New Case Study: 1920’s Era Town

We always enjoy our successful engagements with our clients, but too often we can’t share our work.  So we get even more excited when we have the opportunity to share our work, along with how it benefited a client.

Our latest case study is about a market feasibility study Corona conducted for a 1920’s Era Town concept.  View the case study here, including more on the concept, how Corona helped the founder analyze the feasibility, and the results.

Be sure to check out our other case studies and testimonials too.


Asking the “right” people is half the challenge

200395121-001We’ve been blogging a lot lately about potential problem areas for research, evaluation, and strategy. In thinking about research specifically, making sure you can trust results often boils down to these three points:

  1. Ask the right questions;
  2. Of the right people; and
  3. Analyze the data correctly

As Kevin pointed out in a blog nearly a year ago, #2 is often the crux.  When I say, “of the right people,” I am referring to making sure who you are including in your research represents who you want to study.  Deceptively simple, but there are many examples of research gone awry due to poor sampling.

So, how do you find the right people?

Ideally, you have access to a source of contacts (e.g., all mailing addresses for a geography of interest, email addresses for all members, etc.) and then randomly sample from that source (the “random” part being crucial as it is what allows you later to interpret the results for the overall, larger population).  However, those sources don’t always exist and a purely random sample isn’t possible.  Regardless, here are three steps you can take to ensure a good quality sample:

  1. Don’t let just anyone participate in the research.  As tempting as it is to just email out a link or post a survey on Facebook, you can’t be sure who is actually taking the survey (or how many times they took it).  While these forms of feedback can provide some useful feedback, it cannot be used to say “my audience overall thinks X”.  The fix: Limit access through custom links, personalized invites, and/or passwords.
  2. Respondents should represent your audience. This may sound obvious, but having your respondents truly match your overall audience (e.g., customers, members, etc.) can get tricky.  For example, some groups may be more likely to respond to a survey (e.g., females and older persons are often more likely to take a survey, leaving young males under represented). Similarly, very satisfied or dissatisfied customers may be more likely to voice an opinion, than those who are indifferent or least more passive. The fix: Use proper incentives up front to motivate all potential respondents, screen respondents to make sure they are who you think they are, and statistically weight the results on the backend to help overcome response bias.
  3. Ensure  you have enough coverage.  Coverage refers to the proportion of everyone in your population or audience that you can reach.  For example, if you have contact information for 50% of your customers, then your coverage would only be 50%.  This may or may not be a big deal – it will depend on whether those you can reach are different from those you cannot.  A very real-world example of this is telephone surveys.  The coverage of the general population via landline phones is declining rapidly now nearing only half; more importantly, the type of person you get via landline vs. a cell phone survey is very different.  The fix: The higher the coverage the better.  When you can only reach a small proportion via one mode of research, consider using multiple modes (e.g., online and mail) or look for a better source of contacts.  One general rule we often use is that if we have at least 80% coverage of a population, we’re probably ok, but always ask yourself, “Who would I be missing?”

Sometimes tradeoffs have to be made, and that can be ok when the alternative isn’t feasible.  However, at least being aware of tradeoffs is helpful and can be informative when interpreting results later.  Books have been written on survey sampling, but these initial steps will have you headed down the correct path.

Have questions? Please contact us.  We would be happy to help you reach the “right” people for your research.


The cautionary tale of 5 scary strategic planning mistakes: Part V – Don’t get too tuckered out

Momentum of strategic planThe scariest preposition is creating a strategic plan that inevitably doesn’t get implemented. Strategic plans are worth their weight in gold when they become a blueprint for future progress. As my final word to the wise, I advise leaders undertaking the strategic planning process to hold onto the momentum created by the planning process to carry them through the first years of implementation (the hard part).

I’ve long said that an organization lives in a parallel universe when engaged in strategic planning as you have to remain attentive to the present while you focus on the future. The board’s approval of the completed plan is only the beginning. If there isn’t energy and enthusiasm after the planning process, then you know the next few years of implementation are going to feel l-o-n-g. It is only a matter of time before some combination of pitfalls 1-4 (link) above sneak into the day to day.

This blog concludes my five part series about the scary tales of strategic planning. I encourage every leader to consider these lessons as they devote themselves to being strategic. Avoid these pitfalls and many others by trusting an expert to be your strategic consultant. Years of experience have given me the foresight to help my clients be successful in giving their organization a truly strategic plan.

Miss the first four blogs in this series? Feel free to start at the beginning, or pick the topic that most resonates with you.

 

The cautionary tale of 5 scary strategic planning mistakes.

