---
title: "Interview Synthesis"
description: "Synthesizes user research interviews into actionable insights, patterns, and recommendations. Use after conducting user interviews, customer calls, or usability sessions to extract and communicate findings."
generated: true
source: scripts/generate-skill-pages.py
tags:
  - Discover
  - research
---

:::note[Quick facts]
**Phase:** Discover | **Version:** 2.0.0 | **Category:** research | **License:** Apache-2.0
:::

**Try it:** `/interview-synthesis "Your context here"`

An interview synthesis transforms raw user research data into structured insights that drive product decisions. Rather than simply listing what participants said, a good synthesis identifies patterns across conversations, connects observations to underlying user needs, and translates findings into actionable recommendations.

## When to Use

- After completing a round of user interviews (typically 5+ participants)
- Following customer discovery calls or sales feedback sessions
- After usability testing sessions to consolidate observations
- When stakeholders need a summary of research findings
- Before ideation sessions to ground the team in user reality

## How to Use

Use the `/interview-synthesis` slash command:

```
/interview-synthesis "Your context here"
```

Or reference the skill file directly: `skills/discover-interview-synthesis/SKILL.md`

## Instructions

When asked to synthesize interview findings, follow these steps:

1. **Gather the Raw Material**
   Collect all interview notes, transcripts, or recordings. Ensure you have data from at least 3 participants to identify meaningful patterns. Note the research objective and methodology used.

2. **Create Participant Profiles**
   Document each participant with relevant context: their role, segment, tenure, and any notable characteristics. This helps readers assess the representativeness of findings.

3. **Identify Recurring Themes**
   Read through all notes and tag observations by topic. Look for themes that appear across multiple participants (ideally 3+). Distinguish between frequently mentioned topics and one-off comments.

4. **Extract Meaningful Quotes**
   Capture 3-5 verbatim quotes per theme that powerfully illustrate the insight. Good quotes are specific, emotional, or particularly articulate. Always attribute quotes to participant IDs.

5. **Synthesize into Insights**
   Transform themes into insight statements. An insight goes beyond observation ("users mentioned X") to interpretation ("users need Y because of Z"). Connect what you heard to why it matters.

6. **Formulate Recommendations**
   Based on the insights, propose prioritized actions. Each recommendation should tie directly to an insight. Note confidence level based on strength of evidence.

7. **Document Limitations**
   Acknowledge what you didn't learn, sample biases, or areas needing further research. Honest limitations increase credibility.

## Output Template

# Interview Synthesis: [Research Topic]

## Research Overview

### Objective
<!-- What question(s) were you trying to answer? -->

[Research objective]

### Methodology
<!-- How were interviews conducted? -->

- **Format:** [In-person / Video call / Phone]
- **Duration:** [Average interview length]
- **Interviewer(s):** [Names or roles]
- **Date Range:** [Start date] to [End date]

### Participant Summary

| ID | Role/Segment | Tenure | Interview Date | Notes |
|----|--------------|--------|----------------|-------|
| P1 | [Role] | [Time in role/as customer] | [Date] | [Key characteristic] |
| P2 | [Role] | [Time in role/as customer] | [Date] | [Key characteristic] |
| P3 | [Role] | [Time in role/as customer] | [Date] | [Key characteristic] |
| P4 | [Role] | [Time in role/as customer] | [Date] | [Key characteristic] |
| P5 | [Role] | [Time in role/as customer] | [Date] | [Key characteristic] |

## Key Themes

### Theme 1: [Theme Title]
<!-- Theme mentioned by X of Y participants -->

**Prevalence:** [X] of [Y] participants

**Summary:** [2-3 sentences describing the theme]

**Evidence:**
- P1: "[Quote]"
- P3: "[Quote]"
- P5: "[Quote]"

### Theme 2: [Theme Title]

**Prevalence:** [X] of [Y] participants

**Summary:** [2-3 sentences describing the theme]

**Evidence:**
- P2: "[Quote]"
- P4: "[Quote]"

### Theme 3: [Theme Title]

**Prevalence:** [X] of [Y] participants

**Summary:** [2-3 sentences describing the theme]

**Evidence:**
- P1: "[Quote]"
- P2: "[Quote]"
- P3: "[Quote]"

## Notable Quotes

<!-- 5-8 particularly powerful or illustrative quotes -->

> "[Quote that captures a key insight]"
> . P[X], [Context]

> "[Quote that captures a key insight]"
> . P[X], [Context]

> "[Quote that captures a key insight]"
> . P[X], [Context]

## Insights

### Insight 1: [Insight Statement]
<!-- Insights explain WHY, not just WHAT -->

[Explanation of what this means and why it matters. Connect observations to underlying user needs or motivations.]

