#so that i can focus on that and eventually do quantitative research for my thesis <3< /div> Explore tagged Tumblr posts

[hierneneuro]

when the sweet professor offers to let you read alternative titles to what's in the official reading list because he knows you're interested in quantitative research and the whole reading list is qualitative studies

[jeramymobley]

Market Research: Theory, Practice and the Passion to Question

The following guest column is by Alfred DuPuy, Executive Director, Strategy & Analytics for Interbrand’s North American Consumer & Retail Brand Experience practice, on The Market Research Event annual conference which was held last month in Orlando, Florida.

  “In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is.”

Most of us in the agency business believe in market research—its efficacy, its seemingly objective platform in proving (or disproving) our hypotheses as we consult with our clients, and the promise that our research partners will continue to innovate to improve our understanding of customer behavior. Perhaps it is this potential that so intrigues us; the optimistic pursuit of ever keener insight so that we understand our customers more deeply to achieve business results and growth.

Certainly, in that vein, TMRE 2017 did not disappoint. In fact, there were many times that it surprised and delighted. Having used the line “I came to find out what I don’t know” several times when others asked why I was attending, I can safely say that while I knew I didn’t know a lot, I was—more often than not—quite intrigued with some of the theses put forward by the keynote speakers as well as the breakout session leaders. Hope indeed lives eternal.

So, back to that quote. The reason I added it (note that it has been attributed to both Jan L. A. van de Snepscheut, a computer scientist, and even Yogi Berra, who really doesn’t need an introduction), is that it precisely gets at the heart of what we want market research to achieve—developing theories to explain practice, but always allowing for practice to feed back into theory.

As one of the first speakers, Dr. Charles Limb, a surgeon, neuroscientist, and musician at the University of California, San Francisco spoke about his research on the neural basis of musical creativity. Theory; practice. Arguably, his main thesis is the importance of improvisation (hence the study of music such as jazz and rap) in creativity, which is vital for all that we do. So, if that theory is not studied, how can we not explain ‘practice’? If we do not study jazz musicians or rappers, who improvise, how can we develop a theory that explains creativity and, eventually, behavior? As my mind had already been blown at this moment, this was a great start to the conference.

A completely full schedule of breakout sessions only served as a source of frustration. When you are a kid in a candy store, having to choose is simply unfair. That being said, a couple of the sessions stood out: one that presented new quantitative questions that get after the notion of implicit interactions between our decision-making selves: emotion and rationale; and, one that reemphasized a different take at focus groups—innovation panels that eschew customers in favor of industry experts, who indeed might better be able to see the forest through the trees.

Both struck me as seemingly straightforward, yet powerful ideas, backed by research, science, and success, that can have a profound impact on uncovering the kind of insights needed to either explain, or better explain, current behavior and preference, or that can lead to breakthrough ideas for products and services that we don’t even know we want or need yet. As I consider each—or even both together—I am reminded again that the ‘holy grail’ pursuit is a journey in and of itself, requiring new thinking (theory), dogged persistence (practice), and the passion to question.

And it is the passion to question that was so wonderfully explored by Malcolm Gladwell, who while he didn’t close the conference with his keynote speech, might as well have done so. The best-selling author was his usual captivating self, simply asked the question: What do you learn when you ask where numbers come from? Implicit in the point is that there is learning, regardless of the findings, because you are asking the question. It goes to the heart of the matter, ensuring that we do not slip into a type of research coma, in which we can find all our answers in research versus being truly passionate about the process—so that we can be dispassionate about the results.

Gladwell used the U.S. News & World Report law school rankings methodology to demonstrate its subjectivity. If, instead, one focuses on the objective measures only, and removes the subjective ones, a different ranking results; one where several of the top schools remain, but other, less renowned schools appear. So, because of the passion to question, we can interrogate the methodology, and thus, draw a different conclusion.

