name: pm-research-patterns description: "Internal skill. Use cc-p4p-router for all PM tasks." allowed-tools: Read, Write, Edit, Bash, AskUserQuestion, WebFetch
PM Research Patterns
Overview
Expert knowledge for synthesizing user research, competitive intelligence, and customer feedback into structured insights. Turns raw data into actionable product decisions.
The Iron Law
NO SYNTHESIS WITHOUT EVIDENCE GRADING AND SOURCE TRIANGULATION
Every finding must state its evidence strength (Strong/Medium/Weak). Every theme must be checked against multiple sources. Research without grading is storytelling. Findings without triangulation are anecdotes.
When to Use
- Synthesizing user interview notes
- Analyzing survey results
- Conducting competitive analysis
- Processing customer feedback at scale
- Building evidence-based personas
- Sizing opportunities from research data
Thematic Analysis Methodology
The core method for synthesizing qualitative research:
- Familiarize: Read through all data. Get a feel for the landscape before coding.
- Initial Coding: Tag each observation, quote, or data point with descriptive codes. Be generous -- easier to merge than split.
- Theme Development: Group related codes into candidate themes. A theme captures something important about the data in relation to the research question.
- Theme Review: Check themes against data. Does each theme have sufficient evidence? Are themes distinct? Do they tell a coherent story?
- Theme Refinement: Define and name each theme clearly. 1-2 sentence description of what each captures.
- Report: Write up themes as findings with supporting evidence.
Affinity Mapping
A collaborative method for grouping observations:
- Capture: Write each distinct observation as a separate note
- Cluster: Group related notes by similarity. Don't pre-define categories -- let them emerge.
- Label: Give each cluster a descriptive name
- Organize: Arrange clusters into higher-level groups if patterns emerge
- Identify themes: Clusters and relationships reveal key themes
Tips:
- One observation per note
- Move notes between clusters freely
- Large clusters probably contain multiple themes -- split them
- Outliers are interesting -- don't force-fit
Triangulation
Strengthen findings by combining sources:
| Type | Definition | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Methodological | Same question, different methods | Interviews + survey + analytics |
| Source | Same method, different participants | Multiple user segments |
| Temporal | Same observation, different times | Q1 vs Q3 comparison |
Findings supported by multiple sources and methods are much stronger than single-source. When sources disagree: that is a signal, not an error. May reveal segments or contexts.
Evidence Strength Grading
| Grade | Definition | Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| Strong | High confidence | 3+ independent sources, multiple methods, behavioral data |
| Medium | Moderate confidence | 1-2 sources, single method, or stated preferences |
| Weak | Low confidence | Assumption, single anecdote, or extrapolation |
Rule: Every finding must state its evidence strength. Weak evidence must be flagged explicitly.
Interview Note Processing
Extracting Insights
For each interview, identify:
Observations: What did the participant describe doing, experiencing, feeling?
- Distinguish behaviors (what they do) from attitudes (what they think/feel)
- Note context: when, where, with whom, how often
- Flag workarounds -- these are unmet needs in disguise
Direct Quotes: Verbatim statements that illustrate a point
- Good quotes are specific and vivid, not generic
- Attribute to participant type, not name: "Enterprise admin, 200-person team"
- A quote is evidence, not a finding
Behaviors vs Stated Preferences: What people DO differs from what they SAY
- Behavioral observations are stronger evidence
- Note contradictions between stated and revealed preferences
Signals of Intensity: How much does this matter?
- Emotional language, frequency, workaround effort, impact of failure
Cross-Interview Analysis
- Patterns: which observations appear across participants?
- Frequency: how many mentioned each theme?
- Segments: do different user types show different patterns?
- Contradictions: where do participants disagree?
- Surprises: what challenged assumptions?
Competitive Analysis
Identifying Competitors
| Level | Definition |
|---|---|
| Direct | Same problem, same approach, same users |
| Indirect | Same problem, different approach |
| Adjacent | Could expand into your space |
| Substitute | Entirely different solution to same need |
Feature Comparison Matrix
| Capability | Us | Competitor A | Competitor B |
|-----------|-----|-------------|-------------|
| [Feature] | Strong | Adequate | Absent |
Rating scale:
- Strong: Market-leading, deep, well-executed
- Adequate: Functional, gets job done, not differentiated
- Weak: Exists but limited, significant gaps
- Absent: Not available
Win/Loss Patterns
Track reasons for wins and losses:
- Feature gaps, integration advantages, pricing structure
- Incumbent advantage, sales execution, brand/trust
- Segment by deal type, size, industry
Opportunity Sizing
For each finding, estimate:
- Addressable users: How many could benefit?
- Frequency: How often encountered? (daily/weekly/monthly)
- Severity: Impact when it occurs? (blocker/friction/annoyance)
- Willingness to pay: Would it drive upgrades/retention?
