Context before conclusion: Ask more questions. 

Context before conclusion: Ask more questions. 

 

You cannot expect the right answer to come from the wrong question.

Too often we spend inordinate amounts of time trying to answer those questions before we understand the context or the ‘frame’ from which the answer will come.

Before anything else, to ensure the best answer possible, consider all the ‘frames’ through which the situation in front of you could be seen. Hypothesise what alternatives to the immediately obvious could be possible that might drive the situation you are examining.

Several months ago, early on a summer Saturday evening, I was walking my dog. As I passed the church at the end of my street, I saw a vague acquaintance crying.

There were a few other people milling around, so I just made an assumption without realising that is what I had done, and offered to help if I could. Her response was that she was Ok, crying for joy, her first grandchild had just been baptised.

Clearly the question that popped into my head led to an entirely to the wrong conclusion that her crying was from distress.

The frame through which I observed the woman crying led to making an automatic, but incorrect conclusion.

How often in our commercial lives do we ask questions which just assume the presence of some factor, when in fact that assumption is wrong?

The lesson here is make sure you have the context right before you start coming up with answers.

 

Header credit: Tom Gauld at www.tomgauld.com

 

 

 

The great trap of metrics

The great trap of metrics

 

Goodhart’s law is a much quoted adage that states: When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure’.

When we see numbers cited as evidence, we tend to instinctively give them more credibility than they may deserve. Without an examination of the source and scope of the numbers, just believing them on face value can lead to very bad choices.

Charles Goodhart is a prominent British monetary economist. His public profile started as a footnote to a 1975 article and read: ‘any observed statistical regularity will tend to collapse once pressure is placed upon it for control purposes’. It took on its now well-known form, above, when restated by an anthropologist seeking to link the idea to a much wider context than economics.

In almost every business I visit, I see examples of Goodhart’s law. The most common is the use of EBIT as a measure of success. The reality however, is that it is simply a financial measure of the outcome on the myriads of smaller actions and decisions that have been taken in the deployment of resources.

Two of the most public failures of measurement should make us all wary of using quantitative targets as a measure of performance.

The 2010 Volkswagen software scam. VW installed software in a range of cars with their turbocharged direct injection diesel engines that ensured that when being tested, the cars made the emissions standard of the US EPA.

The Vietnam War body count. The US defence department sought to justify the billions of dollars and thousands of lives expended in the defence of a corrupt government in South Vietnam. The measure became the body count of VC fighters and North Vietnamese regulars, which led to wholesale slaughter. These imaginary and bloody numbers were used for years as the basis for increasing commitment. It finally became obvious that they did not in any way reflect the ability or willingness of much of the population to fight what they saw as aggression by the US.

There are thousands of examples. If you looked, you would see them every day, especially when politicians open their mouths and quote numbers.

Header Photo: Charles Goodhart. Professor Emeritus at the London School of economics.

PS. When you look at the header, Dr. Goodhart is looking directly into your eyes. You will tend to believe anything he tells you.

 

 

How do we measure and value resilience?

How do we measure and value resilience?

 

 

‘Resilience’ is a word we are hearing a lot these days and will hear more today.

On this ANZAC day 2024, there will be a lot of words sprayed around that amount to acknowledgement of the resilience of ANZAC troops.

They clung to the cliffs on the Gallipoli peninsular, died in the mud of Passchendaele, slogged across the Owen Stanleys a couple of times, and lived under rocks in the seaside splendour of Tobruk.

It is used to describe both the personal characteristics required of the individual, and the culture of organisations.

The dictionary definition leaves a bit to be desired, referring to the ability of a person or organisation to return to a previous state. ‘Elasticity’ is a common simile.

How do we measure resilience? If we cannot measure it, as the saying goes, we cannot improve it.

What is the measure of resilience shown by the ANZACS in those meat grinders? Indeed, how do we measure the resilience of those at home, watching as the casualty lists were posted?

In a commercial context, resilience implies the degree to which an enterprise is able to absorb and adjust to the unexpected. Usually, it refers to the short term from the decisions made by others that drive an unexpected outcome that changes the status quo. Substantial competitive moves, new products that deliver new value, or the emergence of something that could be classed to some degree as ‘disruptive’.

Measuring by financial outcomes is misleading. Financial outcomes are the result of other decisions taken on the inputs to the business. Do that well, and you become financially secure, do it poorly and you go out of business.

