Millennium Marketing Research®

Tom Schori DBA Millennium Marketing Research®, 808 Ironwood, Normal IL 61761, 309-532-8466

Starting Page    Millennium Marketing Research?    Types of Research    Principals    Articles   Quote

Operationalizing research findings.

By Thomas R. Schori, Ph.D., and Michael L. Garee, Principals,  Millennium Marketing Research, 808 E. Ironwood, Normal, IL 61761-5239. Tel. 309-532-8466 -

Most companies of any size today conduct at least some research during any given year. Many times, this research is ongoing or longitudinal in nature and is used primarily as "monitoring" research, e.g., as the means to gauge the ongoing effectiveness of established customer service programs, etc. Clearly, in most cases, there is little need for the company to mount a major effort to "operationalize" findings from such research.

On the other hand, to the extent that a company conducts ad hoc research, e.g., research designed to address specific business problems or concerns, to evaluate potential business opportunities, etc., clearly, there is a genuine need for the company to make a major effort to "operationalize" findings from this type of research. And, typically, most companies do precisely that, but oftentimes, the approach taken in the "operationalization" phase can leave much to be desired.

Usually, though of course not always, company management will conclude that the appropriate audiences or constituencies have spoken once all the research data are tabulated and reported upon. What’s left for the company to do, they normally conclude, is simply to devise ways to follow those "marching orders" as precisely as possible, and to an extent that is true, but only to an extent. Let us illustrate this point.

Suppose that The Avant-Garde Cosmetic Company has just conducted quantitative research (a mail survey) to determine how it might improve a deteriorating relationship with its national network of independent cosmetic salespeople. Let’s further suppose that the research results revealed this major problem: In the opinion of the sales force, company sales literature doesn’t adequately support the sales force’s needs because it focuses too heavily upon the company and its products and far too little on the important role played by the salespeople.

Now, if the survey instrument had been carefully constructed¾and let’s suppose for the sake of our example that it had been¾many specifics about the nature of this perceived problem could at least be inferred from research results. For example, it might easily be inferred that the sales literature could be improved, and therefore deemed more acceptable to the sales force, if it was merely "repositioned" to give more prominence to the sales people using it. It would be easy to conclude, therefore, that the "solution" would be merely to redesign the sales literature in this manner. And, of course, this is very typical of the approach taken by most companies when they attempt to "operationalize" research findings.

The principal problem with such an approach is that it tends to establish and maintain an "inward" focus, at the expense of any further "outside" input. That is, it presupposes that the solution to problems revealed by research can be evaluated and solved exclusively by relying upon the evaluative and problem solving abilities and expertise of those within the company. Usually, we’ve found this not to be a very sound approach, primarily because of the vast differences between the perspective of those on the "inside" and those on the "outside" whom the company is attempting to serve or satisfy.

A far, far better way to go about "operationalizing" research findings is to add an additional step in the process, i.e., one that includes further input from the "outside" regarding the appropriateness or thoroughness of any "solutions" arrived at by those on the "inside." Let’s return to our sales literature example to make this point.

Let’s assume that the apparent solution to the perceived problem with Avant-Garde’s sales literature is indeed to refocus it to better highlight the salespeople. Obviously, there are several approaches that could be taken to accomplish this task. But which one way is the best? While those within the company might honestly believe that they know the best way to accomplish the task, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the sales force will agree with them. So, if the company merely forges ahead with redesigning the sales literature, and then "sends it up the flagpole" to see if the sales force "salutes" it, the company could discover that it’s wasted time and money, if the sales literature still doesn’t meet with the approval of the sales force. In that case, rather than solving the problem the company may well end up exacerbating it!

A better approach for the company to take might be to come up with several alternative redesigns in the form of "comprehensive layouts," and then present these layouts to small groups of representative salespeople for their evaluation and further input. The resultant "finished" product, then, will reflect the collaborative efforts and input of both those "inside" the company as well as those "outside" the company, i.e., the salespeople. Not only will this usually result in a superior end product, it also significantly strengthens the bond between a company and its important constituents.

Does all of this seem obvious? If so, that’s great because your company quite likely is taking a sound approach to "operationalizing" its various research findings. Unfortunately, however, it’s been our experience that most companies take the first step outlined in this column¾that of attempting to "operationalize" research findings using "inside" input exclusively¾but ignore the second, equally important step of obtaining additional input from those "outside" the company. They do so, we contend, at their own peril.