Ideally, it should be read in tandem with his January Quirk’s piece titled “Ten keys to increasing the impact of research” and with his comments on this website.

Although I highly recommend that you read (and re-read) Ian’s piece in Research World and draw your own conclusions, there are several things that I think are worth amplifying.

1. His concept of a “management contract” for MR is new to me and seems challenging, but novel.
2. Ian’s emphasis on “future-focused knowledge” that is “above the brand” makes two points simultaneously. First, that MR needs to inhabit a more strategic space with fewer “validation” surveys and second, that MR will naturally over time begin to blend with strategic foresight.
3. His thinking around future leadership in MR is dead on. Until recently mastery of MR meant mastery of a process that yielded reltaively scarce data. Data is now abundant. The process is being automated and simplified. Creativity is the scarce item, not data.
4. His listing of mindsets and skills is useful for anyone in MR tasked with hiring and managing. It’s an excellent shortlist.

“High Impact Research” is an exellent piece, and I highly recommend it.

There was such a great response to his question (Are the kids alright?) that he revised and extended his remarks.

It is worth reading the comments.

I maintain that there is plenty of young talent in the industry, but that these talented folks in their 20s are in fields that are not (and may never be) associated with “market research”, even though these fields may ultimately replace what we call “market research” today. The next generation of market research may never think of themselves as “market researchers.”

This leads me to a much wider point.

If the industry were my client, I would advocate that they rename and rebrand. For a LOT more detail on this, see pages 7 and 8 of my white paper on the future of market research.

It is worth a read.

Summary:

1. Start with a clear purpose in mind. So obvious, but yet so vital considering how infrequently it is done in organizations.
2. Set clear screening criteria for community members. The authors assert that in an “online group” of 100, one person will create content, ten will comment and 89 will simply read. Therefore, quality is critical.
3. Communicate the end goal and parameters of co-creation to keep people focused on task.
4. Create an open and non-competitive environment.
5. Motivate community members based on their affinity, interests and need for creative outlets. Do NOT rely solely on financial incentives.
6. Maintain quality by giving members the tools they need, gauging each member’s contributions, remove the unproductive, and keep the community busy with new tasks, directives and stimuli.

These recommendations seem to generally mesh with others regarding MROC best practice, but feel more specific to innovation. In fact, there is a managed element to these recommendations that is reminiscent of Delphi Panels (though not iterative).

To sum up, Nick Coates, research director at Promise states that, “the mainstreaming of online is good for us (his firm), because we work with online communities. But traditional market research agencies are likely to find the going increasingly tough.”

July’s RSM Research Professionals Survey has all the details.

Key takeaways:

1. 6 in 10 reseach professionals have seen their budgets decline.
2. Budgets were expected to shrink by 3.5% between July and December 2009.