Process makes perfect 

Editor's note: Cheryl Krause is president of CeeDeeKay Inc., a Web development, SEO and content creation firm.

During the 2018 Quirk’s Event in Brooklyn, N.Y., Eden Weller, senior customer and markets insights manager for J.J. Keller & Associates Inc., and Carol Shea, president, Olivetree Insights, a Cincinnati research firm, shared how an insights-brief technique is improving the insights process and establishing performance benchmarks for J.J. Keller.

J.J. Keller & Associates Inc., Neenah, Wis., provides the tools and information organizations need to create safe, productive and compliant workplaces. The company serves 600,000+ customers, including 90 percent of the Fortune 1000, providing DOT/transportation, OSHA/workplace safety, human resources, construction safety and hazardous materials regulation compliance products and services.

Like most insights professionals, Weller recognized the need for his department to work more closely with the business team to achieve the highest level of connections and project success. Gaining business alignment and accountability is a challenge for all insights professionals. Weller identified the reasons for any disconnects within his organization and looked for solutions to break down barriers to success. Shea’s firm’s Smart Brief Process not only was the answer to aligning insights but it helped establish new performance benchmarks in the process.

Research has evolved

Once, insights professionals did research for research’s sake but over the last 10 years, research has evolved, Weller says. “Research was often used as a tool to kill marginal new product/service concepts. Business partners might cherry-pick data and findings to validate decisions that had already been made. If the data we presented didn’t support the direction they wanted to go, everything came under attack. The methodology, audience, response rates and consumer’s ability to articulate were called into question. Sometimes business partners would even question the way we asked questions. Overall, for insights professionals, if the message delivered wasn’t the message business partners wanted to hear, the messengers were in a tough spot.”

These days, as companies like J.J. Keller make more consumer-focused decisions, it’s common to find insights professionals seated at the executive table. But as insights departments have moved from a supply-side model to a more consultative model, there is sometimes still a disconnect.

According to data gathered from corporate researchers for the annual Quirk’s Q Report, most researchers have trouble spurring clients to act on the findings from research projects; 50 percent say this is often a challenge. Similarly, the American Marketing Association recently identified “generating and using insights to inform marketing practice” as one of the seven major problems facing CMOs today.

Why? Disconnects between business alignment and accountability happen when everyone involved in insights research defines success differently. A member’s role in the organization has a direct effect on how they see success. Thus, a corporate research team and their director might define success very differently than their business partners. In fact, there are four key perspectives that should be considered to understand the disconnects and define the traditional view of what constitutes a successful research project.

Four perspectives on success 

Junior analyst. What they would say: “I want to learn something along the way that will help me improve next time.” This team member just wants to learn. They see success as a few thank-yous and with nobody angry or confrontational during the process.

Senior researcher. What they would say: “I want my stakeholders to learn something from the research.” They want stakeholders to get valuable information from the research. Just as important, they want to quickly and neatly tie up all loose ends and so they can move on to the next project.

Insights director. As you can imagine, the director defines success differently. When asked about what makes a successful project, they would answer: “The key takeaways and recommendations were on-point and delivered clearly.” At the director level, the focus becomes more on if each of the research objectives was adequately addressed. But even this view doesn’t consider how the business partner defines success. 

Business partner. From the other side of the table, business partners see success much differently. They might answer: “Success is when I trust the research process and results and I have a clear path forward.” Success is having all the information necessary to make a decision that aligns with company objectives.

At J.J. Keller, success was defined as providing the empirical evidence that enables business partners to more confidently: make better, more customer-centric decisions; spend resources effectively; and predict future outcomes. Weller realized that to align the varying views of success, agreement by all parties was necessary. He and Shea looked at the barriers to setting study objectives that align with business needs and strengthen accountability. Each of the four perspectives showed how people inadvertently create barriers.

Four perspectives on barriers to success

Junior analyst. Because of their junior status, this member may not be confident that they are in a position to ask challenging questions. They will default to simply accepting what the team tells them instead of asking the necessary probing questions. In their words: “I’m sure they will tell me what I need to know, so I just need to capture what the team says.”

Senior researcher. This member has enough experience to have a potentially dangerous point of view. They often think, “We have asked this question of customers a number of times and they struggle to answer it meaningfully. What are you really trying to determine?” They see customers struggle to answer poorly-defined questions and have struggled themselves to determine exactly what stakeholders want but are unable to clearly define. They continue on the path of least resistance because it’s easy and they are hard-pressed to finish up one project so they can proceed to the next.

Insights director. Like the junior analyst, the director may not be confident in their authority. They may feel uncomfortable challenging the need for the project or recommending a different approach. Frequently they bemoan requests for research that appear to be a reactive response. “I wish we were brought in to this initiative on the front end!” is a common complaint. As a leader, they may view some projects as a waste of precious resources if business partners clearly have their minds made up. Naturally, they prefer to devote resources to projects where decisions haven’t been made.

Business partner. Unfortunately, they may be looking for customer feedback to reinforce a decision they have already made. Every research professional has encountered this scenario. Instead of insights that lead to decisions, they have decisions in search of insights. How often have you heard, “If you just ask the questions we want asked, we’ll have what we need!”? When a business partner has a direction in mind, the challenge is to turn that into a hypothesis that can be tested alongside other approaches.

