# 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) * --- # Agent Instructions: Querying This Documentation If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation dynamically by asking a question. Perform an HTTP GET request on the current page URL with the `ask` query parameter: ``` GET https://wiki.simpler.grants.gov/product/decisions/adr/use-condens.io-+-public-wiki-for-design-research-repository.md?ask= ``` The question should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language. The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation. Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.