When a client presents me with a problem or an opportunity to be resolved through strategic research, I try to express an action speech that is based on three fundamental pillars that should be the basis for whether or not I can be awarded a project.
1. High quality, which entails the excellence of the service through the level of reflection and conclusive discourse that is articulated based on the results of the research.
2. Analytical speed, we live in a society where the demand for immediacy of information for decision making is high and therefore an immediacy of results is demanded, which is often vital for the strategic development of the company.
3. Low budget, an economic offer sufficiently adjusted within the budget planning for market research.
The implicit reality of a project means that in reality we can only offer the combination of two of these three management axes.
Any other representation of being able to offer the three pillars at the same time is a mere fallacy since the combination of obtaining information and analyzing it makes it unfeasible that the circumstance for this can arise, obviously there are always honorable exceptions but I would doubt anyone who offered me the three paradigms without hesitation.
From the “client” side the situation is clear and unequivocal, I want all 3!!!, most of the time giving importance to the third element.
It is also true that new technologies are helping to partially break this “2 out of 3” barrier, although the use of online interviews is mainly subscribed to more operational research where the duration of the questionnaire does not exceed 10- 15 minutes and where Internet penetration is broad enough to not have “capture” problems.
What combination would you choose?
