Search

    Categories

    • Consumer technology
    • Education sector
    • Information industry
    • IT
    • Mobile technology
    • Research
    • Social media

    Subscribe by Email

    Enter your email address:

    KindleTweet

    Comments

    • Evolyte on Wolfram (just as well it’s an) Alpha
    • Inspectorinsight » The Future of Insight on Nice article on the why future thinking qualitative research can be more helpful than backward looking quant via @willmcinnes
    • kindleresearch on Nice article on the why future thinking qualitative research can be more helpful than backward looking quant via @willmcinnes
    • Neil Gains on Nice article on the why future thinking qualitative research can be more helpful than backward looking quant via @willmcinnes
    • Ben Fairweather on Don’t shoot the messenger!

We Think...

   
« Older Posts

Google kills Wave (for the time being). And celebrates the failure via @Guardian

August 5, 2010. Posted by kindleresearch in Research. Comments (0) so far.

Google has announced it is ending development on Wave, the cross-platform communication tool it launched with much fanfare at its I/O developer conference in May 2009.

Google said in a post last night that “Wave has not seen the adoption we would have liked” and that elements of Wave’s technology, including drag-and-drop and character-by-character live typing, are now as open source so users can “liberate their content from Wave”.

There will be plenty of coverage today reeling off lists of Google’s failures; Google Squared, Google Answers, Google Radio, Google Lively, Google Health, Google Notebook and Dodgeball among them. Those will be reliably dwarfed by Google’s successes. Our European perspective might make us more critical of failure than in the US, where it is more rightly regarded as an inevitable and positive sign of productivity and innovation.

Chief executive Eric Schmidt himself said of the Wave failure that it is just a symptom of trying things out. “Remember, we celebrate our failures. This is a company where it’s absolutely OK to try something that’s very hard, have it not be successful, and take the learning from that,” he told journalists late yesterday.

via guardian.co.uk

I tried Wave and never really figured it out but there is a need for something that brings all the various SM threads together for those of us tracking lots of social media profiles and sites, and something that offers email/ chat/ photos all in one tool for those of us who aren’t.

More importantly is the failure thing – launching these things and giving them the opportunity to fail must lie at the heart of Google’s success.

Posted via email from Paul’s posterous

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

Love it? Hate it? We want to know: Leave us a comment (0 so far)

More Daily Fail Luddite drivel and worse…using some awful research to prop it up

July 30, 2010. Posted by kindleresearch in Consumer technology, Mobile technology, Research. Comments (0) so far.

iPad users ‘are the selfish elite’, claims survey

By Daniel Bates

Are you wealthy, sophisticated and smart but don’t care about anybody else?

The chances are you own an iPad.

A survey has revealed the typical person who has bought Apple’s latest gadget is unkind and has little empathy for others.

They have been branded the ‘selfish elite’ by a poll of 20,000 consumers carried out by an American research company.

The £429 device has become the most desired gadget in Britain since its launch in May and 600,000 are expected to be sold before the end of the year.

But the next time you see someone sitting on a train smugly using theirs, take comfort from the fact they are probably not a nice person.

According to Tim Koelkebeck of MyType, which carried out the survey, iPad owners are are six times more likely to be ‘wealthy, well-educated, power-hungry, over-achieving, sophisticated, unkind and non-altruistic 30-50-year-olds’.

They are self-centered workaholics with an overwhelming interest in business and finance who cherish ‘power and achievement’ and will not cross the street to help others, he added.

Mr Koelkebeck said that the high price was one reason why the iPad attracted such a specific clientele.

More…

  • Apple iPad already tipped to be top of Christmas wishlists
  • Amazon launches wireless-only Kindle e-reader in bid to take on Apple’s iPad
  • Porn industry hiring girls to make use of ‘Face Time’ video call feature on Apple iPhone 4
  • Consumer help: My iPad buyer is a thief! (thisismoney.co.uk)

It also appeals to people who spend all day working in front of a computer screen and enjoy interacting with new technology.

In their free time they are so used to computers they want another screen to ensure continuity in their lives.

Apple's iPad can be used to browse the internet, read books and watch TV showsApple’s iPad can be used to browse the internet, read books and watch TV shows

Apple founder Steve Jobs says it will revolutionise everything about our lives, from the way we travel to how we read books.

It sold out within hours of its launch in the UK and initial problems with the Wi-Fi connection have not diminished the relentless demand for the device, which costs up to £699 for better models.

