Breakthrough innovations can appear to be the result of some inexplicable phenomenon that is realized when the right people get together to “think big.” But the reality is that these events are less about luck and more about logic. Not to completely dismiss the value of human emotions and grit, but we can actually explain any success story by objectively reviewing the conditions leading up to success, by assessing indisputable facts. From this grounded perspective, we can see how important it is for executives to be thirsty for facts and skeptical about opinions.
But this is where terminology often trips us up, because facts aren’t synonymous with data, and data isn’t synonymous with truth. For example, people often view “qualities” as “opinions,” and leave qualitative information out of the pool of decision-influencing data in favor of quantitative information. This is a precarious correlation that has pushed many businesses away from informing their decisions with a balance of quantitative and qualitative data.
We tend to rely on standard, quantitative data that is readily available.
We leverage data and analytics models to establish forward-looking business cases that are predictive and realizable. Ranging in complexity, these models help us assess a range of factors such as supply chain risk and the potential value of human capital or technology investments. But in our attempts to conduct due diligence and minimize the company’s surface area of risk, we tend to rely mostly on the data points that are recognized as industry “best practices,” and this often means we’re merely relying on the data points that are readily available.
What about the data we don’t have? Just because a certain set of data is out of sight, does this mean it should actually be out of mind? Of course not. We need to know what we don’t know so we can position a business to thrive at the frontier of change, instead of lagging behind it.
The world is changing so fast, we must seek new categories of data.
Market conditions are changing so fast, accelerated by the explosive and unrelenting pace of technological development, that we cannot go on being appeased by traditional categories of information. And perhaps, more specifically, it is the human condition, which is transforming and recasting at such a high frequency, that we need to understand with more precision. Instead of relying on conventional generalizations (which are often opinions) that summarize this human condition, we should bring social scientists into the fold to support the development of strategy that is better-suited to stand the test of today’s circumstances. Scientists like anthropologists, sociologists, economists, and historians bring profound knowledge of their discipline’s discoveries and the methods required to map scientific findings to company objectives. If we’re looking to get ahead of change, to truly be prepared for the future, we need these experts to assess how contemporary conditions stand to alter the trendline.
Combined with traditional sources of proprietary and third-party data, this custom-tailored “social” information provides business leaders with a complete view of the commercial environment. This results in business strategies that age well over time because they rely on traditional financial and quantitative data which is supplemented with information that explains the way people are expected to interact in commercial situations, and the business itself.
Social scientists ask questions that go deeper, to create entirely new data points that help businesses get ahead of change, ready for the future.
How would the presence of an increasingly health-conscious middle class impact the availability of nutrient-dense foods for lower-income people? How will the seemingly infinite supply of information that is available online impact a buyer’s assessment of any incremental information they are exposed to? How does this impact the way they compare similar products from different vendors? Is up-trending software-as-a-service consumption an antecedent to pay-per-use consumption, and should businesses in certain industries plan on shifting their models to pay-per-use consumption sooner rather than later? These are all questions that social scientists are well-equipped to answer, and although some of the world’s largest corporations are actively looking to add these skillsets to their ranks, not all business leaders get it.
I think social science will be a critical factor for success in tomorrow’s markets. Its absence will be observed at companies that waste time and miss opportunities, while its presence will be observed at companies that buzz with good energy and exploit opportunities that are gone before you see them in the headlines.