Consulting Before Deploying
A requirement in many jurisdictions and the design review that catches what the project missed. What to consult on, and what to do with the answers.
Procedure
Consultation is treated as a hurdle before task mining. It is more usefully treated as the review that improves the scope.
Why it produces a better study
Participants know which steps the labelling will miss, because they do them.
They know where the capture will be wrong — the workaround, the second screen, the paper note.
They identify the exclusions you had not thought of.
They tell you whether the question is even the right one, and frequently it is not.
What to consult on
What is captured, precisely, including what is switched off.
Why, with the specific question.
Who participates, and that participation is voluntary.
Duration and end date.
Retention and deletion, with dates.
What it will not be used for.
Where the technical exclusions are.
How someone sees their own data and challenges it.
Doing it properly
Before the decision, not after. Consultation on a completed configuration is an announcement.
With representatives where they exist, which in many jurisdictions is a legal requirement.
With someone present who can change the configuration.
In work time.
With a written response to everything raised, including where the answer is no.
What you will be asked
"Will this be used against us." The most common question, and it needs a specific, written, enforced answer rather than a reassurance.
"What happens to the screenshots." Answer with a deletion date.
"Can I see what was recorded about me." The answer should be yes.
"What if I decline." Nothing, and that must be true.
"Why not just ask us how the task works." Frequently the right question, and sometimes the right answer — in which case the study should not run.
That last question, taken seriously
Interviews and observation are cheaper, faster and less intrusive than desktop capture.
They are less precise, particularly on durations and click sequences.
So the honest test is whether the additional precision is worth the intrusion, for this specific question.
For automation scoping, frequently yes. For understanding why a step is slow, frequently no — asking works.
Recording that you considered the alternative is also the proportionality assessment, which is required in several jurisdictions.
Changing the scope as a result
Expect to narrow it, and treat that as the process working.
Common changes: fewer applications, no screenshots, a shorter window, aggregate-only reporting, additional exclusions.
Publish what changed and why, which is what makes the next consultation productive rather than performative.
The written response
What separates consultation from an announcement.
Record everything raised, including what you disagree with.
Respond to each point specifically.
Say what changed as a result, which should be something.
Say what did not change and why, honestly, including where the reason is cost or a hard requirement.
Publish to everyone consulted, not only to representatives.
A consultation with no written response is remembered as a meeting, and the next one has a smaller turnout and a worse result.
Taking the cheapest objection seriously
The question worth genuinely considering rather than deflecting.
"Why not just ask us how the task works."
Frequently the right question. Interviews and observation are cheaper, faster and less intrusive, and they supply the reasons that capture never does.
The honest test is whether the additional precision is worth the intrusion for this specific question, which is only true for click sequences, short-step durations, application switching and copy-paste detection.
Where it is not, cancel the study. Doing so once establishes that the process is real, and every subsequent request is received differently.
Responding in writing
What separates consultation from an announcement.
Record everything raised, including what you disagree with.
Respond to each point specifically.
Say what changed as a result, which should be something.
Say what did not change and why, honestly, including where the reason is cost.
Publish the response to everyone consulted, not only to representatives.
A consultation with no written response is remembered as a meeting, and the next one gets a smaller turnout and worse information.