Pragmatic Knowledge Management: From Scattered Insights to Serendipitous Intelligence
by Lilyth Ester Grove
Subscribe to get sharp thinking all about ResearchOps delivered straight to your email inbox every two weeks. It’s free!
The ResearchOps Review is brought to you by Rally—scale research operations with Rally's robust user research CRM, automated recruitment, and deep integrations into your existing research tech stack.
In today’s fast-paced landscape, research repositories often fall short of supporting timely, actionable decision-making. Instead of being a central, living resource, they too often become digital archives covered in pixelated dust—they are hard to search, disconnected from the day-to-day work of the organization, and offer a low probability of knowledge serendipity (i.e., the occasion for decision makers to stumble upon new or unexpected knowledge when they need it.)
As a Research Operations Lead focused on scaling the impact and accessibility of insights, I noticed that despite the growing volume of high-quality research at the company, most of it wasn’t actually reaching anyone. Our researchers were producing valuable work, but majority stakeholders across the organization often lacked visibility—or even awareness—that this knowledge existed. This meant people were repeating work, valuable insights were slipping through the cracks, and research often felt one step behind where it needed to be. It became clear that the problem wasn’t the quality of research, but the way it was delivered and accessed. That realization set the stage for a shift: rather than asking people to go out of their way to find insights, I began looking for ways to bring insights to them.
While our repository tool was highly functional for research knowledge producers, its limited adoption meant that insights weren't reaching the broader organization. In contrast, Confluence offered us a space where research knowledge could seamlessly integrate into the daily flow of corporate life. By meeting stakeholders—both central and peripheral—where they already were, we significantly increased visibility and access to insights. As a result, access to our repository grew by 400 percent, expanding from 600 to more than 3,000 users, while the average views per report jumped from 2 to over 20, marking a significant shift in visibility and engagement. Rather than forcing stakeholders to adopt yet another separate tool, we leveraged existing platforms and natural workflows to enable the unexpected discovery of valuable insights. By embedding research directly into the tools already in use, we not only addressed the friction inherent in our standalone repository but also created organic engagement opportunities that overcame the most common barriers to research adoption, visibility, and long-term impact.
Central Versus Peripheral Stakeholders
I think of a research repository as a space where different people need different pieces of knowledge at different times. In the context of knowledge management and research dissemination, I refer to specific research outputs (e.g. insights) or data points (e.g., facts about a user) when I define central and peripheral stakeholders:
Central Stakeholders: Individuals or teams directly involved in decision-making, strategy, and the execution of a specific research project. They actively consume, contribute to, and rely on these research insights to inform their work in a more immediate way.
Peripheral Stakeholders: Those who have an indirect need for research knowledge. Though they weren’t involved in a research study or the development of the project, they could still use the research insights to influence decision-making about specific subjects or related topics (whether the insights are leveraged immediately, serve as a long-term reference, or are accessed months or years after they were first captured).
Because people engage with knowledge at different moments and in different ways, the systems we design for sharing knowledge must reflect that reality. And yet, too often, research repositories are built for ideal conditions, not real-world use. This tension led me to adopt a new approach to knowledge management—one that prioritizes simplicity, integration, and adaptability.
Keep It Simple; Go to Them
"Keep it simple; go to them.” This has become my guiding principle for knowledge management; it’s a philosophy shaped by the growing skills and insights I’ve gained from experts in the field.1 I used to favor expansive taxonomies and intricate systems designed to capture every tidbit of information. While maintaining a record of what’s been learned and accomplished is important, I’ve come to realize that among those generating knowledge, there’s resistance, and oftentimes constraints, to adopt overly complex systems and then consistently engage with them. These are the key reasons siloed knowledge repositories tend to fail:
Researchers don’t have the time to populate lengthy reports for a repository—especially when they’re already creating presentations and other deliverables for stakeholders. A pragmatic knowledge management approach recognizes this reality and focuses on streamlining knowledge capture from materials researchers are already producing, and embedding that knowledge into formats that fit into existing workflows.
Most research teams lack a dedicated research operations specialist, let alone someone focused solely on knowledge management. So knowledge often ends up fragmented, uncared for, and disconnected. A pragmatic knowledge approach solves this by prioritizing utility over perfection—organizing insights just enough to make them accessible, shareable, and actionable within the flow of everyday work.
Stakeholders (and most employees) are resistant to using platforms outside of their existing toolset—sorry, ResTech repository tools!
Teams change, software changes, and knowledge disappears if it’s not intentionally housed and maintained within a central, accessible system—like the company’s intranet. In one recent project, my team and I discovered that a foundational baseline study for a key product initiative had been stored in the private folder of a former colleague. Because no one else had access to the folder, we had to repeat the research, wasting valuable time and resources.
I’ve seen this across different companies and contexts—even at my previous employer—with varying degrees of impact: from UX being excluded from a project altogether, to teams restarting the same initiative years later, still needing the same information and landing right back at the same stage. These realities reinforce the need for a knowledge management strategy that’s both practical and adaptable—one that fits within existing workflows rather than adding friction or bloat.
Pragmatic Knowledge Management
The lessons I’ve shared here have shaped what I call pragmatic knowledge management. There’s nothing particularly groundbreaking about this term. There’s no complex theoretical framework to unpack. Instead, at its core, it’s about keeping things simple and effective, and deeply integrating research insights into everyday tools and workflows, rather than siloing insights in a specialized research repository tool.
