Across the past few months I’ve had the pleasure of meeting a number of you at one of our member meetings on Embedding Customer Knowledge into the Business.  These have been really great, interactive sessions with lively discussion and idea-sharing. 

One discussion point that has really been a hot topic at many of the meetings is how to get research results faster?  The speed of business is rapidly increasing and does not look to be slowing down any time soon.  In this “I need it now” world, how can Research adapt what we’re doing to better fit in?  Or, should we?

When a question in the forum asked what others do when colleagues request quick turnaround research, over half of the respondents said they would refer to a collected and synthesized repository of information (per below). 

We’ve seen one member, Motorola Mobility, do this particularly well, when they implemented a “quick-fire” synthesis process to be able to answer executives’ questions in as little as 24-48 hours.  Whose colleagues wouldn’t want that kind of a turnaround timeline?  In looking at the process, and how other research teams could imitate for like results, two parts stood out as key in making it a success:

• Ready Resources – their core library of collected and synthesized information
• Task Specialization – clearly defined roles aligned to the person who can make the best contribution in the fastest time

The other suggestion a number of Research Execs have brought up is to tap into online communities or panels for quick responses and feedback – whether managed internally or not, these can be a great option for quick information from a set of customers you already know you care about. 

Have you tried these ideas?  What have you found to be an effective way to get information into the hands of your business partners faster? 

Or, on the other hand, do you hold strong to the idea that we need to push back when business partners ask for results in a quick (/unreasonable?) timeframe?  When one of Research’s roles is to be a “risk-reducer,” it is certainly fair to argue that we should be looking for the best results and not compromise quality.  Poor quality research can lead to poor quality decisions – so maybe the question isn’t one of how to get information faster, but rather how to get research requests in a timelier manner?

So, I ask you, if your colleague asks for information that would be best answered with a survey that will take 8 weeks to field and get results, but they want results in 1 week, do you take that opportunity to educate them on the research process, and note it is not possible, or do you work to get them as much information as possible, while saying, “we can’t have a perfect answer”?

Is “good enough” good enough? 

Member resources:

• Embedding Customer Knowledge into the Business
• Motorola’s Quick-Fire Research Teams
• Wells’ Dairy’s Fan Panel

Related blogs:

• Just Say No: 5 Smart Ways to Disagree
• It’s Better to Be Fast Than Right
• Yes, You Can Unlock Insights from Social Media

Recently I was looking through the questions and responses to popular questions in our primary research forum, and one very popular poll caught my eye, as it is something I’ve been hearing more and more questions on from the membership recently: how should we name ourselves?  Or, related to that, how do we want to be perceived by the organization, and what image should we put forth?  

The poll that I was looking at, on Naming the Research Department, is particularly interesting, as it seems we don’t have a consensus across the board.  (See snapshot of results, below.)

On a broad scope, we’ve seen over the past decade or so many functions have moved to a name that reflects its insight capabilities. Frequent choices include Customer Insight and Consumer Insight. The goal here is two parts: 

1. it encourages business partners to ask for insight, not data, and
2. it makes a statement to the research team that we need to deliver insight, not observations or data. 

At the same time, a few functions have opted for names that reflect a more holistic view for their group, such as Market Intelligence.  And of course, many organizations have kept the traditional Market Research name.

In a member group discussion on the future vision of market research functions (using “market research” here as a proxy for the various names we use), a worry has been expressed by some, that when we name ourselves an “insights” function, it implies that we’re taking on the full insights responsibility of the company.  While we are certainly facilitators of insight, and perhaps stewards of insight throughout the organization, should we be known as the sole group responsible for insight? 

We would argue not.  While educating our colleagues on what a good insight is, and how to recognize it may be necessary (see how Eli Lilly does just that), generating insight is necessary for the full organization, and should be a shared responsibility.

One final note – no matter what name you go with, we’ve seen a notable addition of branding the function as the premier source of information, insight or customer knowledge. For instance, some functions use a shorthand logo (e.g. CMI for Consumer and Market Insights) that is applied to all official research data and reports.  It helps differentiate reliable insight based on good research from the many other stories, “facts,” and self made online surveys that float around a business.  Doing so (like Microsoft does here) draws a line in the sand with the company, to say “we are the reliable source that you want.” 

What do you think is an ideal name for a research department (whether or not that is the name of your current department)?  What have you done to promote your internal “brand?”  Leave a comment below to continue the conversation!

Christmas. Birthdays.  Hanukkah.  Physicals.  Year end reviews.  Budget analysis.  All things we (have to) do on an annual basis.  Some things are fun, and some?  Maybe not so much.  Let’s just call them necessary.  Aside from the handful of us who actually enjoy working with numbers, things like budget analysis and planning can be low on the list of our favorite things, but we all know they’re needed. 

