Most teams do not suffer from a lack of research. They suffer from research that does not change decisions. Insights are presented, acknowledged, and archived, while delivery continues on momentum. This article focuses on creating a direct connection between evidence and delivery decisions.
The real problem: evidence exists, but decisions do not bind to it
In complex public services, delivery is balancing policy intent, operational realities, deadlines, dependencies, and governance pressure. Under that pressure, decisions are often fast and implicit.
Research rarely fails because it is wrong. It fails because it is not consumable at the point decisions are made.
- Scope shifts without explicit trade-offs
- Workarounds ship without clear rationale
- Accessibility and inclusion gaps are deferred
- Priorities are driven by noise, not user need
What evidence-led delivery needs to mean
Evidence-led delivery is not simply completing research. It requires a traceable chain from claim to follow-up signal.
- A claim: what we believe about users or the service problem
- Evidence: what supports or challenges that claim
- A decision: what we will do or not do, and why
- A trade-off: what risk we accept as a consequence
- A follow-up signal: what we monitor to check if we were right
A practical model: Evidence to Decision to Delivery
Use a lightweight model that introduces traceability without adding process overhead.
Step 1: Turn insights into decision statements
Frame insights so they drive decisions rather than sit as observations.
For example: user evidence statement, decision implication, and expected impact.
Step 2: Create an Evidence Index
Keep a thin index so evidence is findable and reusable in decision moments.
- Research artefact link
- Date and context
- Key claims supported
- Owner
- Confidence level
- One disconfirming signal where evidence is weak or mixed
Step 3: Use a Decision Log that requires evidence links
Keep the log small, but enforce one rule: each material service decision includes evidence pointers or explicitly states an evidence gap.
- Decision
- Options considered
- Trade-off
- Evidence links
- Decision owner and date
- Review trigger
Step 4: Run a regular Evidence-to-Decision Review
A short 30 to 45 minute routine helps prevent evidence from being ignored.
- What are the top three decisions coming up?
- What evidence supports them?
- Where is evidence weak or missing?
- What trade-offs are being accepted?
- What does governance need to decide?
Step 5: Make evidence visible in governance-ready updates
Governance does not need every detail. It needs decision-ready clarity on what changed, why, what risk is emerging, and what decisions are needed.
- Decisions made this cycle
- Evidence pointers used
- Trade-offs accepted
- What will be measured next
Common failure modes and how to avoid them
- Research theatre: lots of activity, little influence. Use decisions as the unit of progress.
- Insights with no owner: assign a decision owner and review trigger.
- Evidence is hard to retrieve: maintain a thin, searchable Evidence Index.
- Evidence reviewed only when challenged: use a recurring evidence-to-decision cadence.
What good looks like
- Fewer circular debates
- Faster alignment because trade-offs are explicit
- Better prioritisation linked to user outcomes
- Earlier, clearer accessibility and inclusion decisions
- Stronger governance questions because the decision trail exists
Need support applying this in your service context?
Start a conversation and we will help you turn this into practical delivery actions.