The tools that we possess as researchers have never been better. They allow us to get closer to our customers or, at a minimum, provide pathways to get closer in the future. While I have not attended previous TMRE conferences, the speakers and session leaders were certainly on top of their game. They all contribute to the pursuit of the holy grail—and simply advance our work, understanding and thinking. But I have to admit, I hope we don’t get there. The journey is far too much fun.

Click here for more on Interbrand’s Consumer & Retail Brand Experience practice and here for more Brandspeak columns.

The post Market Research: Theory, Practice and the Passion to Question appeared first on brandchannel:.

[glenmenlow]

Market Research: Theory, Practice and the Passion to Question

The following guest column is by Alfred DuPuy, Executive Director, Strategy & Analytics for Interbrand’s North American Consumer & Retail Brand Experience practice, on The Market Research Event annual conference which was held last month in Orlando, Florida.

  “In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is.”

Most of us in the agency business believe in market research—its efficacy, its seemingly objective platform in proving (or disproving) our hypotheses as we consult with our clients, and the promise that our research partners will continue to innovate to improve our understanding of customer behavior. Perhaps it is this potential that so intrigues us; the optimistic pursuit of ever keener insight so that we understand our customers more deeply to achieve business results and growth.

Certainly, in that vein, TMRE 2017 did not disappoint. In fact, there were many times that it surprised and delighted. Having used the line “I came to find out what I don’t know” several times when others asked why I was attending, I can safely say that while I knew I didn’t know a lot, I was—more often than not—quite intrigued with some of the theses put forward by the keynote speakers as well as the breakout session leaders. Hope indeed lives eternal.

So, back to that quote. The reason I added it (note that it has been attributed to both Jan L. A. van de Snepscheut, a computer scientist, and even Yogi Berra, who really doesn’t need an introduction), is that it precisely gets at the heart of what we want market research to achieve—developing theories to explain practice, but always allowing for practice to feed back into theory.

As one of the first speakers, Dr. Charles Limb, a surgeon, neuroscientist, and musician at the University of California, San Francisco spoke about his research on the neural basis of musical creativity. Theory; practice. Arguably, his main thesis is the importance of improvisation (hence the study of music such as jazz and rap) in creativity, which is vital for all that we do. So, if that theory is not studied, how can we not explain ‘practice’? If we do not study jazz musicians or rappers, who improvise, how can we develop a theory that explains creativity and, eventually, behavior? As my mind had already been blown at this moment, this was a great start to the conference.

A completely full schedule of breakout sessions only served as a source of frustration. When you are a kid in a candy store, having to choose is simply unfair. That being said, a couple of the sessions stood out: one that presented new quantitative questions that get after the notion of implicit interactions between our decision-making selves: emotion and rationale; and, one that reemphasized a different take at focus groups—innovation panels that eschew customers in favor of industry experts, who indeed might better be able to see the forest through the trees.

Both struck me as seemingly straightforward, yet powerful ideas, backed by research, science, and success, that can have a profound impact on uncovering the kind of insights needed to either explain, or better explain, current behavior and preference, or that can lead to breakthrough ideas for products and services that we don’t even know we want or need yet. As I consider each—or even both together—I am reminded again that the ‘holy grail’ pursuit is a journey in and of itself, requiring new thinking (theory), dogged persistence (practice), and the passion to question.

And it is the passion to question that was so wonderfully explored by Malcolm Gladwell, who while he didn’t close the conference with his keynote speech, might as well have done so. The best-selling author was his usual captivating self, simply asked the question: What do you learn when you ask where numbers come from? Implicit in the point is that there is learning, regardless of the findings, because you are asking the question. It goes to the heart of the matter, ensuring that we do not slip into a type of research coma, in which we can find all our answers in research versus being truly passionate about the process—so that we can be dispassionate about the results.

Gladwell used the U.S. News & World Report law school rankings methodology to demonstrate its subjectivity. If, instead, one focuses on the objective measures only, and removes the subjective ones, a different ranking results; one where several of the top schools remain, but other, less renowned schools appear. So, because of the passion to question, we can interrogate the methodology, and thus, draw a different conclusion.