Whilst those that own an iPad are uncaring and selfish go-getters, those who criticise the device are branded by the survey as ‘independent geeks’.

Attacking the device gives them an ‘identity statement’, said Mr Koelkebeck, that helps them cope with their own failings.

‘As a mainstream, closed-platform device whose major claim to fame is ease of use and sex appeal, the iPad is everything that they are not.’

Last week, it was ‘iDosing’ where our vulnerable youth were tripping out to repetitive beats on youtube (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1296282/I-dosing-How-teenagers… and this week it is slander of all iPad owners.

Just as irritating as the absurdity of their fear-mongering agenda is the use of research to support their claims.

OK, first off – a poll of 20,000 consumers? This is 20,000 users of MyType’s facebook community and that number is there to give us the impression of rigour. Despite MyType’s claims that the data has been normalised, it’s daft to suggest that this is a representative sample – it’s a sample of facebook users who completed a personality test, aged 13-59, 200 of which own an iPad.

Despite the author’s valiant attempts to defend the findings in the comments to his post, we need to take this with a massive pinch of salt.

We’re going to be doing something more rigorous.

(thanks @victoriajane)

Posted via email from Paul’s posterous

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

Love it? Hate it? We want to know: Leave us a comment (0 so far)

Delicious 40 minute nap and it isn’t being “lazy”. It makes you smarter and healthier

July 8, 2010. Posted by kindleresearch in Research. Comments (0) so far.
Sleeping woman
Sleep is important for assimilating new information

A nap during the day improves the brain’s ability to absorb new information, US scientists claim.

Volunteers who slept for 90 minutes during the day did better at cognitive tests than those who were kept awake.

Results of the University of California at Berkeley study involving 39 healthy adults were presented at a conference.

A UK-based sleep expert said it was hard to separate the pure “memory boosting” effects of sleep from those of simply being less tired.

Sleep not only rights the wrong of prolonged wakefulness, but, at a neurocognitive level, it moves you beyond where you were before you took a nap

Dr Matthew Walker, UC Berkeley

The wealth of study into the science of sleep in recent years has so far failed to come up with conclusive evidence as to the value of a quick “siesta” during the day.

The latest study suggests that the brain may need sleep to process short-term memories, creating “space” for new facts to be learned.

In their experiment, 39 healthy adults were given a hard learning task in the morning – with broadly similar results, before half of them were sent for their siesta.

When the tests were repeated, the nappers outperformed those who had carried on without sleep.

Checks on brain electrical activity suggested that this process might be happening in a sleep phase between deep sleep, and dreaming sleep, called stage 2 non-rapid eye movement sleep, when fact-based memories are moved from “temporary storage” in the brain’s hippocampus to another area called the pre-frontal cortex.

Brain ‘inbox’

Dr Matthew Walker, who led the study, reported at the AAAS conference in San Diego, said: “Sleep not only rights the wrong of prolonged wakefulness, but, at a neurocognitive level, it moves you beyond where you were before you took a nap.

“It’s as though the e-mail inbox in your hippocampus is full, and, until you sleep and clear out all those fact e-mails, you’re not going to receive any more mail.

“It’s just going to bounce until you sleep and move it into another folder.”

However, Professor Derk-Jan Dijk, the director of the Surrey Sleep Research Centre, said that there was no clear evidence that daytime napping offered a distinct advantage over sleeping just once over 24 hours.

“The sleep-wake cycle is not as rigid as we might think – we have the capability to sleep in different ways.”

He said that while the brain effect reported in the study might be spotted in a laboratory setting, the picture became more clouded in the “real world”.

“The size of these effects are much more difficult to assess – if I have to learn something, for example, it’s easier to do this when I’m feeling awake and alert than when I’m sleepy.”

via news.bbc.co.uk

We have a daft workplace culture that frown upon daytime napping. Among the many, many advantages of self employment is the opportunity, whenever I choose, to lay back, put my feet on my desk, shut my eyes and doze off. 10 minutes after waking up I’m ready to go again.

Posted via email from Paul’s posterous

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

Love it? Hate it? We want to know: Leave us a comment (0 so far)

Nice article on the why future thinking qualitative research can be more helpful than backward looking quant via @willmcinnes

June 14, 2010. Posted by kindleresearch in Research. Comments (3) so far.

