We already know that

Whether it’s saying it or hearing it in a research intent or playback session, those words (“we already know that”) cause palpitations and send a horrible little shivering feeling down everyone’s spine.

And as a consequence, several knee-jerk reactions happen:

• A lack of confidence in the research capability; “Why didn’t you ask if we already knew this?!”
• A spat of resentment to stakeholders or the research committee; “Why didn’t you tell me we already knew this?!”
• A dread of having to explain overage on timelines; “Oh no, this will put my skin on the line again…”
• A lack of clarity on the next steps; “So, what am I supposed to design with that information?!”
• A behind-the-scenes moan session; “Not again; well, next time, we’ll skip that part of the process…”

That’s not all of them, but you get the picture.

Even in some of the most mature organisations, which have enviable data management and research setups, we’ve seen this happen repeatedly. It’s like déjà vu but less intriguing and more resource-draining.

So, what’s the answer?

Gap Analysis

Imagine a world where every research effort is a step forward, not sideways. Where the only thing we’re duplicating is our success. This isn’t a pipe dream; it’s entirely achievable with a predictable and deliberate approach to our investigations.

With a dash of tactical due diligence, Gap Analysis actively identifies and removes knowledge overlaps. It not only saves time but allows you to understand where the opportunities lie.

So, how do we approach it?

We conduct a gap analysis for a research project when we’re looking at something we already know about. Our aim is to identify things we don’t know about it yet to help formulate research questions or hypotheses.

Things we already know about:

• Direct research, ie. we’ve previously redesigned the basket page and took its designs through research and validation;
• Indirect research, ie. we’ve previously researched the entire checkout flow, and therefore, we have some knowledge on the basket page.

Process

A Gap Analysis should look to answer the research study’s objectives and questions.

1. Systematic search: look through related and/or existing research, eg. research repository or reports;
2. Analyse content: understand what we know, the controversies, contradictions, and inconsistencies;
3. Apply rebuttal: use what we know across multiple sources to contradict or nullify the research;
4. Gap detection: identify any unanswered questions and understand their significance;
5. Synthesise findings: bring together your findings into a report.

FYI: Actions that lead to the ‘gap detection’ should be considered a continuous cycle until the researcher has evidenced that the gap is significant or there isn’t enough of a gap to move forward.Hopefully, you’ve now got a great idea of how you can break free from the cycle of research redundancy by performing Gap Analyses on your research needs.