The tools that we possess as researchers have never been better. They allow us to get closer to our customers or, at a minimum, provide pathways to get closer in the future. While I have not attended previous TMRE conferences, the speakers and session leaders were certainly on top of their game. They all contribute to the pursuit of the holy grail—and simply advance our work, understanding and thinking. But I have to admit, I hope we don’t get there. The journey is far too much fun.

Click here for more on Interbrand’s Consumer & Retail Brand Experience practice and here for more Brandspeak columns.

The post Market Research: Theory, Practice and the Passion to Question appeared first on brandchannel:.

from WordPress https://glenmenlow.wordpress.com/2017/11/28/market-research-theory-practice-and-the-passion-to-question/ via IFTTT

[joejstrickl]

Market Research: Theory, Practice and the Passion to Question

The following guest column is by Alfred DuPuy, Executive Director, Strategy & Analytics for Interbrand’s North American Consumer & Retail Brand Experience practice, on The Market Research Event annual conference which was held last month in Orlando, Florida.

  “In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is.”

Most of us in the agency business believe in market research—its efficacy, its seemingly objective platform in proving (or disproving) our hypotheses as we consult with our clients, and the promise that our research partners will continue to innovate to improve our understanding of customer behavior. Perhaps it is this potential that so intrigues us; the optimistic pursuit of ever keener insight so that we understand our customers more deeply to achieve business results and growth.

Certainly, in that vein, TMRE 2017 did not disappoint. In fact, there were many times that it surprised and delighted. Having used the line “I came to find out what I don’t know” several times when others asked why I was attending, I can safely say that while I knew I didn’t know a lot, I was—more often than not—quite intrigued with some of the theses put forward by the keynote speakers as well as the breakout session leaders. Hope indeed lives eternal.

So, back to that quote. The reason I added it (note that it has been attributed to both Jan L. A. van de Snepscheut, a computer scientist, and even Yogi Berra, who really doesn’t need an introduction), is that it precisely gets at the heart of what we want market research to achieve—developing theories to explain practice, but always allowing for practice to feed back into theory.

As one of the first speakers, Dr. Charles Limb, a surgeon, neuroscientist, and musician at the University of California, San Francisco spoke about his research on the neural basis of musical creativity. Theory; practice. Arguably, his main thesis is the importance of improvisation (hence the study of music such as jazz and rap) in creativity, which is vital for all that we do. So, if that theory is not studied, how can we not explain ‘practice’? If we do not study jazz musicians or rappers, who improvise, how can we develop a theory that explains creativity and, eventually, behavior? As my mind had already been blown at this moment, this was a great start to the conference.

A completely full schedule of breakout sessions only served as a source of frustration. When you are a kid in a candy store, having to choose is simply unfair. That being said, a couple of the sessions stood out: one that presented new quantitative questions that get after the notion of implicit interactions between our decision-making selves: emotion and rationale; and, one that reemphasized a different take at focus groups—innovation panels that eschew customers in favor of industry experts, who indeed might better be able to see the forest through the trees.

Both struck me as seemingly straightforward, yet powerful ideas, backed by research, science, and success, that can have a profound impact on uncovering the kind of insights needed to either explain, or better explain, current behavior and preference, or that can lead to breakthrough ideas for products and services that we don’t even know we want or need yet. As I consider each—or even both together—I am reminded again that the ‘holy grail’ pursuit is a journey in and of itself, requiring new thinking (theory), dogged persistence (practice), and the passion to question.

And it is the passion to question that was so wonderfully explored by Malcolm Gladwell, who while he didn’t close the conference with his keynote speech, might as well have done so. The best-selling author was his usual captivating self, simply asked the question: What do you learn when you ask where numbers come from? Implicit in the point is that there is learning, regardless of the findings, because you are asking the question. It goes to the heart of the matter, ensuring that we do not slip into a type of research coma, in which we can find all our answers in research versus being truly passionate about the process—so that we can be dispassionate about the results.