The perception that good management is closely linked to good measurement runs deep. How often do you hear these old saws repeated: “If you can’t measure it, it doesn’t count”; “If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it”; “If you can’t measure it, it won’t happen”? We like these sayings because they’re comforting. The act of measurement provides security; if we know enough about something to measure it we almost certainly have some control over it.

But however comforting it can be to stick with what we can measure, we run the risk of expunging something really important. What’s more, we won’t see what we’re missing because we don’t know what it is that we don’t know. By sticking simply to what we can measure, we come to imagine a small and constrained world in which we are prisoners of a “reality” that is in fact an edifice we’ve unknowingly constructed around ourselves.

The late 19th and early 20th century American pragmatist philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce was the first to point out that no new idea in the world was ever produced by inductive or deductive logic. Analyzing the past, crunching the existing numbers to produce the future can do nothing more than extrapolate the future from the past. So if you stick to measuring what you can already measure, you cannot create a future that is different than the past.

For that to work out at all well for any institution making its decisions on that extrapolation, the future needs to be remarkably similar to the past — or bad things start to happen. If an institution is all geared up for a future that is like the past and the future changes radically, then the institution becomes an anachronism, like a Motorola or GM.

Managers in this situation tend to blame forces beyond their control: “How could we have ever predicted such a change?” In some sense, they are absolutely right. They had no way at all of predicting change. Their core conception — “If you can’t measure it, it doesn’t count” — precludes them from demonstrating to themselves that the future will be anything but an extrapolation of the past. Note however, that it is a prison that they have built for themselves. They build it, lock themselves in a cell, throw away the key; and then complain about being unfairly locked in a prison cell.

We need to get away from all those old sayings about measurement and management, and in that spirit I’d like to propose a new wisdom: “If you can’t imagine it, you will never create it.” The future is about imagination, not measurement. To imagine a future, one has to look beyond the measurable variables, beyond what can be proven with past data. While Motorola was projecting future sales volumes of “feature phones,” Mike Lazaridis, founder of Research in Motion, was imagining what executive life would be like if you could receive your emails on a handheld device. How compelling would an ordinary phone be if you could have a BlackBerry attached to your belt? He couldn’t “prove” that this would be a good idea. There was no data on the demand patterns for smartphones, because smartphones existed only in his imagination. But a mere 11 years after the launch of the product of his imagination, RIM leads Motorola by an ever-accelerating margin in sales, market share and profitability.

Long ago, Peirce coined a term for the thinking that Lazaridis used to create the BlackBerry: abductive logic. He referred to it as “inference to the best explanation” and “a logical leap of the mind.” Lazaridis couldn’t prove that executives would become so addicted to his invention that it would acquire the nickname CrackBerry. But as he watched executives behave in their day-to-day work, he inferred that there was a good chance that they would highly value immediate access to their email regardless of whether they were at their desk or on the road. There was nothing to measure. What counted were inferences; inferences made on lots of qualitative insights and “a logical leap of the mind.”

The difference in the world of a Mike Lazaridis vs. the “if you can’t measure it…” executives is like day and night. For the abduction logician, the world is expansive and the possibilities are endless. For the measurement types, the world is a brutal place, full of nasty surprises that are impossible to predict. That is why any expression that starts with “if you can’t measure it” is dangerous for your managerial health.

Roger Martin is the Dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto in Canada and the author of The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking is the Next Competitive Advantage (Harvard Business Press, 2009). His website is: www.rogerlmartin.com

via blogs.hbr.org

It can sometimes be difficult to explain why qualitative insights, based on fewer interviews without lots of percentages are the right approach. It takes a leap of faith. The data is open to interpretation. Some people love numbers.

Posted via web from Paul’s posterous

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

Love it? Hate it? We want to know: Leave us a comment (3 so far)

Doing it, not finding out about it

June 8, 2010. Posted by kindleresearch in Research. Comments (0) so far.

Research conferences always bring a sense of deja vu. At the MRS Social Research Conference, (podcast) we heard that research agencies are under pressure to deliver better insight. Researchers need to adapt to a changing environment but we are well placed to benefit from the change. Our output needs to be more actionable.

Having heard these themes over and over again, you have to ask why the industry is still failing to deliver on these demands.

The conference was followed by this timely article by Nick Johnson with the provocatively titled ‘Insight is dead’. The string of comments agreeing suggests that the time has come for implementation, not gathering insight.

