If the findings of an innovation study seem like a joke, it's because most likely the study may be a joke.
Most _new_ customer needs today may need to be discovered and thus nurtured before awareness about them crystallizes.
We ought to question even a traditionally credible source's very capability to design a meaningful study. That comes from a larger systemic problem of superficiality and inertia of analytical depth and method in our education, then hiring, and human capital nurturing and promotion systems.
Years back I was in Brussels working with Gallup and European Commission data on European innovation. They didn't collect data from SME firms smaller than 10 employees. Commission's excuse was cost and too high failure rate among those. Gallup was just doing what they were paid to do.
Scientists on both sides recognized the terrible error per Schumpeter (ignoring Mark I innovation by creative destruction, that happens primarily from ultra-small firms) but the political principals decided on cost-saving grounds alone. What makes another study different?
Thomas Kuhn and others teach that on future most often only the underfunded under-disseminated rarely spoken about findings have a much better chance at accuracy based on thorough design and good caring execution;)
Mind the knowledge you rely on. Build strong knowledge!
Adrian S. Petrescu, Ph.D., J.D.
No comments:
Post a Comment