In an attempt to help make at least that last one (budgeting analysis) a bit less painful, every year we survey our members on their budget levels, staffing levels, and resource allocation choices, etc.  We upload the results into an interactive tool so that you can get specific data points, applying various filters, should you wish.  (e.g. Market research budgets are on average what percent of company revenue when only looking at for financial services companies between $2 and $20 Billion in revenue?  That’s .06%, if you were curious.)  Additionally, we’ve pulled a number of the key metrics and results into an Executive Summary. 

As I look at the overall results, a few observations particularly stood out:

1.  Flat was still “the new up”.  We said this last year, and we hoped that would be it… but in 2011, flat was still the new up.  Overall average budgets in 2011 were the lowest we’ve seen since the recent high in 2008.  There was one bright spot – B2C-Indirect members have on average actually seen an increase in budgets across the past three years.  If that’s you, thank your lucky stars to be in the fortunate few!  Those of us who are continuing to “do more with less,” check out our Cost and Efficiency Optimization center where we discuss successful tactics such as: better utilizing existing information, prioritizing research resources on the right issues, and organizing teams for more efficient response times.

2. We are optimistic for 2012.  While budgets have as a whole been decreasing for the past few years, 45 percent of us believe our budgets will increase for 2012.  Another 43% of us believe they will stay the same.  An in-person informal poll during our London Executive Meeting in November had the same results.  Looking outside of just budget numbers, overall 43% of us believe we will be able to increase our staff size in 2012, and another 48% believe their staff size will stay the same.  What a better picture for the new year!  For those of us who are lucky enough to increase in staff size this year, find helpful tips on how to hire “insight-ready” researchers in our Hiring topic center.

3. Continuing the trend from last year, we are even more so not just a marketing support service.   While a solid 99% of us support Marketing, a large majority of us also support our peers in Strategy/Planning (89%), R&D (86%), Sales (79%), General Management (79%), and Corporate Communications (71%).  In fact, there is no area that we support less than last year.  I’m certain this doesn’t come as much of a surprise to any of you.  I can’t count how many conversations I’ve had with members that start “So now we are also supporting [x group]… how do we make sure they know how to work with us effectively?”  If that’s you, we’d love to talk with you!  One quick thought to get you started: set internal partners’ expectations, demonstrating strategic value to the company, and setting boundaries on when to not call upon Research.

For additional data points on average department size, budget breakdown, project allocation, organizational structures, etc., see our 2011 Executive Summary, or benchmarking interactive tool. 

Here’s to a great 2012!

Our sister program, the Corporate Strategy Board, recently published a piece on 5 steps to be a better networker:

1. Be genuine and generous: Networking is an inherently karmic exercise.  The best networkers look to offer their time and expertise rather than go looking for others’.
2. Know what you want before you start any conversation: Be efficient with their time and with yours.
3. Aim for face-to-face contact (wherever possible): Modern communications may help us keep in touch far more easily than ever before, but in-person interactions help cement relationships, enforce good first impressions, and enable a freer exchange of ideas and expertise.
4. Ask the right questions: Ask open rather than closed questions to encourage conversation and learn quickly whether the two of you will benefit from future contact.
5. Making contact is only the start: Ensure that you follow-up promptly on anything you promised to do, and make sure to keep in touch with your network.

Like many people, the first image that popped into my head when I read the word “networker” wasn’t terribly flattering.  As author, Tim Stafford, writes, “The phrase ‘good networker’ conjures up many mental images and, for some, these are not positive: fake, pushy people who are only interested in you because they want a job or they want to sell you something…. It doesn’t have to be like that.”

It doesn’t have to be like that.

If all that networking was comprised of was either sales pitches or job requests, I can’t imagine many people would want to be on either side of that equation.  The good news is, it isn’t.  Networking, when done right, boils down to simply leveraging peer experiences and advice.  People helping people.

You might say, “okay, ‘people helping people’… that sounds better… but how, and to whom?”

Without a large contact list of people who have “been there, done that” it can be daunting to try and figure out who to reach out to, and what channel to use to contact them.  Everybody has their known group of colleagues, friends, and acquaintances to reach out to, but for many of us, that list is limited, and won’t help us solve every issue we come across.  Where do you go then?

As some of you may (or may not) be aware, a large part of what we do here at the Market Research Executive Board is help in those exact situations.  We work to connect Research executives who are working on similar problems to collaborate and share ideas.

As you look to network with other Researchers, there are a few ways we can help you do that:

1. Attend a live event. We have a number of staff development workshops, regional briefings, and executive retreats which are all a great way to meet new peers across industries and discuss common challenges you both are facing.
2. Post/answer a question on our discussion forums. One of our newer additions to our website, our Primary Research Forum has become a way for members to publicly note an interest in a specific topic, and find others who are interested in discussing the same.   Here is an example of a posted question that was able to pull together a handful of researchers from very different industries to discuss the question.
3. Contact us, and we can reach out to the network on your behalf.