So, barriers arise when the insights team can’t see the complete picture. This can happen when probing questions aren’t asked or business partners haven’t shared all relevant information. It’s difficult to make meaningful recommendations when you start with less than a 360-degree view. 

Other barriers arise around decisions that have already been made or when business partners don’t share how far they are into the decision-making process. Symptoms of decisions in search of data points are business partner questions like, “How soon can you conduct two focus groups?” and statements such as, “I put together a question set; how quickly can I get my preliminary results?”

A consultative approach 

Weller knew that the greatest value his insights team could bring to J.J. Keller was to take a consultative approach to helping his business partners make better decisions by providing a decision-making framework to help get to the questions at the heart of the issue.

But being strategic is a difficult skill to teach. It isn’t always realistic for research teams to know and understand the business as well as their business partners. The team needed a tool to help improve its consultative skills, one that offered an alternative to the traditional brief and included more detail and rigor in key areas to highlight the objectives and uses of the research. Weller found his answer in the Smart Insights Brief, which was created by Shea’s company as part of its DecisionAdvancer platform.

The Smart Insights Brief begins with a look at the business objectives before research is even discussed. For example, you might start with questions such as, “What is the current situation that is triggering the request for research/analysis?” This technique is a good lead-in for probes related to the business objectives (such as improved profitability or increased sales through market extensions) being addressed. Next, dimension is added to the business objective by defining how the information will be used (“decisions to be made”), who in the organization will be affected (and might be brought into study design) and the existing beliefs regarding the possible results. Only when the business objectives are clear is it time to move on to the research needs. 

Once business needs and objectives are completely understood and defined, you are ready to define the research objectives and how they will meet the business needs (see chart). This phase starts with consideration of what’s currently known about the focus area (“related info”). This avoids duplicating prior efforts while leveraging past learnings. Once this is done, the research objective converts the business objectives into research language. Finally, the process includes exploration of what’s out of the scope of the project and the impact the learnings will have on decisions. These items clarify the research objectives and provide clear direction for the methodology, analysis and report.

Weller discovered that the Smart Insights Brief allowed him to better guide corporate alignment in insights research. In the alignment process the team was also able to help end scope creep, speed up the report-writing process and better prepare their business partners for all outcomes. 

The ultimate result: the insights professionals at J.J. Keller are now equipped to drive more strategic decisions at a faster pace. For example, the tool brings the business decisions to be made into focus. Now Weller’s teams are alerted to how information will be used, who is impacted and who should be brought into the study design phase. They can also unearth preconceived ideas at the start and avoid surprises at the reporting phase that could potentially render the findings unusable. Better preparation for the back end of the project now begins during the design phase. 

“These conversations result in alignment among different stakeholders and the team has a clear picture of the problem to be solved. Best of all, these dialogues are happening before any decisions are made on methodology, timing or target audience,” Weller says.

The process also includes a discussion around research decision criteria. This was new to J.J. Keller. Now the team and their business partners define the standards or criteria that will be used to make the decision. They work as a team to determine the correct question set and metrics beforehand so that everyone is comfortable moving forward once the project is complete. As examples, these standards could be top-three rankings or minimum percent preference/dominance of attitude within a series of interviews. As everyone has discovered, agreeing to these criteria ahead of time avoids conflict at the end of the study. Better strategic alignment upfront can lead to these types of statements from your team.

Four perspectives on using a decision-making framework

Junior analyst. “Because I know the business objectives and decisions to be made, I have a clearer view of what I need to pull out as I summarize results and make recommendations.” This team member now walks into meetings with confidence and sees the impact their work is making on company decisions.

Senior researcher. “These questions are causing the client to think more deeply and strategically around what we are looking to accomplish.” This team member is realizing that a bit more time upfront is saving time when it comes to report-writing. Back-and-forth with clients over the results is virtually eliminated.

Insights director. “I don’t have to attend every kickoff meeting, review every scope document or even worry that reports won’t be viewed as actionable or strategic or insightful.” Finally, management can focus on areas like design thinking, innovation and strategic planning. With an insights-briefing tool in place the team is empowered to follow an effective, consistent process.

Business partner. “This opens my eyes in terms of what types of decisions are appropriate to be researched, those that are not and those that may require other techniques like observational studies or secondary research.” Now business partners have a better understanding of the importance of upfront work and appreciate the time that was taken to have sometimes difficult conversations.

Resistance to change

As with any new management process, there is always some resistance to change. In J.J. Keller’s case, researchers were fearful about asking more questions and business partners were worried about spending too much time during the scoping phase. 

Based on their experience, Weller offers important strategies for implementing an improved, more consultative process:

• Be prepared to communicate the what and the why of the process change with the focus on the improved alignment to be achieved. Have answers ready to the inevitable questions about the differences between the previous and new approach. Obviously, you won’t have all the answers and it’s okay to acknowledge there is some degree of uncertainty about the unknown and that everyone will be learning along the way. 
• Ask tough questions and dig to understand. Discussion, even if it is disagreement, is valuable. 
• Make sure you have both the right people and the right number of people to empower productive discussion. 
• Kickoff meetings are a great time to have these conversations. 
• Open moments present another opportunity to have unguarded, honest and open conversations. 

Tough conversations 

Having tough conversations is hard. But if you want to deliver solid, actionable insights from research it must be done. Using a structured approach to the process, one that involves all of the stakeholders, can help avoid the second-guessing that often dooms even well-intentioned projects and instead pave the way for good, meaningful research that makes a business impact.