Aligned by Design: Research-to-Strategy at aTypical Community
The Challenge
A board-governed nonprofit wanted a resource hub for neurodivergent adults and caregivers, but had no defined UVP, no audience prioritization, and no market position among existing ND nonprofits.
The Outcome
Shifted the value proposition from clinical to neuroaffirming, narrowed scope to caregivers as the primary user, and handed off a validated IA and evidence-backed roadmap.
Context
The organization managed two separate initiatives: Quirky Buds (an LLC friend-matching program) and aTypical Community (the nonprofit resource hub). This distinction mattered; it shaped funding strategy, volunteer scope, and which work counted toward the nonprofit mission.
I came in during the Foundational Initiative (Quirky Buds) as Project Manager and Scrum Master, contributing to UX research alongside execution management. When the organization shifted focus to the resource hub, I moved into a different kind of role entirely.
Pre-Pivot: Quirky Buds
Before the resource hub, I worked on the org's first initiative, a friend-matching program for neurodivergent adults. The project was paused when priorities shifted, but it defined how I approached Phase 2.
The core problem wasn't execution. We generated real research. But research and product worked in silos, and tight timelines left no room to synthesize findings into product strategy. Insights sat alongside decisions instead of driving them.
Going into Phase 2, closing that research-product gap wasn't a nice-to-have. It was the first-order risk I was specifically going in to solve.
Research-to-Strategy
The Brief
When the organization pivoted to the aTypical Community nonprofit hub, the brief was high-level: “we want a resource hub.” The reality was 5–6 stakeholders with conflicting mental models, no defined UVP, and no clear differentiation from existing ND nonprofits, most of which used clinical, diagnostic framing as their default.
Without a common language, the project was at risk of becoming a feature dump rather than a strategic resource.
Establishing Direction
My first move was stakeholder alignment, not feature gathering. I facilitated a series of focus groups designed to surface implicit assumptions and organizational constraints rather than a wishlist.
Working agreements and role clarity came first. In a fully remote, volunteer team across time zones, without those as foundations, no product work would stick.
The breakthrough
We shifted the UVP from clinical to neuroaffirming. That became the anchor for a hub that felt grounding rather than intimidating.
Sprints 1–2: Audience Segmentation
The team entered the sprint with “ND adults, caregivers, and providers” as a working audience definition. That's not an audience definition; it's a population. I led cross-functional workshops using a MoSCoW framework to move the team from feature-gathering to strategic narrowing. The output was a segmented model separating ND adults from caregivers, with providers deprioritized.
Key decision
The board aligned on caregivers as the primary user, preventing the hub from trying to serve everyone and succeeding for no one.
Workshop output: candidate segments mapped against intake priorities, used to align the board before Sprint 2.
Sprint 3: Survey Research
With audiences defined, Sprint 3 shifted to validating the problem space. A survey was fielded across both audience segments to map coverage strength: which questions generated consistent signal across both Caregivers and ND Adults, and where gaps remained heading into Sprint 4 scoping. With 15 respondents the results are directional, not statistically significant, but they were enough to pressure-test assumptions and show where more qualitative work was needed.
Survey question coverage across both audiences (n=15, directional).
Sprint 4: The Evidence-to-Decision Map
The research-product silo I had identified in Quirky Buds was showing up again. Findings were being documented. Decisions were being made. The two weren't consistently connected.
I built the Evidence-to-Decision Map: a pipeline linking problem statements to evidence strength and product implications, reviewed each sprint to make sure the roadmap reflected what the research had actually validated, not what the team assumed or preferred. I used AI as a pressure-test on the logic, not as a substitute for it.
The map became the governance mechanism that kept research from sitting in isolation through the final handoff.
Evidence-to-Decision Map sample: one caregiver problem traced from research finding to product implication.
Reflection
I am most effective at the boundary between research and product: the place where insights need to become decisions, and decisions need to be defensible. That is the work I want to keep doing.
If I were to lead this again, I would formalize the research-product integration cadence at kickoff, not as a process artifact but as a team norm. One shared mapping document as the source of truth. Every sprint ends with at least one validated decision documented. That rigor prevents the pattern I saw in Quirky Buds from recurring, and it makes handoff documentation write itself rather than becoming a sprint-end scramble.
Handoff
The brief included prioritized next steps for the incoming team:
01
Finalize MVP Alignment
Reconcile Demo 4 feedback to confirm prioritized MVP problems and site architecture, using the Research-to-Problem mapping template to address remaining research gaps and confirm team alignment.
02
Streamline Execution
Pivot UX research toward prototype testing (prioritizing the Caregiver user flow) while designating a strategy lead to oversee early participant recruitment and manage the interconnected project roadmap.
Get in touchFrom the client
“Jillian was an outstanding project manager during my time as a client with Tech Fleet. She was timely, professional, and incredibly easy to work with, all while bringing genuine warmth and curiosity to every interaction. … I highly recommend her as any team would be lucky to have her.”