[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Our methodology runs counter to what everyone is taught regarding traditional polling and surveys.We have found that having comprehensive in-depth discussions with even just a few experts can reveal vast amounts of information about how market demand is likely to evolve.And for many emerging categories, there just are not a lot of experts available.So our answer to the objection about lack of statistical significance is: "If you want statistical significance, then go interview a large number of people who do not know anything about the subject and you will end up with a completely wrong answer but one that is, nevertheless, statistically significant." We also encourage the interviewer to be an active participant in the discussion and not go through a rigid questionnaire, which also raises concerns by traditional researchers.And our response to this concern is that experts have their own unique perspectives and knowledge base.They may be expert only on a portion of the subject matter.It is up to the interviewer to find out where the expert has relevant input.For innovative companies, understanding the potential of their new products means that you have got to have a sense for what is going to happen in the future, and that means you will need to expand your knowledge beyond majority opinion.When you are trying to understand the future, the key issues are who you talk to and what questions you ask.Finding the right people is critical.Think about the problem from a future perspective in which you have 20:20 hindsight.Suppose some interesting transition in your business has occurred, and after the fact, you are trying to understand it.In most cases, you could find a couple hundred people who were not surprised that the transition took place.They might even tell you why this transition was predictable.In other words, as a result of their experience or involvement, they expected the transitional event.For example, the Internet was around for twenty years before it became a household appliance.While no one could predict that the Internet was going to be the catalyst for the biggest business valuation increase in history, it was possible way back in 1993 after talking to experts with first-hand experience to predict that Internet technology was going to have far-reaching implications onto the future of information technology.Likewise, if you analyzed the potential of the Linux movement before the mass media popularized it, you might not have gotten the absolute growth rate right but you could see its ability to build out its initial important customer constituencies.The key to tracking each of these fast-moving disruptions was to put aside the popular concepts of what was important, find the experts who were doing important work in the early phases, and learn what they had to offer as their explanations about the potential impact their work would have.And then, by coupling their proposed visions of acceptance with a reasonable view of reality, you could judge for yourself whether these were areas that were important to you.These two examples have had, of course, larger impacts than most technology disruptions, but they do serve to make the point that important disruptions do not just happen overnight.There are significant developmental stages to the process, which involve people with special skills and an ability to try applying the underlying technology to a new situation-people that we call experts.Now flip back to the present and envision something that you are interested in doing.It makes sense that again there are quite a few people out there who might help you understand the outcome; you just have to find them.These are the individuals we will be focusing on.They are the experts.They are the early adopters.They are the principals in the companies already active in the space.Together, before you even start down a new path, they can paint a remarkably accurate view of the future.And then there is the parallel issue of what you ask those experts once you start talking to them.Polls and surveys use a restricted question set across all respondents.If you are talking to an expert, the last thing you would want to do is to restrict your question set.In fact, you would want to do just the opposite; you would want the ability to ask deeply probative questions to help develop your insight into how the world may be changing.The best answers come from a relatively small number of very knowledgeable people.A big reason why we are not fans of broad surveys as useful for understanding innovation is that you will get answers to all of your questions, regardless of whether or not the respondents know what they are talking about.Why ask someone about something he or she does not have an informed opinion on? Or worse yet, why ask someone who might have the wrong answers? When it comes to new technologies that are not yet widely known, more often than not, the viewpoint of the majority is not relevant because the majority does not have enough familiarity with the technology to understand its potential.Or worse yet, the majority opinion tends to favor the status quo, feeling that things are good enough today and that changing things is not worth the effort.There is a famous tale of market research blundering that tells of Ford Motor Company surveying its markets, asking what customers wanted, and then building its biggest failure-the Edsel [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]