Singapore product roundtables: discussing research that did not change a decision

The problem

Your Singapore product team has completed user research, but nobody can name the decision that should change or the person who can change it, so another general discovery presentation may add more findings without resolving the blockage.

Name the unresolved choice before listing the findings

Write the decision in one sentence and include the options still open. A report can be complete while the team has not agreed which choice it should inform. In an invented case, research describes difficulty completing a request, but the pending choice is whether to change the existing step or investigate another route. Those findings do not select an option on their own. State the decision’s actual scope and what would happen if it remains unanswered. Keep the record descriptive rather than assigning blame to a colleague or declaring the research wasted. A general discovery presentation may add methods without resolving this specific linkage. When the decision is already clear, seek practitioner discussion that can challenge the actual options and trade-offs.

Separate the roles involved in using the evidence

Build a four-entry role map: who supplies the relevant evidence; who proposes a recommendation; who can make or approve the named choice under the organisation’s actual process; and when clarification or a decision is needed. Use real role information only when established, otherwise mark it unknown. The person who presents research, manages a discussion or holds a product title is not automatically the decision authority. One person may hold several roles, but do not collapse them merely to finish the map. A peer can question the arrangement without assigning powers in your team. The purpose is to identify the unanswered responsibility, not prescribe a universal organisation chart, escalation rule or deadline.

Ask what the finding changes about the options

For each finding relevant to the choice, record the actual observation or participant account, interpretation, option it might affect and uncertainty remaining. Keep a proposed design response distinct from evidence that it would work. If a finding does not bear on the current choice, say so rather than forcing every report item into a decision. Ask what information the actual owner has requested and whether the existing material answers it. A request for another method may hide an unclear decision, while an authority problem may leave even relevant findings unused. Distinguish observed findings from interpretations, then identify who uses that evidence for the actual choice. A polished artefact does not establish a team decision.

Test the role map with a fictional blocked report

This example is invented and describes no real team or participant. Researcher R supplies a task observation. Product practitioner P proposes changing a step. Role D is described in the example as responsible for choosing between the options, but nobody has asked D which uncertainty matters to that choice. The report being delivered to P does not mean D accepted the recommendation. A useful next question is what evidence D needs and what decision D will actually make. If the real situation has no established D, first clarify responsibility through the organisation’s proper process rather than appointing a convenient person. A comment from an event attendee cannot fill that authority gap or convert P’s proposal into an approved change.

Choose a discussion that can inspect the blockage

Read the actual programme for practitioner case discussion, decision processes and a permitted attendee question. Ask whether an invented or appropriately authorised case can be brought, what preparation is requested and which parts of the session allow discussion. SGInnovate Deep Tech Central presents separate routes for jobs, talent programmes, courses and events. That broad pathway information does not establish that a specific event provides research feedback or individual help. A talk on an appealing research method can be useful while leaving your decision responsibility unanswered. Keep the case scope visible and choose the actual format accordingly. Do not assume a platform account, relevant topic or public calendar entry gives you a turn, private review or access to an internal decision maker.

• SGInnovate Deep Tech Central ↗ · Source checked 20 October 2026

Let peers challenge the missing link without making the decision

Bring the choice, role map and relevant finding in a compact shareable example. Ask, “Where would you seek clarification first, and what would you need to know before recommending a change?” Retain the person’s reasoning and the context their answer assumes. Someone may suggest checking the owner’s requested evidence; another may question whether the proposed option addresses the observation. Those are different leads, not proof the team rejected or accepted the research. Avoid announcing a consensus from one comment or interpreting disagreement as permission to bypass the real process. Keep confidential plans and participant information out of a public case unless your actual permissions allow their use. A fictional example can preserve the structure while making no claim about your organisation’s facts.

Take one clarification to the appropriate actual role

Use a three-part question: the named choice; evidence currently available; and responsibility or uncertainty that still needs an answer. An unsent question could be, “For [choice], we have [scoped evidence]. Who is responsible for the decision, what remaining information is required and what would record the outcome?” Adapt it through the organisation’s actual route; it is not a message already sent or an escalation policy. If the reply names a different role, establish that role’s actual responsibility instead of passing the recommendation around indefinitely. A reply requesting further evidence is not an approval. Likewise, an agreed deadline is not a decision record. Keep the scope of each answer beside the exact choice it concerns.

Record the response at the status it reached

Keep four statuses separate: peer suggestion; internal clarification sought; answer or responsibility actually established; and decision made through the real process. Retain the relevant date, choice and stated basis when you have that record, while leaving missing entries unknown. If another research activity is proposed, identify which uncertainty it would answer before choosing a workshop. Do not present attendance, an attractive report or a peer’s confidence as evidence the team changed a decision. Use Boardzip’s free product search to find suitable discussion formats and confirm their participant conditions. The search supplies candidates, not internal authority, organisational approval or an allocated review. A smaller clarified question can be a useful outcome even while the product choice remains open.