The Research Masterclass picks up where Session One stopped: from research readiness to decision-ready evidence, in-house, on the live decisions your organisation is facing right now.
30 minutes. No obligation, and we will say so if your team does not need this.
Leads research readiness: turning a business issue into a research-ready brief.
Leads research design: evidence need, method fit, and triangulation.
Good research starts before the research starts. Most of what goes wrong happens upstream of method, in the thinking that turns a business issue into a useful brief.
The method gets chosen before the decision is defined. The study runs perfectly and answers a question nobody needed answered. Outcome and decision come before method.
Assumptions are not the enemy. Hidden assumptions are. Teams repeat a claim often enough that it starts to feel like a finding, and repetition is not validation.
AI generates an answer quickly and confidently. Someone still has to supply the missing context, test the assumptions, and decide whether the output holds up in reality.
In 90 minutes we framed a decision and shaped a research question. Twelve things sit between that and evidence a board will act on.
Clarity tells us what we need to know. Research design determines how we will know it. The Masterclass walks the whole chain, in order, on one live business decision.
A business problem, a research question and a research brief are not the same thing. The brief is the output of upstream thinking, not the starting point.
AI helps throughout research readiness. It can structure, challenge and communicate the thinking. What it cannot do is decide whose perspective wins, whether the evidence is sufficient, or whether the organisation is ready to proceed.
Useful across every stage of readiness.
It can also synthesise stakeholder perspectives, compare evidence, surface contradictions and gaps, generate alternative hypotheses, and critique a draft brief.
Judgement stays accountable throughout.
AI should not determine which stakeholder is right, whose perspective prevails, whether evidence is sufficient, which trade-off is acceptable, what level of risk to accept, or whether the organisation is ready.
AI reflects the inputs, framing and evidence it is given. Be alert to:
The full handout from the Research Readiness Starter Toolkit, including the stakeholder worldview discipline and the complete guardrails checklist.
© 2026 Oaktree Insights & Consulting and Ravenry. For personal and participant use. Sharing the original document is permitted; reproduction, adaptation or commercial use requires permission.
Built on a real business decision your organisation is facing rather than a generic case study.
"We want to become a more customer-centric organisation and strengthen our brand. We need research to understand what customers really want and where we should improve."
Vague, familiar, and not yet briefable. By the end of the session that request has become a specific leadership decision with a deadline: which customer-centric growth priorities should we act on first, with enough evidence to choose within three months?
Use what already exists.
CRM, experience data, complaints, digital analytics, previous research, market information
Understand what existing evidence cannot explain.
Customer interviews, internal interviews, focused qualitative exploration
Test which patterns matter most.
Targeted quantitative research across priority customers and markets
Bring the evidence together.
What do the sources collectively tell us about the decision?
The goal isn't more research. It's sufficient evidence for the decision.
Teams can work the shared case, or apply the same questions to a live business issue of their own. In-house delivery uses your decisions by default.
The Customer-Centric Growth Challenge as participants receive it, including the leadership decision, the four priority areas, and the questions the team works through.
End-to-end research design, from framing the business decision through to a recommendation leadership can act on.
Onsite or live virtual · 15 to 25 participants · English, Bahasa Indonesia, or bilingual · 7 to 8 learning hours per day
Three consecutive days, each building on the last, worked through a live business decision.
Participants develop a full research design based on an actual challenge drawn from your organisation.
Participants evaluate a real research proposal and run a simulated agency briefing and kick-off.
Each group presents the business challenge, objectives, methodology, sampling strategy, instrument, findings, implications, and recommended actions.
Thirty minutes. We map the decisions your team owns, their current research practice, and whether this programme is the right intervention.
Participant roles and experience, internal versus agency research, industry context, and the outcomes you expect.
The case, tools, exercises, terminology and assignments are rewritten to your business environment. Teams work your live decisions rather than the shared case.
Three consecutive days, onsite or live virtual, 15 to 25 participants, facilitated by practitioners who run this work commercially.
Your team keeps the artefacts, templates and quality standards, and runs the next decision without us.
A research course, taught for the way research actually gets done now. AI appears at every stage, because that is where your team is already using it. What the programme adds is the judgement layer: where AI genuinely helps, where it inherits your bias, and who stays accountable for the decision.
The quality of agency work is capped by the quality of your brief and your ability to challenge what comes back. This programme is mostly about the upstream thinking that produces a research-ready brief, which is the part no agency can do for you.
It is built for research users and project owners, meaning people who commission, interpret, and act on research rather than field it. No statistical background is assumed.
Yes. Live virtual delivery follows the same structure with adjusted pacing and breakout facilitation. Onsite tends to produce a stronger final exercise, but the artefacts come out the same.
The case, tools, exercises, terminology and assignments are adapted to your business environment after the alignment discussion. Participants work a real decision your organisation is facing rather than the shared case.
In-house pricing depends on participant numbers, delivery mode, language, and customisation depth. You get a firm number after the scoping call, and we will tell you if a shorter engagement or a different intervention would serve you better.
Yes, and we usually recommend it. A single-team pilot with a real decision at stake is the fastest way to know whether to roll this out more widely.
English, Bahasa Indonesia, or bilingual. Materials follow the delivery language.
We walk through the decisions your team owns, where evidence currently breaks down, and how the programme would be shaped around them. You leave the call with a recommendation whether or not you engage us.