I wonder if it is time to give up on the idea that researchers can deliver the recommendations and, unless you want to get involved in the increasingly commoditised large scale data collection and analysis, go and support an organization that is involved in delivery. As an independent, that is one of the changes I’ve noticed. A lot of marketing agencies, and clients for that matter, are doing their own research. Some of them aren’t doing it very well and they need help.

On the bright side, Mark Francas of TNS believes that social marketing has come of age and the backing of Cameron. There are some huge challenges getting people to change their behaviour and so huge potential for research. For me, the jury is out on how effective commercial marketing is at facilitating social change. I’m afraid Francas’ examples of HIV, smoking and drink driving as success stories, after the many millions piled into those campaigns and still high levels of each are not convincing. Once again I was left convinced that the answer lies in action, not communications.

Another familiar aspect though was the use of conference talks as thinly veiled sales pitches rather than helpful sharing of knowledge. Andrew Wood’s talk on pensions was a notable exception but the TNS talk was a case in point. After a tantalizing glimpse of all the behaviour change models that were on a slide so small you couldn’t see them, Francas refused to release the paper to conference attendees.

Posted via web from Paul’s posterous

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

Love it? Hate it? We want to know: Leave us a comment (0 so far)

Don’t shoot the messenger!

February 23, 2010. Posted by Paul in Research. Comments (20) so far.

One of the hardest stories a researcher has to tell is one that the client disagrees with. They have a vested interest and research is as much art as it is science so they can contest it. It is our job to acknowledge its limitations, defend its strengths and say what we can learn from it.

We’ve just conducted a robust poll of Brighton & Hove residents on political affiliation and attitudes to legal assistance to die (for the detail people out there, it was 1,000 representative quota sample on age, gender and working status based on 2001 census data, conducted by telephone by ICM Direct in accordance with MRS code of conduct).

The political affiliation question is interesting because Caroline Lucas of the Green party is in with a good chance of taking the Labour seat of Brighton Pavilion and becoming Britain’s first Green MP. An ICM poll commissioned by the Greens in December suggested that they were ahead of Labour and Tory. Past electoral results also add weight to this. In our independent poll in February however, we asked a different question which suggested that support for the Greens was lagging behind both Labour and Tory.

The outcry from Greens that followed its appearance in the local Argus newspaper for example here, here and here are typical shoot-the-messenger protests when it comes to research:

The sample size is too small - this is counter-intuitive to most people but the key criterion determing accuracy is how representative it is (ie how respondents have been selected) not how many interviews there are. 336 is a good number for a poll and the large difference between support for each of the parties cannot be explained by sampling variance.

There is nothing for us to learn here – there is always something to learn! The key question the Greens have to ask themselves is why do only 12% of Pavilion residents say they would vote for them in a general election tomorrow compared to 26% for Labour.

Twist or ignore the interpretation – I published the full report here and made clear in the interpretation the limitations of our raw findings and the conclusion that might be drawn.

Claim that other research is right so this research must be wrong - The main factor that explains the difference between the Green party poll and the Kindle poll is the question. The Green party question told respondents first that a general election was taking place and secondly the names of 4 of the parties who would be contesting. This practice lifts mentions of lesser known parties.

Cast suspicion on the motives – independent researchers do have allegiances but what we are primarily interested in is truth and learning. Some clients may want to put a spin on research findings to serve their own interests but when they spend money they want to find out what is going on so they can invest wisely.

Lack of experience – the sample is sound, the method is sound and the questions follow standard practice.

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

Love it? Hate it? We want to know: Leave us a comment (20 so far)

No escape for the wrong-doers

October 16, 2009. Posted by Paul in Research. Comments (0) so far.

Some really interesting developments in online buzz today.

On this morning’s commute, someone witnessed and videoed a rather nasty encounter between an elderly gent and a London Underground employee with issues called Ian. So he blogged about it, loaded up the video and told everyone he knew about it. Then they told everyone they knew about it. In no time at all, it was in the national press, the Mayor of London made a statement and poor Ian’s facebook page was made public.

I feel a little uneasy about the mob baying for Ian’s blood. First, there’s a process for dealing with employees that needs to be followed right? And see again how people find it really easy to take action and express their indignation online; yet, when you watch the video, this was a packed station, with lots of people and they just watched this idiot abusing the elderly gent. They didn’t DO anything.

But this feels great. One person saw something so wrong that he video’d it, loaded it up to his blog and that afternoon thousands of people are talking about it. It’s like…democracy.