The allied high command on the Western Front measured the outcomes of their initiatives by two things: the ground gained, and the casualties incurred. Of the two, the first was the more important to them. Field Marshall Haig never got close enough to the lines to understand the resilience required to ‘jump the bags’, again. The linkage and enormous gap between his orders, written in the splendour of the Château de Beaurepaire, and the squalor and death on the front lines that was the outcome, was never meaningfully acknowledged.

Measuring outcomes is always easier than measuring the inputs, then allocating cause and effect to the decisions but is rarely useful. Just as measuring your weight every morning will not assist you to lose weight in the absence of resulting reduction in calories, throwing yourself at a machine gun nest will not win ground.

It does however require resilience, courage, and dedication to both those beside you, the wider objective, and willingness to ‘do the work’.

In our modern world, despite the continuous marketing of the silver bullet products promising the contrary, there is no substitute for domain knowledge, planning, optimised resource allocation, and the sheer resilience to stick at it in the face of adversity.

It comes down to the culture at the micro level. How the individual behaves, and how that behaviour translates to the immediate group.

It has always be so.

It is a lovely autumn day in Sydney, as we reflect on those that gave us the opportunity to enjoy the freedoms we take for granted. It is also my beautiful daughters 38th birthday. Happy birthday Jenn!

How time flies.

The header is an arial photo of the gorge, hidden in the Wollemi State Forest, after the fires of 2019-20. The green spine is made up of the only stand left of Wollemi Pines. They have survived since the dinosaurs roamed the area. Resilience.

 

 

 

Does analysis give you the truth?

Does analysis give you the truth?

 

 

It seems that ‘the truth’ is a malleable concept.

We are overwhelmed by opinion masquerading as fact, economic and social models designed to deliver a predetermined outcome, managed correlation equated to causation, and market research that asks the wrong questions of the wrong people.

What is truth to one person is nonsense to another.

We should be able to see ‘the truth’ about what has passed, there is data that should distinguish fact from fiction. However, we still fail to discern the truth from amongst the data available for analysis.

Who is winning the war in the Ukraine?

Depends on who you ask, and both sides have data that shows conclusively that they are winning.

Remember Vietnam? I do.

The Americans had an overwhelming advantage in material, technology, and logistics. How could a little country with few resources and no technology of their own, face and win against the mightiest war machine the world has ever seen?

Impossible but it happened.

Until the Tet offensive commenced in January 1968, there was no doubt in anyone’s mind, apart from the North Vietnamese, that it was only a matter of time until the might of the Americans became overwhelming.

The Americans had data that proved to them they were winning, despite the secret conclusions contained in the Pentagon Papers. It was not until the spring offensive in 1974 that it was obvious to all that the American ‘Facts’ that were being analysed were irrelevant, and the conclusions drawn were terminally wrong.

The clear answer to the question in the header is: ‘only when you analyse the right data.’

 

Header credit: Hugh McLeod at Gapingvoid.com

 

 

 

 Is your market research project just a crutch?

 Is your market research project just a crutch?

Every market research proposal must answer a duo of critical questions before it proceeds, if it is to be of any value.

What is it for, and how will it be used?

Market research is done for all sorts of reasons. Many commissioned projects have little to do with the examination of the critical factors in driving success.

They just provide a convenient crutch.

Several projects commissioned and paid for from marketing budgets I controlled would come in under the ‘what the F&&k’ category. However, in my defence they were usually quant studies designed to generate the numbers necessary to pass the accountants various thresholds. This enabled me to progress projects that qualitatively and ‘in my guts’ were winners. That is the way they usually turned out!

In the absence of clearly understanding how the research results were to be used, how they would add strategic, operational, or technical value, why should you bother?

There is a further tier of understanding that is required: Are you looking to define an objective outcome, or are you seeking understanding and insight?

In the case of the outcome required being quantitative, simple yes/no, black/white answers to a question are sufficient.

When you are looking for insight, there may be a few numbers, way below a level of statistical significance, but they can be reassuring. However, the value lies in discovering the connections, implications, options, and potentially hard to anticipate consequences.

Research is a critical step in successful marketing programs. However, in the absence of a very clear and compelling answer to the ‘What is it for’ question, it should not proceed.

The header illustration is the only AI used in this post.