly. How consistently are tags applied? If two researchers tag the same finding differently, your taxonomy needs work.
- Freshness distribution: what percentage of findings are less than 6 months old? Less than 12 months? More than 24 months? A healthy repository has a distribution weighted toward recent research with a clear archive for older work.
- Completeness: what percentage of completed studies are represented in the repository? If researchers are finishing studies but not publishing findings, the repository is becoming incomplete.
Impact Metrics
- Research citations in product decisions: track how often product specs, design documents, or roadmap discussions reference repository research. This is the ultimate measure of repository value.
- Duplicate research prevention: how often does someone discover relevant past research before starting a new study? This saves the organization the cost of a redundant study.
- Stakeholder satisfaction: quarterly pulse survey asking PMs and designers: "How easy is it to find relevant research when you need it?" Track the trend over time.
What Good Looks Like
A healthy repository at a mid-size product organization (5-10 researchers, 50+ studies per year) should show:
- 50+ unique non-researcher visitors per month
- 80%+ evidence linking rate
- Findings from the last 6 months comprise at least 40% of repository content
- Research is cited in at least 30% of major product decisions
Conclusion and FAQs
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.
Frequently Asked Questions
-
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?
