Guest blog by Mark Earls, who will be presenting a NewMR webinar on this topic on Thursday April 16 – click here to register.
Boom time
Categories
Insights Industry News
April 6, 2015
The last decade has been boom-time for insights professionals who embrace innovation.
0
Guest blog by Mark Earls, who will be presenting a NewMR webinar on this topic on Thursday April 16 – click here to register.
Boom time
Beware the singularity
Here’s a thing: each time we approach a problem, it’s fair to say that most of us treat it as if it were unique. Something no-one has ever seen before. And we assume that the way to unlock a singular problem is to examine it in ever greater detail – to dig deeper (pace Zaltman) to find that nugget or to find a technological way to see the problem better (e.g. using brain scanning or some new analytic technique)This is what you’d expect from an innovative insights professional of the last 10 years.
But is it the most useful approach for the business paying for it?
“Kinda” questions, cycling & surgery
Copy Copy Copy argues that the most powerful innovations are not to be found in sweating the singular problem but by seeing individual things and problems as instances of other things and bringing solutions from distant sources to new contexts.
For example, when David Brailsford took over the British Olympic Cycling team, he didn’t just sweat the track and road performance issues from the perspective of cycling (although as a big fan of Moneyball and sports stats, he did examine them that way at length). No, his strategy of “aggregating small advantages” was based instead on identifying problems of a different sort – sleep problems, health problems etc etc. In each case, once the problem is identified – once you know “what kind of thing” you’re dealing with, it’s easy enough to work out where to look for good solutions. Brailsford is no expert in epidemiology but recognising he had a epidemiology-shaped problem was essential to finding and applying the best expertise to his cycling team. Similarly, when Professor Martin Elliott of Great Ormond Street Hospital sought to improve the outcomes for his tiny heart-surgery patients, he looked to F1 rather than other medics, because he saw the problem as a handover one: from an exhausted theatre team and their machines and wires and so on to the ICU team. Ferrari rather than the Lancet. Again asking “what kinda” questions was an essential step in him garnering insight.
What kinda “what Kinda” ?
Because I’m primarily interested in behaviour change (rather than any particular sphere of human behaviour) the map I use to ask “Kinda” questions is built on how individuals choose – the same one at the heart of “I’ll Have What She’s Having” (Bentley Earls O’Brien). {See below}
This allows me to ask “what kind of behaviour is it? Is it a considered choice – in which the individual is choosing independently of their peers based on the relative qualities or utilities of the options? Or, is it the kind of choice that gets shaped by what experts and authorities say or do? And knowing what kind of thing I’m dealing with provides a clear and useful filter on possible solutions – it helps me find appropriate solutions (rather than merely clever or popular ones)
The question is how this challenges insight research practice: what happens when the big questions the team is asking of a market or a behaviour are “kinda” questions, rather than “singular” ones (how big, how tall, how small etc)?
How does that change the kind of research you might do? How does it change the kind of knowledge needed to operate like this? Certainly, I and my collaborators have found it necessary to collate solutions that we find across many different contexts and sort them into the 4 boxes, so {see fig 2 below}
Conclusion
We have undoubtedly created a host of much better practices to reflect better the descriptions of how people behave that contemporary science gives us (and harnessing the technology now available to us). And we should be proud of our achievements.
But in creating this new toolkit, have we perhaps forgotten what our users want to get out of it? We’re still using the new toolkit as we did the old – to better describe the characteristics of the singular phenomena we study. What if we took the step up to “kinda”?
Want to find out more?
You can buy Mark’s new book COPY, COPY, COPY and/or you can sign up for Mark’s webinar, April 16.
Mark will also be doing a full workshop based on his latest work at IIeX North America: register now to get a seat while you can!
Disclaimer
The views, opinions, data, and methodologies expressed above are those of the contributor(s) and do not necessarily reflect or represent the official policies, positions, or beliefs of Greenbook.
Comments
Comments are moderated to ensure respect towards the author and to prevent spam or self-promotion. Your comment may be edited, rejected, or approved based on these criteria. By commenting, you accept these terms and take responsibility for your contributions.
More from Leonard Murphy
Dive into the CEO Series with guest Hamish Brocklebank, CEO of Brox.AI. Explore his path from music ...
Explore the power of AI in marketing with behaviorally's CEO, Alex Hunt. Learn how to leverage predi...
There have been a few big inflection points of societal disruption driven by technology in the last 50 years: One was the introduction of the Internet...
We previously announced the milestone of our Insight Innovation Exchange (IIEX) conference series’ 10th anniversary, celebrating a decade of identifyi...
Top in Quantitative Research
Why are we still measuring brand loyalty? It isn’t something that naturally comes up with consumers, who rarely think about brand first, if at all. Ma...
Sign Up for
Updates
Get content that matters, written by top insights industry experts, delivered right to your inbox.
67k+ subscribers