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

Love it? Hate it? We want to know: Leave us a comment (0 so far)

George Brutal Shaw

June 19, 2009. Posted by Paul in Research. Comments (0) so far.

This is the true joy in life, the being used for a purpose recognized by yourself as a mighty one; the being thoroughly worn out before you are thrown on the scrapheap; the being a force of Nature instead of a feverish selfish little clod of ailments and grievances complaining that the world will not devote itself to making you happy.

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

Love it? Hate it? We want to know: Leave us a comment (0 so far)

Short introduction to Twitter

June 12, 2009. Posted by Paul in Consumer technology, Information industry, Research. Comments (0) so far.

I’ve been playing with Twitter a bit more. This short video explains what it is in plain English if you don’t know how it works or why people are using it. The video talks about updating friends, family and co-workers on the minutiae of your life but I’m more interested to see how it works as a business tool.

People are piling into it even if it has slowed up in the last month. Pretty impressive for a company with less than 50 staff.  There are lots of market researchers and other interesting people on there but what kind of people are they?  Currently usage is dominated by a few people – 90% of tweets come just 10% of users and half of Twitter users have only tweeted once.

It’s people who feel they have something to say. But rather than telling their followers what they are doing, they are sharing what they are thinking and finding. So if you have the time, and you could spend a lot of time on it, it’s a fascinating way to connect and learn.

One of the most interesting questions is how Twitter is going to make money. Here is one of the founders talking about it – they still seem awfully vague.

Follow me: @kindleresearch

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

Love it? Hate it? We want to know: Leave us a comment (0 so far)

Facing up to the future of education

May 20, 2009. Posted by admin in Education sector, Information industry, Research. Comments (0) so far.

Always looking for inspiration and happy to take a moment’s respite from daily tasks Kindle Research decided to attend Futurelab’s Beyond Current Horizons Conference, ‘ Looking at the future of education beyond 2025’.   (One couldn’t help but notice their direct alignment with the DCSF by branding the enterprise ‘technology, children, schools and family’…)

A rather conceptual but fascinating day followed as Futurelab outlined 5 potential challenges facing education in the context of social and technological change.   It would be a disservice to attempt an overview of the day as the scope of themes was vast, incorporating presentations about the…
•    impact of technology on identity and communities
•    blurring distinctions  between the public/private and work/leisure
•    incalculable growth in the depth, scale and use of data on every level
•    the outsourcing of intelligence, decision-making and responsibilities to machines
•    and that every age will have to deal with social and generational gaps in terms of access use and comprehension of technology

Whilst each of these themes are fascinating but somewhat well-trodden of most interest was the futurist’s typical practice of challenging the audience to envisage designing educational practice for different scenarios informed by their 5 challneges above.  Perhaps the most optimistic of the scenarios given was one of networked individuals, where access to the network is pervasive and provides some kind of cognitive enhancement… you could call it a communal approach.  Conversely we were also asked to consider how one might attempt to help learners navigate complex learning environments in a different sort of post-industrialised model of the education environment.  A context where commercial learning providers compete, and there is a real blurring of the distinctions between formal and informal learning… a more individualistic vision of the future.

In these times of educational and economic uncertainty it may seem something of a luxury to engage in utopian/dystopian fantasies but they really are worth considering if only for the fact they quickly polarise opinions and reveal something of our immediate values and anxieties.  And it is this insight that informs my main criticism of the day; the failure to ask what the implications of these future scenarios are for education and the decisions we need to make about the use of technology today.

Schools and teachers are under continually increasing pressure and for many these are anxious times as they are asked to perform more varied tasks, manage more change in terms of policy and practice  (let alone technology…  and please, please don’t mention an imminent election)  whilst enduring ever-increasing scrutiny and it felt remiss to evade an opportunity to reflect on the many crunchy issues facing us now as they make decisions which will affect the future.     But … looking to the future… Futurelab are developing some materials which they plan to release later this month which we look forward to.

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

Love it? Hate it? We want to know: Leave us a comment (0 so far)

Older Posts »

 
 
 
  • ABOUT KINDLE
  • |
  • HOME
  • |
  • PEOPLE
  • |
  • SERVICES
  • |
  • WORK
  • |
  • CONTACT
  • |
  • BLOG
  • |
  • VACANCIES
AQR ICG Group MRS

© 2008 Kindle Research - Design by Origin8 and powered by Frisbee