In these instances “networkers” are by no means “fake, pushy people” only looking for a job or to sell something.  Rather, “networkers” are simply people looking to work with peers to make progress against a shared challenge.   And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I’ve always hated the advice “just picture the audience in their underwear.”  It’s passed on as if it’s the magic panacea that can make anyone a great presenter.  As one who has tried this, I can assure you, “magic” it is not.  Yes, undoubtedly you need to get over initial hesitations to be able to stand in front of a group and speak… but the most fearless speaker can still give an awful presentation.  (Who hasn’t had the “pleasure” of listening to someone proudly and confidently give a horrible presentation?)

Perhaps the key to a great presentation is not the confidence to stand up and speak, but the ability to tell a story. A good story grabs and holds your attention, while potentially teaching you something.  A compelling story can deliver the same insight as a research presentation, but tends to be overlooked as a presentation tool.  Transforming your research presentations into active narrative makes for more memorable communication, and sets you up to have greater impact on the business.

Steve Tobak from bnet.com believes in the power of a story, and in his article, “How to Be a Great Storyteller and Win Over Any Audience,” goes as far as saying “Your success in business is all about effective storytelling.”  Steve primarily addresses storytelling in a live presentation setting, but it certainly applies to written communication as well. Here are some of the things he highlights in his article (which apply to both in-person and written presentations):

• First you need to determine who your audience is, and ensure that your story matches what they care about.
• Evoke an emotional response to make it memorable.
• Cliché as it may be, practice makes perfect.

In Research we find great insight on our consumers, industry, competitors, etc., but even the best information goes to waste if it is not taken in and used.  So the next time you fume over a colleague not listening to what you presented, take a look at how you presented it.   Maybe there are some things you can work on as well.  Some people are natural storytellers, and some of us have to work on it.  Hone these skills by starting a peer review group, or get a colleague to critique a report before sending it on.

Want to look more at developing your communication skills?  Check out our Communications Toolkit and join us at an upcoming Workshop.

Developing a rigorous training program is necessary for success in any endeavor.  The Packers would not have won the Super Bowl last night if they did not have a successful plan for training their team, no matter how good Aaron Rodgers is.  Similarly, the musicians in the New York Philharmonic were not just born with their talent, they have had to train, and continually hone their skills.

The same is true for successful Market Research teams.  Without continued development opportunities, the skill level will stagnate.

But the question becomes, where do you focus the training efforts for the team?  How do you know what skills are most necessary and most lacking?   The skills needed for success in the Market research world are constantly changing and it can be hard to keep up with this evolution.  Imagine how football players would react if every year the goal posts were extended just a little farther.  Thankfully for the NFL, they aren’t, but sometimes in market research it can feel like that is the case.

As we’ve been hearing across the membership, it is no longer enough to only have the core research skills covered on your team.  Strategic consulting and influence skills are no longer a “nice to have,” but a need to have for researchers to excel.  (MREB members can look at our Market Research Talent Development Trends research brief to hear more about the changing needs of market research teams.)

In our discussions with members we continually hear that for training to be effective you must first make researchers understand their skill gaps, and motivate them to want to learn said skills.  In this changing world, it can be difficult to identify individuals’ strengths and weaknesses.  Football players get input from their coaches, teammates and self evaluation.  Market Researchers can similarly turn to their managers and business partners as well as their own self assessment.

Successful ideas where we’ve seen this across the membership include: role playing on business issues with senior level executives, challenging researcher assumptions on insight generation, and 360° feedback with research-specific competencies.

What have you found to be important in the realm of training?  What’s worked for you?  Do you follow the NFL’s example by having a “training camp” or are development efforts more self-led?  Leave a comment below to continue the conversation.

In a recent HBR article, Rosabeth Moss Kanter discusses five lessons from 2010 worth repeating. The business strategy lessons, both good and bad, are some she believes shouldn’t be forgotten.  Here are some of the lessons I found inspiring:

• Surprises are the new normal – resilience is the new skill. 2010 was full of surprises. Kanter believes back-up plans are strategic assets now more than ever (not many had scenario planning for volcanic ash shutting down air traffic).
• Innovation takes courage and the willingness to be out in front rather than following the herd. Innovation is the introduction of something new; by that definition, a company that is truly innovative is doing something no one else is thinking. That takes a lot of guts. Look at Stonyfield Farms for one example. Their unorthodox celebrity endorsement proved to be more powerful than one from Tiger Woods (2010 not his greatest year).

MREB View: How does market research interpret these lessons from 2010? What can they take away for a stronger 2011?  Take for example the two lessons above. If surprises are the expected, what can research do to plan accordingly? MREB members, take advantage of better scenario planning. Prioritize potential scenarios’ likelihood and impact based on customer views to ground internal discussions around probabilities in market dynamics, rather than internal perceptions.  Innovation does take courage, but it also takes a bit of market knowledge. Take advantage of the MREB’s Product Development and Innovation topic center to help you identify innovation opportunities, invited customers into the innovation process and refine product and concept testing.

Curious about the other lessons from 2010? Take a look at the rest of them here!