As I was preparing to launch Morsights, I spent quite a bit of time updating myself on some of the latest trends in the Insights field. There is no doubt that the role of Insights Director has changed from one of managing suppliers to one of managing data. One of the many manifestations of this change is in the explosion of firms promising to automate research processes.

What is Automation?

In some respects, the trend toward automation is just an evolution of the DIY research trend. Survey Monkey and similar online research tools made it easy for anyone to program an online survey, no coding experience required. From this beginning, it’s easy to see how question phrasing, sampling, report production and even statistical analysis would be the next candidates for automation. This is work that previous generations of Insights Directors would have outsourced to a full-service research firm.

Now, firms such as Zappi, GutCheck and Conjoint.ly have introduced automated, online tools for concept testing, price elasticity testing, advertising testing, prediction modeling, and more. Instead of outsourcing the work, the Insights Director simply needs to select from a menu of choices and watch their email box for a report. 

What is the appeal of Automation?

Developers of automated research tools typically make two claims regarding their tools. The first claim of is greater agility. “Test early, test often” is a phrase one often hears when talking with vendors of automated research tools. Having introduced automated idea screening and TV ad testing to Serta Simmons Bedding, I can personally verify that automated research is faster, simpler, and cheaper than outsourcing. When compared to the alternative of using a DIY survey, it’s faster, simpler, and, sometimes, even cheaper.

The second claim heard from developers of automated research tools is that by automating “mundane tasks” their tools will free up time for the Insights team to conduct deeper analyses or to build better stories. In other words, a promise of better research. For the client-side Insights Director this claim is problematic because it’s validity depends upon the alternative.

If the alternative is utilizing a DIY tool then the claim of time efficiencies may actually be valid. An Insights team member who previously had been writing surveys or building charts might now be in a position to reallocate that time toward looking for interrelationships in the data or perfecting the internal presentation. However, this assumes the person is qualified. 

If, however, the alternative is outsourcing then the claim falls apart. When outsourcing a project to a full-service vendor, the Insights Director is not just outsourcing mundane tasks they are also hiring a team of vetted, knowledgeable analysts and storytellers. In other words, a full array of expertise that may not exist internally.

What is the lesson here?

The lesson I’ve learned is that before choosing to automate a research process, the Insights Director must carefully consider the level of expertise of their team. If the team has sufficient analytical knowledge and ability to translate insights into memorable stories then automating a research project may be something worth exploring. If that level of expertise is not in-house then using an automated research tool may be faster, simpler and cheaper, but not necessarily better. In it’s current form, automation is a poor substitute for expertise.