Customer research workshop / 5 MIN READ
Let the customer explain the object that carries the work
Use a permitted object or document to ground an interview in a real task.
AI-assisted research and analysis for the SNS Creative Fieldbook
Sources checked 2026-11-06
A checklist, marked-up form or improvised label can help a customer explain details that an abstract question misses. The useful evidence comes from the object together with its context and the participant’s explanation.
What you will leave with: An artifact interview plan with selection, handling and interpretation boundaries.
Use this when
- Customers describe workarounds that are difficult to explain verbally.
- A process involves informal documents or physical reminders.
This does not authorize collecting private records, inspecting someone else’s messages or treating an object as self-explanatory evidence.
Invite a relevant object without requesting unnecessary data
A GOV.UK Notify research account describes collecting contextual artifacts alongside notes. Use an object to support a focused conversation about how work gets done.
Explain the task you want to understand and offer examples of suitable material, such as a blank checklist or a redacted instruction sheet. Let the participant choose whether to bring anything. Describe what must remain private and offer a verbal description or fictional reconstruction instead. Do not ask them to export a customer database simply because it would make the interview more vivid.
Establish the object’s working context
Ask who uses the object, when it was last used and what situation produced it. Distinguish a current working tool from a demonstration prepared for the interview. A tidy template may describe the official process while a handwritten addition reveals a practical exception. Ask about that difference without assuming the informal version is necessarily better.
Invite the participant to explain a recent use in sequence. Point to a relevant detail and ask what it means rather than assigning meaning yourself. If several people contribute to the object, identify whose account you are hearing. Leave room for an ordinary or unsuccessful example instead of steering toward an impressive workaround.
Control handling and capture separately
Agree what may be shown, touched, photographed or copied. Viewing an item does not automatically permit retaining it. Avoid handling equipment or opening files beyond the agreed task. If unexpected personal details appear, stop capture and use the approved privacy procedure rather than relying on later cleanup.
Record a short description when an image is unnecessary. If an approved copy is useful, preserve enough context to explain it while excluding unrelated details. Mark alterations such as redaction or a participant-created reconstruction. Return physical originals before the session ends and confirm that the participant has not lost access to something needed for their work.
Connect the object to a bounded finding
Write what the artifact shows, what the participant said and what remains uncertain. A reminder taped beside a screen shows that a reminder existed; the participant’s account explains why they used it. Neither alone establishes how common the practice is.
Compare the account with other permitted evidence before recommending a broad change. A useful output may be a question about an overlooked handoff rather than a demand to reproduce the handwritten tool in software. Keep the object’s provenance attached to any permitted excerpt so later readers do not mistake a reconstructed example for an untouched workplace record.
Make the reasoning concrete.
A fictional booking-system researcher invites a venue coordinator to explain a blank event checklist. The coordinator points to a handwritten box for confirming who holds a spare key.
Read the checklist as the complete process
Opening: Turn every box directly into a product requirement.
Hypothesis: The object gives the team a concrete specification.
Risk: It may reflect one venue’s arrangement or an old exception.
Ask about the last use
Opening: Explore when the spare-key check mattered and who acted on it.
Hypothesis: The team can understand the coordination need behind the mark.
Risk: The account may still need another perspective before a design decision.
The researcher records a question about responsibility at venue handover and retains only the permitted blank example. The team does not publish the venue’s access details or claim the checklist represents all customers.
Take the questions into your next brief.
Use these prompts in your own notes. Nothing is submitted from this page.
Object
What permitted item could illuminate the task?
Context
Who made it and when was it actually used?
Prompt
Which detail needs the participant’s explanation?
Handling
What may be viewed, copied or retained?
Limit
What does the object leave unknown?
Watch for the wrong conclusion.
- Treating permission to view as permission to copy.
- Interpreting a mark without asking its author or user.
- Presenting a reconstructed example as an untouched original.
Your next action
Ask one participant about an optional, safely shareable artifact and write the handling boundaries before the interview.
Sources & scope
The workflow, worksheets and hypothetical examples are original editorial analysis. Sources support only the identified principles. No measured business results or named human reviewer are claimed.
- GOV.UK user research: How we’re using contextual research to improve GOV.UK Notify →Primary research-team account · Supports: The research team describes collecting contextual artifacts alongside notes; the artifact interview protocol is original editorial analysis.