# Use Condens.io + Public Wiki for Design Research Repository * **Status:** Active * **Last Modified:** July 25, 2025 * **Related Issue:** * **Deciders:** Crystabel Rangel (w/ Andy Cochran, Wendy Fong, Julius Chang) * **Tags:** design, research, tool, transparency ## Context and Problem Statement We want research tooling that supports both 1) internal research operations and 2) public-facing research transparency. This tooling should help our team work more efficiently and effectively, and increase project transparency within the team, for leadership, and to the public. ## Decision Drivers ### **Problem 1: Internal Research Repository Needs** The appropriate internal research repository tool will… * Increase efficiency by reducing the time spent manually organizing, categorizing, annotating, and searching through research notes/videos/spreadsheets/etc. * Allow for improved cross referencing of study efforts and past research * Provide data access to the entire internal team, documenting researchers' thinking and allowing anyone to interpret findings on their own * Securely handle PII and sensitive information (storing it in a single dedicated space) * Simplify anonymization and exporting/copying findings for public sharing * Allow robust sorting, filtering, and grouping of research * Include strong transcription capabilities * Support multiple media inputs (video, audio, documents, etc.) * Offer good export options (e.g. spreadsheets, documents, PDFs) * Be a Nava-approved tool (security, compliance) ### **Problem 2: Public-Facing Research Repository Needs** * Share detailed insights without exposing raw notes * Remove or mask any PII * Promote transparency * Enable sharing with broader audiences (e.g. Co-Design Group, open source, general public) ## Options Considered * Dovetail * Qualie * Condense * Public Wiki ## Decision Outcome Use Condens.io for internal research operations and the Public Wiki for external transparency. **(Problem 1)** Condens meets/exceeds all requirements, including: * **AI-powered transcription** — Automatically transcribes audio and video recordings, saving time and effort in data processing. * **Data organization** — Centralizes all research data (recordings, notes, comments, findings) in a single secure and searchable repo, which can be shared across research efforts for Simpler.Grants.gov ***and*** SimplerNOFOs. * **Powerful search capabilities** — Quickly find specific insights using keywords/tags/filters. You can ask its AI complex questions, and it packages up the relevant data. * **Collaboration & transparency** — Unlimited read-only accounts provide a self-serve knowledge hub for entire internal team to explore the data, leave comments, share insights, come to their own conclusions/findings, and build reports together. * **Reporting** — Create reports, visualizations, affinity diagrams, and artifacts to identify patterns and themes in research data that can be shared with team (and anonymized for the public). * **Integration** — Zoom and Google Drive make importing/exporting easy. **(Problem 2)** The Public Wiki is already being used for our public-facing documentation needs. Sharing research findings there will avoid the need for stakeholders to visit yet another tool. And it enforces a clear separation of data that'd public on the wiki (anonymized findings reports, recommendations) and what should remain in Condens (session notes, PII). [Condens Overview - Watch Video](https://www.loom.com/share/74be84e0f1b04fe782dc024e42608e0f) [![](https://cdn.loom.com/sessions/thumbnails/74be84e0f1b04fe782dc024e42608e0f-ad2d8f58dd7753eb-full-play.gif)](https://www.loom.com/share/74be84e0f1b04fe782dc024e42608e0f) ### Positive Consequences * Increased research operations efficiency * Improved transparency (internal and public) * Easily-shared data allowing whole team to arrive at conclusions/findings (with unlimited veiw-only accounts) * Separation of concerns having both *private* and *public* research repositories ### Negative Consequences * Additional project costs * Limited number of licenses/seats for researchers ## Pros and Cons of the Options ### Dovetail — score: **3.42** (out of 5) * **Pros** * Good auto-categorization of research data, provides good high level summaries * Fast querying across all video file data in the project * Good video/audio processing * Good transcription * **Cons** * No view-only access (can't share among internal team w/o licenses) * No AI-assisted tagging (requires labor-intensive manual tagging) * Queries must be simple and direct * Sorting capabilities are basic, based on manual grouping * PII security requires manual handling, unable to blur name/face in video * Only supports spreadsheet export; no PDF import/export * Bit of a learning curve ### Qualie — score: **3.46** (out of 5) * **Pros** * Excellent auto-categorization of research data (you create key questions and highlights get automatically added) * Good automated insight generation and sorting/grouping capabilities * Excellent querying capabilities * Good video/audio processing * **Cons** * No view-only access — unlimited accounts, but fees are charged per interview not by seat * Sufficient tagging, but done by user role (not in transcript) * Does not store participant information * Unable to share video clips externally or anonymize participants * Only *limited* spreadsheet export; no PDF import/export ### Condense — score: **4.67** (out of 5) * **Pros** * Unlimited view-only accounts do not require license (internal team can browse all data and even leave comments) * Good AI-assisted auto-categorization of research data, provides suggestions based on tags created (but does not auto tag) * Excellent querying capabilities * Excellent encrypted PII handling * Excellent data organization * Session information can be customized to use as sort options * Global ***and*** project-specific taxonomies * Excellent video/audio processing (including PDF imports!) * Excellent transcription * Excellent export options * Can download whiteboards as images or public link * Artifacts can be printed or exported for private/public sharing * **Cons** * Although public links can hide names and tags, unable to blur face or video (but feature is in development, per onboarding call w/ support) ## Links * [Google Sheet with detailed analysis](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oM28qOTsRtVMEsjctBweZPAyyiaB-TjuF6SlcSfDZLs/edit?gid=0#gid=0) *