**Implication:** [What this means for product/design decisions]

### Insight 2: [Insight Statement]

[Explanation of what this means and why it matters.]

**Implication:** [What this means for product/design decisions]

### Insight 3: [Insight Statement]

[Explanation of what this means and why it matters.]

**Implication:** [What this means for product/design decisions]

## Recommendations

<!-- Prioritized actions based on insights -->

| Priority | Recommendation | Related Insight | Confidence |
|----------|---------------|-----------------|------------|
| 1 | [Action to take] | Insight [X] | High / Medium / Low |
| 2 | [Action to take] | Insight [X] | High / Medium / Low |
| 3 | [Action to take] | Insight [X] | High / Medium / Low |

### Recommendation Details

**1. [Recommendation Title]**

[Detailed description of what to do and why. Include specific next steps.]

**2. [Recommendation Title]**

[Detailed description of what to do and why. Include specific next steps.]

## Appendix

### Methodology Notes
<!-- Any relevant details about how research was conducted -->

[Additional methodology details if needed]

### Limitations
<!-- Acknowledge biases, gaps, or constraints -->

- [Limitation 1: e.g., sample skewed toward power users]
- [Limitation 2: e.g., did not include churned customers]
- [Areas for further research]

### Raw Notes
<!-- Link to or include abbreviated raw notes by participant -->

[Link to detailed notes or indicate where they're stored]

## Example Output

<details>
<summary>Interview Synthesis: New User Onboarding Experience</summary>

# Interview Synthesis: New User Onboarding Experience

## Research Overview

### Objective

Understand why only 34% of new users complete onboarding and identify friction points preventing users from reaching their "aha moment" within the first 7 days.

### Methodology

- **Format:** Video calls via Zoom
- **Duration:** 45 minutes average
- **Interviewer(s):** Sarah Chen (Product), Marcus Williams (UX Research)
- **Date Range:** January 2 to January 10, 2026

### Participant Summary

| ID | Role/Segment | Tenure | Interview Date | Notes |
|----|--------------|--------|----------------|-------|
| P1 | Marketing Manager | New user (Day 3) | Jan 2 | First-time project management tool user |
| P2 | Project Lead | Churned after 14 days | Jan 3 | Previously used Asana |
| P3 | Team Admin | Completed onboarding | Jan 5 | Tech-savvy, evaluated 3 competitors |
| P4 | Operations Director | New user (Day 5) | Jan 7 | Managing team of 12 |
| P5 | Product Manager | Churned after 7 days | Jan 9 | Power user of similar tools |

## Key Themes

### Theme 1: Overwhelming Initial Setup

**Prevalence:** 5 of 5 participants

**Summary:** Every participant described feeling overwhelmed when first logging in. The dashboard presented too many options without clear guidance on where to start. Users who successfully onboarded found their own path through trial and error, while churned users gave up when they couldn't figure out the first step.

**Evidence:**
- P1: "I logged in and just stared at the screen. There were like fifteen buttons and I had no idea which one to click first."
- P2: "I spent 20 minutes trying to figure out how to create my first project. In Asana, it was obvious. Here, I felt lost."
- P5: "I'm pretty tech-savvy and even I was confused. If I can't figure it out quickly, my team definitely won't."

### Theme 2: Missing Context for Features

**Prevalence:** 4 of 5 participants

**Summary:** Users didn't understand why they should use specific features or how they fit into their workflow. Features were explained in terms of what they do, not why they matter. Users skipped important setup steps because they didn't understand the value.

**Evidence:**
- P3: "I eventually figured out the workspace settings, but I almost skipped it. Nothing told me why I should care about configuring those options."
- P4: "There's a tutorial that shows you where to click, but not why. I need to know if this will save me time before I invest effort setting it up."

### Theme 3: Desire for Quick Wins

**Prevalence:** 4 of 5 participants

**Summary:** Users wanted to accomplish something meaningful within the first 10 minutes. Those who could create a simple project and invite a colleague felt confident about continuing. Those who got stuck in setup without visible progress abandoned the product.