Part I – Don’t self-sabotage

Part II – Avoid side swipes

Part III – Dismiss unrealistic expectations

Part IV – Be willing to say “no”


Who you gonna call?

grant evaluationWith Halloween approaching, we are writing about scary things for Corona’s blog. This got thinking about some of the scary things that we help to make less scary.  Think of us as the people who check under the bed for monsters, turn on lights in dark corners, bring our proton packs and capture the ectoplasmic entities … wait, that last one’s the Ghostbusters.  But you get the idea.

As an evaluator I find that evaluators often have a scary reputation.  There is a great fear that evaluators will conclude your programs aren’t working and that will be the end of funding and the death of your programs.  In reality, a good evaluator can be an asset to your programs (a fear-buster, if you will) in a number of ways:

  1. Direction out of the darkness.  Things go wrong … that’s life.  Evaluation can help figure out why and provide guidance on turning it around before it’s too late.  Maybe implementation wasn’t consistent, maybe some outcome measures were misunderstood by participants (see below), maybe there’s a missing step in getting from A to B.  Evaluators have a framework for systematically assessing how everything is working and pinpointing problems quickly and efficiently so you can address them and move forward.
  2. Banisher of bad measures.  A good evaluator will make sure you have measures of immediate, achievable goals (as well as measures of the loftier impacts you hope to bring about down the road), and that your measures are measuring what you want (e.g., questions that are not confusing for participants or being misunderstood and answered as the opposite of what was intended).
  3. Conqueror of math.  Some people (like us) love the logic and math and analysis of it all.  Others, not so much.  If you’re one of the math lovers, it’s nice to have an evaluation partner to get excited about the numbers with you, handle the legwork for calculating new things you’ve dreamed up, and generally provide an extra set of hands for you.  If you’re not so into math, it’s nice to be able to pass that piece off to an evaluator who can roll everything up, explain it in plain language, and help craft those grant application pieces and reports to funders that you dread.  In either case, having some extra help from good, smart people who are engaged in your work is never a bad thing, right?

This fall, don’t let the scary things get in your way.  Call in some support.


The cautionary tale of 5 scary strategic planning mistakes: Part IV – Be willing to say “no”

E006351With 14 years of experience helping organizations create strategic plans at Corona, I’ve seen many stumbles. This quarter, our firm is authoring content about “what can go wrong” in our work. On this topic, I have created a five part blog series to help leaders avoid the common mishaps I’ve witnessed in the past. My fourth lesson to leaders is: be willing to say no.

A strategy must be focused by design. Period. The best strategy sets a recognizable stake in the ground. When a strategy is too broad or too vague, then an organization struggles to devote resources to the appropriate priorities. For example, you may need to do some fence mending with recalcitrant staffers who otherwise aren’t on-board with the new direction. Too often, the experience of strategic plan implementation is muddied by he said/she said differences in view. “Hey, I thought we were going to do X. What do you mean we are doing Y.” Then presto, you’ve got a stalemate. Unwilling to admit the error, we put the plan on the proverbial shelf while we sheepishly blame the plan for a lack of results.

Creating a strategic plan takes a leader who can avoid stalemate of the organization’s direction by addressing differences proactively. Building consensus is key to creating a plan that is workable. The next blog (link) in the series will address what happens when you don’t say “no” and the planning process becomes an exhausting feat.

Read the other blogs in my five part series.

The cautionary tale of 5 scary strategic planning mistakes.

Part I – Don’t self-sabotage

Part II – Avoid side swipes

Part III – Dismiss unrealistic expectations

Part V – Don’t get too tuckered out


The cautionary tale of 5 scary strategic planning mistakes: Part III – Dismiss unrealistic expectations

Part III – Dismiss unrealistic expectations 

hercules and the bullThis quarter, the Corona team is blogging about “what can go wrong”. The theme inspired me to write a five part series about the common hazards I’ve witnessed in the strategic planning process. In review, avoid self-sabotage  and side swipes. Lesson number three: I advise clients start the process with realistic expectations.

Strategic planning processes go wrong when they are expected to achieve Herculean feats that actually have nothing to do with the real work of setting strategy. Those feats are most often associated with the people side of the organization and its culture. The process of setting strategy must to be concerned with the external environment – most notably with market, customer, industry and macro conditions. Attending to the people side is important too, but don’t expect a strategic planning process to serve as the primary intervention for organizational change. If you need to align around a common vision and guiding principles then commit to doing that philosophical work. But please don’t confuse that with the work required to set a true strategy.

If you find yourself grasping for unrealistic expectations, you will likely face conundrum number four: the inability to say “no”. Stay tuned for part four (link) of my series.

Read the other blogs in my five part series.

The cautionary tale of 5 scary strategic planning mistakes.