Scoring: Impact = Users x Frequency x Severity
Present with transparency:
- Show assumptions and confidence levels
- Use ranges, not false precision
- Compare opportunities against each other (relative ranking)
Persona Development
Build evidence-based personas from research data:
- Identify behavioral clusters across participants
- Define distinguishing variables (company size, skill level, use case)
- Create profiles (3-5 personas max):
[Persona Name] -- [One-line description]
Who: Role, company, experience
Goals: Primary jobs to be done
Pain points: Top 3 frustrations
Behaviors: Usage patterns, tools, frequency
Values: What matters most in a solution
Quote: Representative verbatim quote
Avoid: Demographic-only personas, too many personas (>5), fictional data, never updating.
Survey Design Principles
Question Types and When to Use
| Type | Best For | Watch Out For |
|---|---|---|
| Multiple choice | Frequency, demographics, simple preferences | Forcing choices that don't reflect reality |
| Likert scale | Attitudes, satisfaction, agreement | Acquiescence bias (people tend to agree) |
| Open-ended | Exploring unknowns, getting language | Hard to analyze at scale |
| Ranking | Relative priorities | Cognitive load above 5-7 items |
| Matrix | Multiple items on same scale | Straight-lining (same answer for all) |
Writing Good Questions
- One concept per question -- never double-barreled
- Avoid leading language ("Don't you agree that...")
- Offer "Not applicable" or "I don't know" options
- Randomize answer order where possible
- Test with 3-5 people before sending
Sample Size Guidelines
| Confidence Level | Margin of Error | Sample Needed |
|---|---|---|
| 95% | +/- 5% | ~385 |
| 95% | +/- 10% | ~97 |
| 90% | +/- 5% | ~271 |
For qualitative themes: 12-15 interviews typically reach saturation for a well-defined user segment.
Jobs To Be Done (JTBD) Framework
Core Structure
When [situation], I want to [motivation], so I can [expected outcome].
Uncovering JTBD
Interview questions that reveal jobs:
- "Walk me through the last time you [did this task]."
- "What were you trying to accomplish?"
- "What did you try before this? Why did you switch?"
- "What would make you stop using this?"
Job Map
Break a main job into process steps:
- Define: How does the customer define what they need?
- Locate: How do they find inputs?
- Prepare: How do they set up?
- Confirm: How do they verify readiness?
- Execute: How do they do the core task?
- Monitor: How do they track progress?
- Modify: How do they adjust?
- Conclude: How do they finish?
Each step is an opportunity for innovation.
Research Synthesis Template
Save to: docs/research/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-synthesis.md
# Research Synthesis: [Topic]
## Methodology
- Sources: [list with type]
- Methods: [interviews/survey/analytics/competitive]
- Sample: [size and composition]
- Period: [when conducted]
## Key Themes
### Theme 1: [Name]
**Evidence Strength:** Strong/Medium/Weak
**Sources:** [which sources]
**Finding:** [description]
**Key Quotes:** [1-2 representative]
**Implication:** [what this means for product]
## Opportunities
| Opportunity | Users | Frequency | Severity | Evidence | Score |
|------------|-------|-----------|----------|----------|-------|
## Personas
[If applicable]
## Recommendations
1. [Recommendation] -- [Evidence basis]
## Open Questions
- [Remaining unknowns]
Red Flags — STOP
- Presenting findings without evidence strength grades → STOP. Grade every finding Strong/Medium/Weak.
- Single source supporting a "key theme" → STOP. One anecdote is not a theme. Need 3+ for Strong.
- Skipping triangulation → STOP. Combine methods and sources before claiming confidence.
- Synthesizing without methodology stated → STOP. Document how you collected and analyzed.
- Cherry-picking quotes that confirm hypothesis → STOP. Present all themes including contradictory.
- Research report with no recommendations → STOP. Research without action is waste.
Rationalization Prevention
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|---|
| "We only have one data source" | Then grade it Medium/Weak and say so. Don't present assumptions as findings. |
| "The quotes speak for themselves" | Quotes are evidence, not findings. Themes require interpretation and grading. |
| "We don't have time to triangulate" | Untriangulated findings lead to wrong decisions. Triangulation saves time long-term. |
| "Everyone agrees, so it must be true" | Unanimous agreement may mean you asked leading questions. Check methodology. |
| "The data is clear" | If clear, grading takes 30 seconds. If ambiguous, grading prevents overconfidence. |
| "We'll validate later" | Later means after you've built the wrong thing. Validate strength now. |
| "This user is very representative" | One user is N=1. Representative requires multiple participants showing same pattern. |
| "Outliers aren't important" | Outliers may represent edge cases, future segments, or broken assumptions. Document them. |
Anti-Patterns to Avoid
| Anti-Pattern | Problem | Instead |
|---|---|---|
| Cherry-picking quotes | Confirmation bias | Present all themes, including contradictory |
| N=1 findings | Single anecdote masquerading as insight | Require 3+ sources for "strong" evidence |
| Asking "would you use X?" | Stated preference is unreliable | Ask about past behavior and current workarounds |
| Ignoring outliers | Missing edge cases and segments | Document outliers explicitly, investigate |
| Research without action | Waste of effort | Every synthesis must end with recommendations |
| Skipping triangulation | Fragile findings | Combine methods and sources |