Gladwell used the U.S. News & World Report law school rankings methodology to demonstrate its subjectivity. If, instead, one focuses on the objective measures only, and removes the subjective ones, a different ranking results; one where several of the top schools remain, but other, less renowned schools appear. So, because of the passion to question, we can interrogate the methodology, and thus, draw a different conclusion.

The tools that we possess as researchers have never been better. They allow us to get closer to our customers or, at a minimum, provide pathways to get closer in the future. While I have not attended previous TMRE conferences, the speakers and session leaders were certainly on top of their game. They all contribute to the pursuit of the holy grail—and simply advance our work, understanding and thinking. But I have to admit, I hope we don’t get there. The journey is far too much fun.

Click here for more on Interbrand’s Consumer & Retail Brand Experience practice and here for more Brandspeak columns.

The post Market Research: Theory, Practice and the Passion to Question appeared first on brandchannel:.

[markjsousa]

Market Research: Theory, Practice and the Passion to Question

The following guest column is by Alfred DuPuy, Executive Director, Strategy & Analytics for Interbrand’s North American Consumer & Retail Brand Experience practice, on The Market Research Event annual conference which was held last month in Orlando, Florida.

  “In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is.”

Most of us in the agency business believe in market research—its efficacy, its seemingly objective platform in proving (or disproving) our hypotheses as we consult with our clients, and the promise that our research partners will continue to innovate to improve our understanding of customer behavior. Perhaps it is this potential that so intrigues us; the optimistic pursuit of ever keener insight so that we understand our customers more deeply to achieve business results and growth.

Certainly, in that vein, TMRE 2017 did not disappoint. In fact, there were many times that it surprised and delighted. Having used the line “I came to find out what I don’t know” several times when others asked why I was attending, I can safely say that while I knew I didn’t know a lot, I was—more often than not—quite intrigued with some of the theses put forward by the keynote speakers as well as the breakout session leaders. Hope indeed lives eternal.

So, back to that quote. The reason I added it (note that it has been attributed to both Jan L. A. van de Snepscheut, a computer scientist, and even Yogi Berra, who really doesn’t need an introduction), is that it precisely gets at the heart of what we want market research to achieve—developing theories to explain practice, but always allowing for practice to feed back into theory.

As one of the first speakers, Dr. Charles Limb, a surgeon, neuroscientist, and musician at the University of California, San Francisco spoke about his research on the neural basis of musical creativity. Theory; practice. Arguably, his main thesis is the importance of improvisation (hence the study of music such as jazz and rap) in creativity, which is vital for all that we do. So, if that theory is not studied, how can we not explain ‘practice’? If we do not study jazz musicians or rappers, who improvise, how can we develop a theory that explains creativity and, eventually, behavior? As my mind had already been blown at this moment, this was a great start to the conference.

A completely full schedule of breakout sessions only served as a source of frustration. When you are a kid in a candy store, having to choose is simply unfair. That being said, a couple of the sessions stood out: one that presented new quantitative questions that get after the notion of implicit interactions between our decision-making selves: emotion and rationale; and, one that reemphasized a different take at focus groups—innovation panels that eschew customers in favor of industry experts, who indeed might better be able to see the forest through the trees.

Both struck me as seemingly straightforward, yet powerful ideas, backed by research, science, and success, that can have a profound impact on uncovering the kind of insights needed to either explain, or better explain, current behavior and preference, or that can lead to breakthrough ideas for products and services that we don’t even know we want or need yet. As I consider each—or even both together—I am reminded again that the ‘holy grail’ pursuit is a journey in and of itself, requiring new thinking (theory), dogged persistence (practice), and the passion to question.

