Continuous Discovery Habits Template
Twenty weeks of interviews is twenty sets of notes unless something holds them together. This pack holds them in one log that never resets.
Free download · No account needed
A weekly interviewing habit does not fail on the interviews. It fails because each week's notes land somewhere separate, so by week twenty nobody is holding week one and the same finding arrives again as news. This pack has one Insight Log that never resets. Every extract either lands on a row that already exists or creates a new one, and because new rows are the exception, they are countable.
New rows divided by extracts, per five-week block, is the new-insight rate, and it is the only honest signal for whether more interviews on a question are worth running. It falls for two different reasons though, and the rate alone cannot separate them. Nielsen's diminishing-returns curve carries the same caveat: the formula holds only for comparable users, and genuinely different groups have to be covered separately. So every participant carries a recruitment source.
In the worked example that rate fell from 48 percent to 14 across fifteen weeks and looked finished. Then the source column showed 30 of 34 interviews had reached customers who were already succeeding. Four from churned accounts and a paid panel produced 17 new rows from 29 extracts, on the same question, in week seventeen. Built for a team whose standard is at least weekly contact with customers and whose week keeps not having it in. It replaces the study-shaped practice that research synthesis serves well and a weekly cadence outgrows.
What is in the pack
Insight Log
One row per problem, never per study. Extracts land on rows that already exist, carrying an evidence count, a participant count, and how many recruitment sources sit behind them.
The new-insight rate
New rows divided by extracts, per five-week block. The one number that says whether more interviews on this question are still worth running, rather than whether they felt productive.
Participant Register
Recruitment source on every row, plus a sentence naming the population that channel actually reaches, because two sources often reach the same people.
Assumption Tracker
Each belief the roadmap rests on, carrying how many interviews have touched it either way, and the specific interview that would settle it.
Interview Guide
Openings that get a specific recent instance rather than a process description, the four follow-ups that find workarounds, and the four questions that produce rows which never resolve.
Weekly Cadence and Synthesis Format
A week that survives a release, a five-part Friday synthesis that fits one screen, and a restart procedure that goes back into the same log rather than a clean one.
How it works
- 1
Send what already exists
Old transcripts, the findings deck nobody reopened, past reports, the list of people you meant to talk to. It becomes the log before the first new interview.
- 2
Interview twice a week
Two conversations, recruited against the register rather than the recruiting tool, each one recording where the participant came from and who that channel reaches.
- 3
Land the extracts
Within the day. Each extract joins a row that already exists, or creates one with a sentence saying why nothing matched. Creating is the exception and it gets counted.
- 4
Read the rate, then the sources
Every five weeks. A falling rate means the question closed or the channel ran out, and only the source count tells you which one happened.
Frequently asked questions
We already do weekly interviews. What does this add?
A number for whether they are still teaching you anything. Weekly attendance is a vanity metric: ten weeks of the same person type is a well-attended programme producing nothing, and it looks green on every dashboard. The rate and the source count are what make that visible from inside.
What counts as a new insight rather than an existing one?
Match on the underlying problem, never the wording. Printing the schedule every morning and not seeing tomorrow on a phone are one row. The words stay on the extract and the row is the problem, which is what stops a log growing four thin rows describing one thing.
Is a falling new-insight rate a good sign?
Only alongside three or more recruitment sources reaching genuinely different populations. Below that, the honest reading is that the channel is exhausted rather than the question answered. In the worked example the rate went from 14 percent back to 59 on the same question, from a different channel.
What happens when the habit stops for a month?
It will, usually around a release. The restart goes into the same log: read the ten rows with the oldest last-touched date, pick the two that still matter, and book against those. Opening a fresh register is what destroys the accumulation, and it feels productive immediately.
Does this decide what we build?
No, deliberately. Insights become candidate solutions and bets somewhere else, and the ranking of what ships belongs in the prioritization framework. A discovery habit that starts recommending stops producing evidence within about a month, because the interviews get run to confirm a decision already taken. Testing one of those bets before it is built is the concept test pack.
How does this relate to our other feedback sources?
They answer different questions and the log holds insights, not requests. Tickets, reviews and survey comments are covered by the voice of customer review, and a feature request board belongs in customer feedback triage. Neither reaches the people who never became customers.
Who should be in the interviews?
Two people from the team, one asking and one writing extracts live. Never three, because a third turns it into a meeting and the participant starts performing. The person building the thing should be one of the two at least every other week.
Find out what your last twenty interviews actually added
Send whatever notes exist, however old and however messy. They become the log, and the first number back is how much of it is one channel.
Start the log