What users need from a product that doesn't exist

Canadian Institute for Health Information, 2026

When CIHI decided to retire its legacy data-sharing product, the team needed a grounded strategy in what users actually need. The current product distributes data in files to analysts and researchers across the country. The data helps users plan and deliver care.

Moving forward, the replacement would have to serve both people and automated systems. The data had to be machine-readable so that other software (and AI) could read it. Our challenge was determining how to design for the sometimes contradictory needs of humans and machines.

How I set it up

I led three connected studies to explore this challenge. A Canada-wide survey (n=86) mapped what users were doing with the data and where the experience broke down. Semi-structured interviews (n=20) added context and surfaced real workflows. A concept exploration (n=8) put early directions in front of users to see whether the proposed solutions could address the challenges our research had uncovered.

In the final phase, the point was not to test a product; instead, we simultaneously confirmed the problem was real and pressure-tested our envisioned directions.

What I found

Users trust CIHI's data and build it into their decisions. The actions of CIHI's audience have real consequences in health care. Trust is foundational.

But our research surfaced a gap. While the legacy product carries rich context to make data trustworthy, it also makes the data cognitively demanding to work with. Then, a critical step for our team was to strike a balance between contextualized depth and easy use.

Also, the findings shown usability problems don't affect everyone equally. Lean teams with tight budgets struggle hardest when a product gets in their way. While well-resourced teams have room to absorb friction. However, even these teams felt the friction of usability issues when their own workflows outgrew what the product supported without manual tweaks.

Where it's going

Currently, the Discovery findings are shaping the technical requirements and product direction. The real risk from here is treating modernization as the only goal.

My top priority is to ensure the least-resourced teams get what they need from the product as it changes and avoid these groups from becoming an afterthought once the dust from futuristic technology settles.

What I carry forward

The value of this research is in its timing.

Studies like these set direction and name risk while the team was still defining the vision. It enables specific, data-driven pushback on ways a future product can fail users. It is especially critical to support advocacy for the users who are at most risk of being left unheard.

At this stage, findings like these are a lot harder to wave off and a lot easier to integrate.