**Evidence:**
- P1: "I just wanted to get one thing done to see if this tool works for me. But I couldn't even figure out how to add a simple task."
- P3: "What kept me going was when I finally created a project and invited my teammate. That 5-minute demo with her sold me on the tool."
- P5: "I have 30 tools fighting for my attention. If I can't see value in 10 minutes, I'm moving on."

### Theme 4: Team Invitation Friction

**Prevalence:** 3 of 5 participants

**Summary:** Users who wanted to evaluate the tool with their team encountered friction when inviting colleagues. The invitation flow required too much information upfront and didn't provide sample content for the team to explore together.

**Evidence:**
- P2: "I wanted to show my team, but the invite form asked for everyone's job title and department. That felt like too much work for a trial."
- P4: "I invited my team but they logged into an empty workspace. I had to walk them through everything on a call because there was nothing to explore."

## Notable Quotes

> "I logged in and just stared at the screen. There were like fifteen buttons and I had no idea which one to click first."
> . P1, Marketing Manager, Day 3 of trial

> "If I can't see value in 10 minutes, I'm moving on. I have 30 tools fighting for my attention."
> . P5, Product Manager who churned

> "What kept me going was when I finally created a project and invited my teammate. That 5-minute demo with her sold me on the tool."
> . P3, Team Admin who completed onboarding

> "There's a tutorial that shows you where to click, but not why. I need to know if this will save me time before I invest effort setting it up."
> . P4, Operations Director

> "I'm pretty tech-savvy and even I was confused. If I can't figure it out quickly, my team definitely won't."
> . P5, Product Manager who churned

## Insights

### Insight 1: Users need guided first steps, not feature tours

Users don't want to learn about all features . they want to accomplish their first goal. The current onboarding treats all features equally, overwhelming users with options. Successful users found their path by ignoring most of the interface and focusing on one task. We need to guide users to that first success rather than showing them everything.

**Implication:** Replace the current feature tour with a goal-oriented wizard that asks users what they want to accomplish and guides them to that specific outcome.

### Insight 2: Value demonstration must precede feature explanation

Users skip features when they don't understand the benefit. Current tooltips explain mechanics ("Click here to set due dates") but not value ("Never miss a deadline again"). Users who completed onboarding discovered value through experimentation; we shouldn't require that effort.

**Implication:** Reframe all onboarding copy to lead with benefits. Use social proof ("Teams using this feature complete projects 20% faster") to motivate feature adoption.

### Insight 3: Collaborative trial experiences drive conversion

Users who invited teammates and had a shared experience were significantly more likely to continue. Individual evaluation feels like work; collaborative exploration feels like progress. The current invitation flow adds friction instead of facilitating team discovery.

**Implication:** Optimize the invite flow to be frictionless (email-only) and pre-populate shared workspaces with sample content that teams can explore together.

## Recommendations

| Priority | Recommendation | Related Insight | Confidence |
|----------|---------------|-----------------|------------|
| 1 | Implement guided first-project wizard | Insight 1 | High |
| 2 | Add sample project for team exploration | Insight 3 | High |
| 3 | Rewrite onboarding copy to lead with benefits | Insight 2 | Medium |
| 4 | Simplify team invitation to email-only | Insight 3 | Medium |

### Recommendation Details

**1. Implement Guided First-Project Wizard**

Replace the current dashboard landing with a 3-step wizard that asks users to: (1) name their first project, (2) add 2-3 sample tasks, and (3) set a due date. This creates an immediate quick win and teaches core functionality through doing rather than watching.

**Next steps:** Design sprint with UX team, prototype by end of month, A/B test against current onboarding.

**2. Add Sample Project for Team Exploration**

When a user invites teammates, automatically create a sample project called "Getting Started Together" with pre-populated tasks that demonstrate collaboration features. Include tasks like "Comment on this task" and "Assign yourself something."

**Next steps:** Define sample project content with Customer Success team who knows what drives adoption, implement as part of invitation flow enhancement.

## Appendix

### Methodology Notes

Participants were recruited from users who signed up in the last 30 days. We intentionally included both completed onboarding and churned segments to understand both success and failure paths. Interviews were semi-structured with core questions about first impressions, confusion points, and decision factors.

