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...

   

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)


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

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