The approach also shifts away from a mentality I’ve observed across organisations, where research is seen as separate from the rest of the organization. Therefore, integrating research insights into the company’s workflows and “going to them” (instead of continuing to promote isolation and separate systems) can help to effectively deliver our research insights by whatever means necessary. And ultimately, research teams can enhance visibility, drive engagement, and ensure that valuable insights reach both central decision-makers and peripheral stakeholders.
The transition from a specialized research repository tool (there are countless new ResTech startups focused on this space) to our company’s existing intranet wasn’t merely a change in platform; it represented a paradigm shift that unlocked the unexpected benefits of knowledge serendipity. (Thank you, research librarian, Alison Jones, for the tip on translating stumbleability into serendipity.)
Intranets and the Importance of Serendipity
When I think of intranets, I picture online spaces where we access human resources (HR) paperwork, company policies, templates, and other forms of corporate knowledge. In this context, intranets can be invaluable assets in a knowledge management strategy. In companies with established cultures and standardized systems, the intranet often becomes the heart of virtual corporate life—everyone has to use it for something, at some point. This built-in traffic presents a strategic opportunity to make a research repository both more visible and relevant than it might be were it siloed in a specialist tool. With this in mind, I saw two strategic directions I could take:
Continue operating in a space (a well-known research repository tool) with low adoption and visibility among research knowledge consumers but high functionality for its intended purpose among research knowledge producers.
Leverage a widely used intranet space (in our case, Confluence) that engages all types of research knowledge consumers—central stakeholders, peripheral stakeholders, and community members—thus increasing the chances of general access and, more importantly, knowledge serendipity.
In the end, we chose the second option, prioritizing visibility and integration with the rest of the organization. During the evaluation process, we needed to think beyond just tools and functionality; we had to consider who the knowledge was for and the contexts in which it would be accessed. This meant assessing the different types of people interacting with our research, whether central, peripheral, or even community stakeholders.2 Understanding these distinctions helped us tailor our strategy to meet diverse needs. These insights guided our approach to embedding research seamlessly into daily workflows and boosting the visibility of our work.
A Confluence of Tools and Design
Increasing the visibility of research is key to driving engagement and ensuring that insights are actively used across an organization. Knowledge serendipity plays a crucial role in this process, as making research work more findable inherently raises the profile of the research team and reinforces its relevance—provided the work itself is valuable and actionable. However, serendipity alone is not capable of driving a successful knowledge management strategy. To further boost the visibility and usage of our work, our strategic approach to knowledge management employs a multichannel system designed to embed research into the daily workflows of the organization. Here are some examples:
By distributing bimonthly newsletters featuring research findings and reports tailored for both central and peripheral stakeholders, we ensure that insights are regularly delivered to those who need them most.
Complementing these newsletters, a dedicated findings channel in Slack continuously broadcasts updates and fresh insights, creating a dynamic forum for engagement.
Additionally, we intentionally embed redundancy in our link placements—directing users back to the research library at multiple touchpoints—to guarantee that the repository remains highly accessible.
Collectively, these tactics not only maintain consistent access to research insights but also spark unexpected, beneficial encounters (serendipity!), ultimately driving broader engagement with and practical application of our work.
Our transition to Confluence and development of the first stage of our research library were influenced by the need to engage with peripheral stakeholders and make it easier for our central stakeholders to access research directly related to their objectives. The role of central stakeholders is more apparent, as they directly benefited from easily accessing and engaging with our research knowledge. However, engaging peripheral stakeholders presented a unique opportunity for research insights to be applied on a broader scale than previously possible. By integrating research into an intranet, a simple search for a related term led our peripheral stakeholders (or community members) to discover and engage with knowledge and insights they might not have otherwise encountered. While they may not be the primary consumers of research, their work still greatly benefited from increased access to the findings. By considering all groups, our knowledge management strategy ensured that insights were accessible to those who need them most while also fostering broader organizational awareness and engagement with research.
Research Knowledge, Elevated
Our journey toward pragmatic knowledge management has shown that simplicity and integration are key to unlocking the full potential of research. Transitioning from a specialized tool to a widely adopted intranet not only increased accessibility for central stakeholders but also created unexpected opportunities for peripheral interaction. By embedding research into everyday workflows through multichannel strategies like newsletters, dedicated Slack channels, and strategically placed links, we overcame conventional barriers and made our insights consistently visible. Ultimately, this approach has transformed our research into a dynamic resource that not only informs decision-making but also elevates the entire organization’s engagement with knowledge.
Sponsor and Credits
The ResearchOps Review is made possible thanks to Rally UXR—scale research operations with Rally's robust user research CRM, automated recruitment, and deep integrations into your existing research tech stack. Join the future of Research Operations. Your peers are already there.
Edited by Kate Towsey and Katel LeDu.
Thank you to Emily DiLeo for your excellent course and support over the past few months, and to Alison Jones for your insightful work that has deeply influenced my thinking.
Central versus peripheral stakeholders: Some people use the terms primary versus secondary, or central versus fringe stakeholders, but the terms reference the same idea.
 | A guest post by
|
Artigo maravilhoso! 👏
I wish I had this article 18 months ago! Thank you for sharing your knowledge.