New times, new ways to commission research

The pandemic (or, more specifically, social distancing) had a profound impact on how people and companies work. That much is not news, and it has been widely discussed and analyzed.

What may have gone less noticed are other changes underway that are also substantially changing how business gets done and how clients and suppliers work together.

Public opinion and market research, of course, didn’t escape these effects. But contrary to what many expected at the start of the crisis, most of the changes have been positive. More than that, they’ve benefited both clients and suppliers, making better use of budgets and making research much faster.

The curious thing is that the technology and infrastructure behind these changes already existed and were available to everyone. They only really caught on because of the circumstances of this new moment.

I’m not just talking about the growing shift from face-to-face interviews to online surveys, or focus groups moving online, but about other practices that are taking hold in our market.

Proof of concept

A very relevant example is the proof of concept required in a recent public tender: a test that let the buyer verify, in practice, whether a supplier could actually deliver a certain type of service.

In this case, the test involved conducting 100 to 150 phone interviews within 5 hours, with a team of 4 or 5 interviewers, using a contact list provided by the buyer on the day of the test. The questionnaire was simple, with no more than 10 closed-ended questions, and was sent a day in advance so the supplier could program it properly.

To ensure quality, the phone system had to allow interviews to be monitored live while the questionnaire was being administered, as well as recorded. The proof of concept also required delivering a dashboard with the main results to the buyer within 48 hours, effectively simulating every stage of a quantitative study.

This is an important step forward. It’s a simple, easy-to-implement solution, applied only after suppliers have been shortlisted on price (so it doesn’t affect the usual criteria in public tenders), and it adds a technical criterion that guarantees a minimum level of confidence in the hire.

The briefing livestream

Another interesting initiative we took part in recently was a livestream held by a research buyer with its potential suppliers, focused on a comprehensive brief covering a range of methodologies and techniques.

The goal was to review different aspects of the brief (clarity, feasibility, the conditions required and more) to make sure the procurement would succeed. In this case, the brief was published online, and the buyer also reached out in advance to suppliers it already knew, to gauge their interest in joining the livestream and ensure a minimum number of firms would attend.

The buyer gained a lot from this: it learned early on how much interest the project had generated and what type and size of suppliers it could count on, and could change course if needed. The session also cleared up questions, which led to a better-written brief and avoided unpleasant surprises, from technical issues to formal challenges that could have delayed the process even further.

Suggestions on the best formats, techniques and even target audiences were another plus, leading to further changes to the brief or simply confirming that the process was on the right track. Because the livestream was public and open to every potential bidder, the process was transparent, and the buyer was to some extent protected against criticism, not least because everyone had been given a chance to weigh in.

Virtual meetings and faster contact

Another positive change we’ve seen day to day is a greater willingness to hold meetings to track progress and clarify questions on research projects.

What used to be fairly complicated (lining up supplier and client calendars, travel, countless meetings on both sides, commuting time) seems to have become much simpler. Quick questions over WhatsApp, video calls on various platforms scheduled an hour or two ahead, being able to see and talk to each other almost anytime, and clearing up doubts as soon as they come up have, in a way, brought people closer. This has made the relationship more focused, productive and dynamic, and it has done a lot to speed up research delivery.

Presenting results online

At first, presenting results in virtual meetings felt awkward (it’s harder to read people’s reactions or sense how the information is landing, and nobody was used to it), but the fact is that it’s here to stay.

Once the initial awkwardness wore off, the advantages became clearer: besides being more practical and less expensive, the format offers the client other benefits that are hard to ignore.

One is that it’s easier to hold the audience’s attention, since nothing else in a virtual meeting competes for it, such as other people in the room or side conversations. The chat also keeps questions organized: they tend to be more focused (because they have to be typed out) and, at the same time, they deepen the discussion, since everyone can see them.

But the most interesting part of presenting results online is the ability to record the session. That was technically possible before but rarely done, simply because it wasn’t practical. Today, with a single click, the presentation and results are available to everyone, and the recording can be shared with other teams inside the client organization at no extra cost.