A BBS expert interview begins with a reader question, not a request for quotations. The process tests whether the contributor has relevant first-hand or specialist knowledge, asks how a claim works and where it stops being true, then separates attributable experience from facts that require independent verification.
The interviewee may check factual details and the accuracy of an intended quotation, but does not receive editorial control over the article. Promotion, unsupported certainty and conflicts are recorded rather than edited into neutral-sounding advice.
An interview becomes useful evidence only after expertise, mechanism, support, attribution and context are checked.
What an expert interview can—and cannot—prove
An interview can explain professional judgment, reveal how a decision is made, identify failure patterns and point to evidence that a desk review would miss. It cannot by itself prove that a product is best, that a practice works everywhere or that a claimed result was caused by one change.
BBS therefore labels the type of knowledge being offered:
- First-hand observation: what the contributor personally did or saw;
- Professional interpretation: the contributor's reasoned view based on stated experience;
- Verifiable fact: a date, capability, standard, result or event checked against a source;
- Vendor claim: a statement made by a supplier that remains attributed as such;
- Open question: a plausible point that lacks enough evidence to publish as fact.
This classification prevents authority from leaking across boundaries. A senior title may make someone's interpretation worth hearing; it does not make every factual claim self-validating.
Before the call: define the question and select the right expertise
The brief states what the reader should understand or decide after the article. BBS then looks for contributors whose actual responsibilities match that question. A procurement leader may explain evaluation governance; an administrator may reveal operating effort; an implementation consultant may understand configuration dependencies; an end user may describe workflow friction. One interview rarely covers all four perspectives.
The pre-interview record includes:
- the editorial question and intended audience;
- why this person's role or experience is relevant;
- employment, commercial relationships and other conflicts;
- topics that require supporting documents or independent checks;
- the on-record, background and recording ground rules;
- consent for name, role and attributable quotation.
If the contributor is proposed by a vendor or has a commercial interest, that does not automatically exclude them. It changes the questions, verification burden and disclosure. If a relevant relationship cannot be described honestly, the interview does not proceed as independent editorial evidence.
During the interview: ask for mechanisms, boundaries and disconfirming evidence
Generic questions produce generic claims. “What are the benefits?” invites a prepared answer. “What changed in the work, which role changed it, and what evidence showed the old process was failing?” is more likely to produce something a reader can evaluate.
The five-part question bank
| Question type | Example | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Decision | What choice was being made, and what alternatives were genuinely available? | Establishes scope and trade-offs |
| Mechanism | What changed in the workflow that could produce the claimed effect? | Moves beyond feature labels |
| Boundary | When would this advice be unsafe, uneconomic or simply wrong? | Prevents universal claims |
| Evidence | What record, test or comparison would let another person verify this? | Creates a fact-check path |
| Disagreement | What would a well-informed critic say, and what evidence might change your view? | Exposes uncertainty and alternatives |
Follow-up questions ask for dates, definitions, denominators and the before-state behind any number. A reported “30% improvement” is not publishable merely because it sounds precise. The editor needs to know what was measured, over what period, against which baseline, for which population, and who produced the analysis.
Notes distinguish exact words from paraphrase. Where lawful, agreed and useful, a recording supports accuracy; it does not replace contemporaneous notes, context or verification.
After the call: build an evidence ledger before writing
Each potentially publishable point enters a small ledger with the wording, knowledge type, source, required corroboration, conflict/disclosure and status. The statuses are:
- Verified: adequate evidence supports the bounded statement;
- Attributed: publishable only as this contributor's experience or opinion;
- Needs context: broadly supportable but misleading without limits;
- Unverified: omitted or explicitly left unresolved;
- Rejected: contradicted, promotional, outside expertise or impossible to substantiate.
This is where an interview stops being a transcript. Repetition is removed, related points are tested against documents and other perspectives, and the article is organised around the reader's problem rather than the order of the conversation.
How quotations are selected and checked
A direct quotation is used when the exact language adds insight, responsibility or a memorable formulation. Most factual explanation is clearer as attributed paraphrase supported by evidence. BBS does not assemble fragments to create a sentence the contributor did not say or quietly convert promotional language into an independent conclusion.
The public Reuters Journalistic Standards describe named sourcing, clear ground rules, contextual quotation and cross-checking as accuracy practices; they also distinguish verifying a quote or fact from giving a source control over the article. BBS applies that distinction to software interviews.
Before publication, the editor checks the quote against notes or recording, preserves its meaning and surrounding conditions, confirms name and role, and verifies any factual statement attached to it. A contributor may flag a factual error or explain that the selected passage lacks crucial context. They may not replace an accurate but inconvenient answer with a marketing-approved statement.
Corrections, competing views and anonymity
If a material assertion concerns another organisation or a disputed event, BBS seeks the relevant evidence and, where appropriate, a fair response. The article distinguishes fact, interpretation and unresolved disagreement rather than forcing consensus.
Named sources are the default. Anonymity is exceptional because readers lose information about expertise, motive and accountability. If identity protection is necessary and the information is important, the editor records why, verifies the person's access to the information and describes their position as precisely as safety permits. Anonymous praise or opinion is not a shortcut to authority.
Published errors are corrected clearly. The SPJ Code of Ethics similarly calls for clear source identification, relevant context and prompt, prominent corrections. BBS keeps the supporting evidence and correction history so a later review does not repeat the same mistake.
The pre-publication interview card
An interview-derived article does not pass until the editor can answer yes to the applicable questions:
- Is the reader question explicit and distinct from an existing BBS page?
- Does the contributor's actual expertise match the published claim?
- Are commercial and personal conflicts recorded and disclosed where relevant?
- Are ground rules and attribution clear?
- Can every material factual claim be traced to evidence?
- Are direct quotes exact, contextual and consented for attribution?
- Are limitations, competing evidence and uncertainty represented fairly?
- Has the contributor checked facts or quotations without receiving editorial control?
- Are visual assets and supporting documents authorised for use?
- Is there a correction route and review date?
Why this produces better software coverage
Software decisions are full of context: organisation size, process maturity, data quality, configuration, skill and risk tolerance can change whether advice applies. A disciplined interview makes that context visible. It gives practitioners space to explain mechanisms and disagreement while preventing status, confidence or supplier access from substituting for evidence.
The goal is not to make every contributor sound neutral. It is to tell readers who is speaking, what they know, how the claim was tested and where it may stop being true. That is what turns an interview from promotional content into a useful part of an independent research record.