Part I – Don’t self-sabotage

Part II – Avoid side swipes

Part IV – Be willing to say “no”

Part V – Don’t get too tuckered out


Begin with the end in mind

Missed the targetWhen we think about the pitfalls of conducting market research, our minds tend to focus on all of the mistakes you can make when collecting data or analyzing the results.  You can find other posts on this blog, for example, that discuss why it is important to collect data in a way that can be generalized to the entire universe being studied, why intentions do not necessarily translate into actions, and why correlation does not equate to causation.

But even if you are diligent about ensuring that your overall methodology is solid, there is another oversight that can potentially cause even more problems in your research: conducting research that isn’t actionable.

During my time with a previous employer, we once had an international gear and apparel brand contact us (we’ll call them “Brand X” for confidentiality) that had just completed a large-scale segmentation of their customers through another vendor.  While that vendor was qualified to do the work, the segmentation analysis had resulted in 12 market segments.  There’s nothing inherently wrong with that from a methodological perspective,  but anyone charged with marketing products will agree that it’s incredibly difficult to split your focus so many directions.  If they tried to do so, they would likely dilute their overall messaging to the point that it simply wasn’t cohesive.

Brand X asked us to try and salvage the project by taking the initial results and refining them into a more manageable set of segments for Brand X in the future.  We were able to help, but in the end, the study took roughly 50% more time and resources to complete because they weren’t specific up front about what they were looking to accomplish with the segmentation and the constraints that would need to be in place for it to be usable.

At Corona, we are always mindful of this potential blunder, so we encourage our clients to think not only about how to conduct the research, but also why the research is being conducted.  We often set 3-5 major goals for the research up front that can be used to vet any other survey questions or focus group topics in order to ensure the end result will meet the needs for which the research was undertaken in the first place.  By understanding how you will be able to use the results, you can design research in a way that will ensure the results will allow you to make those tough decisions in the end.


The cautionary tale of 5 scary strategic planning mistakes: Part II – Avoid side swipes

Side Swipe, strategic plan pitfallsMy blog series is chronicling the five major pitfalls of strategic planning. With years of experience under my belt leading strategic planning efforts, I’ve seen it all. When advising leaders, I warn them to watch out for “side swipes”. What is a “side swipe” you ask?

Your strategic planning process is in motion and out of nowhere comes another priority that collides with the strategy setting process. Akin to being side swiped on the highway, you and your vehicle are now out of commission.  Not only have you lost momentum unexpectedly as you deal with the shock from the event, now you have to turn your attention to the source of the collision. Perhaps it’s a slow-brewing challenge that’s morphed into a pressing emergency. Or, your organization is experiencing high turnover in key positions on staff or the board. Or, the always successful special event is turning into a dud. Whatever the case, you now must deal with a pressing issue that distracts you from creating strategic direction.

Before beginning the strategic planning process, I recommend identifying potential “slow brewing” challenges, avoiding major events during the strategic planning timeline, and starting your process with a strong leadership team in place. No matter how prepared you are, you can be “side swiped” at any time. Being aware of this pitfall is the first step to preventing it from hijacking your planning process.

Read the other blogs in my five part series.

 

The cautionary tale of 5 scary strategic planning mistakes.

Part I – Don’t self-sabotage

Part III – Dismiss unrealistic expectations

Part IV – Be willing to say “no

Part V – Don’t get too tuckered out


The cautionary tale of 5 scary strategic planning mistakes; Part I: Don’t self-sabotage

CEO - Chief Strategy OfficerWhen pitching a new client, I’m often asked to reflect on “what went wrong” with another strategic planning process. Perhaps the prospective client is familiar with the other organization either through professional relationships or reputation. Or quite simply, they are curious to know if their own experiences mirror those of other leaders. This quarter, the Corona team is blogging about “what can go wrong”.  With that motivation, I have presented a few of the more gruesome pitfalls to avoid. Lesson number one: don’t self-sabotage your own planning effort.

Let’s face it, as leaders we sometimes get in our own way. Perhaps you find yourself distracted by other pressing matters or realize you are simply going through the motions of (yet another) strategic planning effort. While it is possible to delegate key components of the process, such as process management and idea generation, the CEO is ultimately the chief strategist.

Distracted leadership leaves the process wide open to the other four pitfalls of the planning process. The next four blogs in my series will tell the cautionary tales I’ve learned through a multitude of strategic planning engagements. Use the series to increase awareness of the common obstacles leaders face and avoid making similar mistakes in your own planning process.

Read the other blogs in my five part series, The cautionary tale of 5 scary strategic planning mistakes.