And it is the passion to question that was so wonderfully explored by Malcolm Gladwell, who while he didn’t close the conference with his keynote speech, might as well have done so. The best-selling author was his usual captivating self, simply asked the question: What do you learn when you ask where numbers come from? Implicit in the point is that there is learning, regardless of the findings, because you are asking the question. It goes to the heart of the matter, ensuring that we do not slip into a type of research coma, in which we can find all our answers in research versus being truly passionate about the process—so that we can be dispassionate about the results.

Gladwell used the U.S. News & World Report law school rankings methodology to demonstrate its subjectivity. If, instead, one focuses on the objective measures only, and removes the subjective ones, a different ranking results; one where several of the top schools remain, but other, less renowned schools appear. So, because of the passion to question, we can interrogate the methodology, and thus, draw a different conclusion.

The tools that we possess as researchers have never been better. They allow us to get closer to our customers or, at a minimum, provide pathways to get closer in the future. While I have not attended previous TMRE conferences, the speakers and session leaders were certainly on top of their game. They all contribute to the pursuit of the holy grail—and simply advance our work, understanding and thinking. But I have to admit, I hope we don’t get there. The journey is far too much fun.

Click here for more on Interbrand’s Consumer & Retail Brand Experience practice and here for more Brandspeak columns.

The post Market Research: Theory, Practice and the Passion to Question appeared first on brandchannel:.

[badtrash78-blog]

The Lean Startup - A focus on Practices

A few years ago, I worked intensively on a pet project : AirXCell. What was at first some framework and tool I had to write to work on my Master Thesis dedicated to Quantitative Research in finance, became after a few months somewhat my most essential focus in life. Initially it was really intended to be only a tool providing me with a way to have a Graphical User Interface on top of all these smart calculations I was doing in R. After my master thesis, I surprised myself to continue to work on it, improving it a little here and a little there. I kept on doing that until the moment I figured I was dedicated several hours to it every day after my day job. Pretty soon, I figured I was really holding an interesting software and I became convinced I could make something out of it and eventually, why not, start a company.

And of course I did it all wrong. Instead of finding out first if there was a need and a market for it, and then what should I really build to answer this need, I spent hours every day and most of my week-ends developing it further towards what I was convinced was the minimum set of feature it should hold before I actually try to meet some potential customers to tell them about it. So I did that for more than a year and a half until I came close to burn-out and send it all to hell.

Now the project hasn't evolve for three years. The thing is that I just don't want to hear about it anymore. I burnt myself and I am just disgusted about it. Honestly it is pretty likely that at the time of reading this article, the link above is not even reachable anymore. When I think of the amount of time I invested wasted in it, and the fact that even now, three years after, I still just don't want to hear anything about this project anymore, I feel so ashamed. Ashamed that I didn't take a leap backwards, read a few books about startup creation, and maybe, who knows, discover The Lean Startupmovement before. Even now, I still never met any potential customer, any market representative. Even worst: I'm still pretty convinced that there is a need and a market for such a tool. But I'll never know for sure.

Such stories, and even worst, stories of startups burning millions of dollars for nothing in the end, happen every day, still today.

Some years ago, Eric Ries, Steve Blank and others initiated The Lean Startup movement. The Lean Startup is a movement, an inspiration, a set of principles and practices that any entrepreneur initiating a startup would be well advised to follow. Projecting myself into it, I think that if I had read Ries' book before, or even better Blank's book, I would maybe own my own company today, around AirXCell or another product, instead of being disgusted and honestly not considering it for the near future. In addition to giving a pretty important set of principles when it comes to creating and running a startup, The Lean Startup also implies an extended set of Engineering practices, especially software engineering practices.

This article focuses on presenting and detailing these Software Engineering Practices from the Lean Startup Movement since, in the end, I believe they can benefit from any kind company, from initiating startup to well established companies with Software Development Activities. By Software Engineering practices, I mean software development practices of course but not only. Engineering is also about analyzing the features to be implemented, understanding the customer need and building a successful product, not just writing code.

https://www.niceideas.ch/roller2/badtrash/entry/lean-startup-a-focus-on