Ian Lewis’ “A Road Map to Increased Relevance” in this month’s edition of Quirk’s is a nice complement to the November BCG study and the Research Industry Trends report. By reading these three one gets a well rounded picture of the industry today and a glimpse at the industry in the future.

Of course, the title (specifically the “increased relevance”) communicates volumes. The 2008 MREB Business Alignment Survey that Lewis cites found that only 29% of executives view their MR department as as a strategic partner.

Lewis’ 10 KPIs and my take on their implications:

1. Driven by impact: Here Lewis believes that MR departments need to focus more on the final, successful implementation of their thinking in the marketplace and less on the completion of research projects. Implication: Much like the BCG study, Lewis focuses on transforming the MR function from a tactical, project-based model to a more strategic, consultative model (see #8). In my experience, at least part of the solution is researchers taking a “victory lap” and highlighting how the research paid off in a big way. There are so many success stories, but we are often too busy to tout them.

2. Brings leadership to strategic priorities: There is plenty of important tactical research that must be completed rapidly, but Lewis counsels that we proactively build research programs to tackle the big, strategic issues by identifying the knowledge gaps and working to fill them. Implication: Those of us in leadership roles need to take the time to focus on the bigger picture and proactively address the issues we find there.

3. Creates departmental intellectual property: My favorite point. Find one or two future-focused areas that the company must explore and “surprise and delight senior management” with strong new IP in these spaces. Implication: Strengthen the function’s internal brand by showing what research can do when it can explore frontiers. Here I think strategic foresight tools would be invaluable.

4. Recognized as a business partner: Don’t settle for being an internal vendor. Implication: The project based culture is a problem. We all need to move into a more consultative mode.

5. Innovates: Build research innovation into the staff culture. Implication: Don’t reflexively recommend the old “6 groups, 3 cities” routine. Explore new tools appropriate to the task like MROCs, mobile surveys, deep qual, etc.

6. Integrates and collaborates: Integrate previous knowledge and collaborate with key internal partners. Implication: Build in time for a data audit and collaborative brainstorming. This is a challenge given the workload and demands for greater speed. Perhaps we all need to learn how to say “no” more often and focus on the more critical projects.

7. Develops rich consumer and market insights: Here Lewis tries his hand at a definition of “insight” (“Insight is new knowledge that has the potential to create significant marketplace impact.”) Implication: Does the survey, discussion guide, presentation pass the “so what” test? In regards to defining an “insight” I think the industry needs to do a better job of creating an “insight taxonomy”. For example, one type of insight is the truth we discover while looking for other things. I tend to find these types of “unknown, unknowns” in qual. Another is the “dog that doesn’t bark.” Groupthink conditions the organization to expect a certain consumer response, but when we actually conduct research, we don’t find it. I could keep going, but we need to do a better job defining and classifying insights.

8. Communicates for impact: This is where we all too often fall down. Implication: Lewis’ last point in this section is critical. “Your job doesn’t end when the presentation is given.” The real question is around how we as researchers drive the key points and recommendations home over the course of the next few months. If we can’t, the organization is unlikely to act on the data before inertia and the next crisis hit. Here, I think we need to work on our sound bites and visuals. It is admittedly difficult (and often frustrating) to distill or “dumb down” a rich tapestry of consumer knowledge into a few memorable sound bites. But, we have to be honest with ourselves that our clients don’t want the “extended dance mix.”

9. Optimizes internal and external sourcing: Here I think the industry is fairly strong.

10. Continually raises the bar: Here Lewis shines by offering solid, real-world advice. Look for “quick hits” to demonstrate value, have an “impact log” (case studies of success), build one day at a time.

A very useful and actionable blueprint for transformation.

One final note…

Lewis states that “in recent years consulting companies such as McKinsey have been increasingly retained for major strategic assignments that include a research component.” He believes that this demonstrates that the C-Suite will pay for “research that it believes will have a major impact.” I couldn’t agree more. In my own writing on this issue I have predicted that consulting firms and traditional MR firms will begin to merge by meeting in the middle with good MR firms becoming more consultative and smart consulting firms becoming more data driven and methodologically rigorous.