Part II – Avoid side swipes

Part III – Dismiss unrealistic expectations

Part IV – Be willing to say “no”

Part V – Don’t get too tuckered out


Millionaires at McDonalds

Statistical Outliers

When Donald Trump walks into a McDonalds, the average patron in that restaurant becomes a millionaire. Is this true?  With a few calculations and assumptions, we can find out.

Forbes Magazine estimates that Mr. Trump is worth $3.9 billion (as of July, 2014).  We will assume 70 million people eat at McDonalds daily and that there are 35,000 restaurants worldwide.  If it takes 15 minutes to pick up an order, then there are about 21 customers in every restaurant at one time…on average.  Let’s assume that every patron, aside from Mr. Trump, has a net worth of $45,000 (the median American net worth is $44,900). Based on these figures, we can calculate the average net worth of these customers.

trump

 

The result?  The average customer at that McDonalds is worth $177 million. In fact, there could be up to 4,000 customers crammed into that restaurant with Mr. Trump and the average patron would still be a millionaire. Does this finding resonate with you?  It smells a little fishy to me—or is that the day-old Filet-O-Fish?

The fact is, when Mr. Trump walked through that grease-stained door, the average customer became a multi-millionaire. However, should we assume that all customers at this McDonalds are very wealthy? Probably not. The trouble with the above calculation (besides the extremely low probability that Donald Trump would ever walk into a McDonalds), is that Mr. Trump’s net worth is an outlier—his extreme wealth is very different from the rest of the population, and adding him to the pool of all customers has a huge influence on the average net worth.  It is like adding a bulldozer to your team while playing tug-of-war; one additional player (with the capacity to pull 100,000 pounds) makes a huge difference.

When analyzing data, how can we consider and/or adjust for the influence of outliers?  Below, I outline two steps and three subsequent options.

Step 1: Outlier detection

BoxplotThe first step one should take is to look at the data graphically. Most statistical software programs can produce boxplots (also known as box-and-whisker plots) that display the median (mid-point) and inter-quartile range (the points in the middle 50% of the dataset), as well as mathematically identify outliers based on pre-set criteria. The boxplot below represents years lived at current residents for a survey we recently completed, it displays the median (the thick line), quartiles (the top and bottom of the box), and variance (the top and bottom lines at the end of the dashed line).  The six points above the top line are identified as outliers because they are greater than 1.5 times the interquartile range plus the upper quartile—a simple calculation that can be completed by hand or by using a statistical software package.

Step 2: Investigate outliers

The second step is to investigate each outlier and try to determine what may have caused the extreme point.  Was there a simple data-entry error, a misunderstanding of the units of measure (e.g., did an answer represent months rather than years), or was the response clearly insincere? When the outlier is clearly the result of a data-entry or measurement error, it is easily fixed.  However, outliers are often not easily explainable.  If you have a few head-scratchers, what should you do?

Option 1: Retain the outlier(s) and do not change your analysis

Extreme data are not necessarily “bad” data.  Some people have extreme opinions, needs, or behaviors; if the goal of research is to produce the most accurate estimate of a population, then their feedback should help improve the accuracy of results. However, if you plan to conduct statistical tests, such as determining if there is a reliable difference between two means, then keep in mind that the outliers may substantially increase the difference in variance between the two groups. Generally, this approach is defendable, although you might consider adding a footnote mentioning the uncertainty of some data.

Option 2: Retain the outlier(s) and take a different approach to analysis

You might find yourself in a situation where you want to retain all unexplainable outliers, but you want to report a statistic that is not strongly influenced by these outliers.  In this case, consider calculating, analyzing, and reporting a median rather than an average (i.e., mean).  A median is the mid-point of a dataset, where half of respondents reported a value above the median and half of them reported a value below it.  Because we calculate medians based on the rank and order of data points rather than their aggregation, medians values are more stable and less likely to swing up or down due to outliers.  You can still conduct statistical tests using medians instead of means, but typically, these tests are not as robust at the equivalent mean tests.

Option 3: Remove the outlier(s)

The third option you might consider is removing the outliers from the dataset.  Doing so has some advantages, but possibly some very serious consequences.  Again, outliers are not necessarily bad data, so removal of outliers should only be done with strong justification.  For example, it might be justifiable to remove outliers when the outliers appear to come from a different population than the one of interest in the research, although it is typically best to create population bounds during the project design process rather than during data analysis.

As we saw in the case of Donald Trump walking into a McDonalds and turning everyone into a multi-millionaire, one or a few outliers can have a dramatic influence over results, specifically population averages.  If you have a dataset that you would like to analyze, consider taking the time to identify outliers and their contexts.  By carefully considering how outliers might influence your results, you can save yourself a lot of time and head scratching.  Of course, feel free to give us a call if you would like us to collect, analyze, or report on any data.