### Limitations

- Sample skewed toward individual contributors and managers; no C-level executives interviewed
- All participants were from companies with 10-50 employees; enterprise experience may differ
- Did not include users who never logged in after signup (a significant segment)
- Self-reported friction may differ from actual behavior; recommend supplementing with session recordings

### Raw Notes

Detailed interview transcripts stored in Notion: [Research Repository / 2026-Q1 / Onboarding Study]

</details>

## Real-World Examples

See this skill applied to three different product contexts:

<details>
<summary>Storevine (B2B): Storevine B2B ecommerce platform . merchant email marketing interviews for Campaigns discovery</summary>

**Prompt:**

```
/interview-synthesis

Research topic: Why do Storevine merchants use external email tools instead
of Storevine's built-in email features?

Context: Storevine all-in-one ecommerce + web platform, ~18k active merchants
[fictional]. Q4 exit survey: 22% of churned accounts cited "had to use a
separate email tool" [fictional]. Competitive analysis filed last week.

We interviewed 8 merchants. Mix of sizes, product categories, and email tool
usage. Interview format: 45-min video call, semi-structured.

Key topics: current email tool setup, how they chose it, what they use
Storevine's built-in tools for (if anything), what would need to be true
to switch, seasonal patterns.

Date range: Jan 12  -  Jan 28, 2026
Interviewer: UX researcher + growth PM
```

---

**Output:**

# Interview Synthesis: Why Merchants Use External Email Tools

</details>

<details>
<summary>Brainshelf (Consumer): Brainshelf consumer PKM app . user interviews on saved content re-engagement</summary>

**Prompt:**

```
/interview-synthesis

ran 7 user interviews over the past 2 weeks about why people save stuff
to brainshelf but never go back to read it. need to synthesize the findings.

interviews were video calls, 30-45 min each. mix of heavy savers,
occasional users, and one churned user.

main findings:
- 5/7 described their library negatively ("guilt pile", "overwhelming", etc)
- nobody has a natural trigger to go back and read saved stuff
- there's a weird split between "saving to read later" and "saving to have"
  that people don't realize until you ask them

some great quotes. need this formatted for the team before we start
building the hypothesis doc for resurface.
```

---

**Output:**

# Interview Synthesis: Why Users Save but Don't Return

</details>

<details>
<summary>Workbench (Enterprise): "Workbench enterprise collaboration platform: Blueprints discovery interviews on documentation consistency and Confluence fatigue"</summary>

**Prompt:**

```
/interview-synthesis

Research project: Blueprints discovery interviews -- documentation consistency and governance in enterprise teams
Product: Workbench (enterprise collaboration platform, Series B, ~500 enterprise customers [fictional])
Feature under exploration: Blueprints -- reusable document templates with required sections and role-based approval gates

Participants: 6 enterprise team leads interviewed over 3 weeks (Oct 6 - 24, 2025)
- P1: VP Ops, financial services, 8,000 employees, Confluence customer
- P2: Director of Compliance, healthcare SaaS, 2,200 employees, Confluence customer
- P3: Head of Product, logistics platform, 1,500 employees, Notion customer
- P4: Engineering Manager, insurance carrier, 4,000 employees, Confluence + SharePoint
- P5: Program Director, government contractor, 6,500 employees, SharePoint
- P6: Operations Lead, manufacturing SaaS, 900 employees, Coda customer

Format: 45-minute video calls, semi-structured
Interviewer: Rachel V. (Technical PM, Blueprints)
Observer: Tomás G. (Design Lead) on 4 of 6 sessions

Key areas explored:
1. How teams currently enforce documentation standards
2. What happens when docs reach approval incomplete
3. Pain points with current tools (Confluence, Notion, SharePoint, Coda)
4. Appetite for required-section enforcement vs. flexibility concerns
5. Who approves docs and how long it takes

Raw notes and recordings are in the Workbench research repository.
Stakeholders: Sandra C. (Head of Product), Derek H. (Head of Marketing), Mei-Lin T. (Enterprise Sales Lead)
```

---

**Output:**

# Interview Synthesis: Enterprise Documentation Consistency and Governance

</details>

## Quality Checklist

Before finalizing, verify:

- [ ] Themes are supported by evidence from 3+ participants
- [ ] Quotes are verbatim and attributed to participant IDs
- [ ] Insights explain "why" not just "what"
- [ ] Recommendations are specific and actionable
- [ ] Participant identities are protected (no PII)
- [ ] Limitations and biases are acknowledged

## Output Format

Use the template in `references/TEMPLATE.md` to structure the output.
