How can researchers speak to the corporate world?

Posted on December 10, 2009 / 2 Comments

Per Helmersen by lirneasia

The challenges of conveying research results to corporate leaders are substantial. Questions that need to be asked are; how to better communicate the importance of research results to senior managers? Does in fact evidence get used within companies? and if so what type of evidence considered to be evidence? and how are decision with regard to strategy/policy really made?

There is need to understand what counts as evidence and what counts as input. Decisions are often based on gut feelings; stereotypes of customers esp those at the bottom of the pyramid. there are assumptions made on their lifestyles. Decisions are also based on market intel, purchasing patterns, customer demographics, call data records etc.

The reserach firm itself needs to be aware of their competition. There are a lot of flashy new age firms out there who communicate in a language that corporate leaders understand, a lingo that is non academic. Compatibility is a must. One must be able to connect with one’s target market

There is also the need to understand the priorities of corporate decision makers. All telecom provides look to differentiate as a main market strategy. A research needs to speak the tongue of the MNLs. You must ‘speak the gospel the way they understand it’. Senior managers are rarely exposed to cutomers at the bottom of the pyramid.

They need to be told something that they do not know. A research firm must be able to challenge their basic assumptions but also be able to produce concrete evidence to back up their findings. The research firm must go to the corporates because it doesn’t work the other way round. It must find channels to connect with corporate leaders. After getting through to them, it is important to give them some guidelines on how to understand your research. Communicating the value and potential benefit of using your research is a must.

Per Helmersen, Telenor Research and Innovation, Norway

2 Comments

Nibras Bawa
December 10, 2009, 11:48 am
Research is for academic nuts, action is for smart corporate dudes. You’re talking apples and oranges here. Never will the two blend seamlessly. An ex investment analyst myself, i can tell you none of the investments we ever made was ever based on our research. It was based on the instincts of investor. There’s more to corporate decisions than research.

Yes i agree research based decisions sound logical, but they don’t necessarily add value. The keyword here is “VALUE”. Then one could argue they’ve produced invaluable research, but in reality there’s a fundemental difference or a contradiction if you will. That is, academics are socialists, corporates are capitalists. Only language they understand is PROFIT, and profit at any cost. But a researcher is likely to present a more socially acceptable proposition that may not always appeal to corporates driven by value creation for shareholders. When you have two different groups of people with two different agendas, i doubt they can work together.

As for researchers ability to communicate, i’d like to think researchers are good communicators. Its not their inability to communicate that results in ouright rejection of their research findings. If you can’t communicate yourself, you can always hire someone who can communicate in corporate lingo. May be you can use technology as catalyst in this communication process, hopefully that will help bridge the gap. So communication isn’t always a barrier. Even if its a barrier it can always be overcome. Issue is value and relevancy of research, mindset of corporates etc…

Corporate arrogance if not ignorance is another reason why research findings don’t get translated into actions.
Nibras Bawa
December 10, 2009, 11:53 am
Outright rejection that is, not ouright rejection. Typo regretted