Over the years, I've consistently seen that both practitioners and their clients are disposed toward one analysis type or the other. Only on the market research agency side have I seen a few individuals who had the ability and interest to merge the two disciplines. These people are the few and far between.

How many sensitive analysts have drawn terrific insights into a market process or product and yet, when faced with the need to place those insights into their actual market context so that they can be "sized" for their likely impact, the same analysts glaze over and become argumentative that the "real meaning" has been lost in the numbers.

The other side of the equation is, of course,the "number tumblers" who can implement a host of complex, comprehensive and (even) relevant quantitative tools. Yet, even when it all seems right, they fail to recognize the importance of the underlying buisness problem and instead wander off into the land of the eigen values.

Perhaps the findings that Bain summarizes are more about the predilictions of the clients than the qualities of the ethnography?

For now, let me say that people often believe that a particular activity they undertake is done for the reasons which everyone says. As an anthropologist, you would know that this is not always the case (indeed, maybe almost never the case) — activities are often undertaken for different purposes or serve different social functions than the reasons stated.

Thus, for example, business planners create financial spreadsheets with the stated aim of forecasting demand, revenues and costs, and working out whether profits can be made. But everyone involved in this process — the business planners, the C-executives, the Board, the investors, the regulators — knows that such figures are meaningless. The future can't be predicted, let along quantified with any accuracy, and any assumptions made are bound to be wrong.

Given that everyone involved knows this, why do people persist with creating, revising, and evaluating business plans, and using them as a basis for investment decisions? The reason is that it is not the numbers themselves that are important here, but rather: the process by which they are found (or invented); the process by which they are challenged; the process by which potential managers of a new venture respond to such challenges; and all the thoughts, discussion and actions which having numbers in front of you may provoke.

The REAL purpose of making business plan forecasts in companies is not to forecast the business, but to provoke a conversation with the relevant stakeholders about the future (or futures), and what actions to take there. Despite what people say in B-school, this is not an objective which only quantitative data can serve.

First, an interesting link here that i was sent last night, chatting about Voice of Customer and trends in usage of consumer ethnography:

http://www.bain.com/management_tools/tools_consumer_ethnography.asp?groupCode=2

It seems that our clients typically want to have their qualitative cakea and chew on their numbers too. Although, all approaches should go in their appropriate place.

For example: its' always a great idea to reveiw forecasting numbers, segmentation data as well as secondary lit before even getting into the process of doing consuemr insight work. I then find that ethnography is an excellent tool to inform more traditional qualitative work. Usually the qual piece is enough to inform really robust concept / product development work. Semiotic analysis also plays a valuable role here in identifying the trajectory of trends that will infrom innovation. It's then the job of another round of qualitative (to do yer gut checks) to inform the "Mack Daddy" quantitative that will validate all of your hypothesis if you have done your work right.

Approaches are often different by client / category. I think the best practitioners of research are those who can adapt hybrid methodologies to their client's problems…having a depth and breadth of new and proven tools in their arsenal. After all, i have heard that often the best "futurists" are great historians. I think that parallels well to consumer research. I also think that researchers should be expert practitioners of innovation and strategy…but i digress….

people are more or less hard-wired in these different ways. they have been – they probably will always be.
the 20th century though – and especially the 20th century organization – favoured the rational folks and numeric methods.

and: qualitative approaches are no thing for the periphery. because new business paradigms like 'brand', 'innovation', 'design' have invited them right into the heart of the organization.

a while ago i wrote a piece outlining an organizational approach to productively dealing with this 'two faced organization'
http://www.sachlichkeit.org/blog/?p=61
enjoy.

btw. grant 'aftermath' is a genius' title

I suppose this model is just one of experience-building. An effective decision maker might start with a underdeveloped qualitative grasp on a topic, and develop that with a healthy amount of quant into a more reliable qualitative understanding.

I think your pick-up that "we don't know what to measure" says a lot. Quantitative research is wonderful until you sprinkle in a bit of qualitative observation — then you discover 'questions' that you didn't know to ask (most qualitative research isn't particularly good at answering questions, after all, but is great for raising newer and more interesting questions).

I've usually relied on both in moderation — qual to understand the nuances and raise the right ideas to the surface, and quant to make sure I've got some semblance of a projectable answer in case real money is involved.