needs and solutions that came from their research, except that they found a unique need in each of their subjects and designed a series of individualized solutions. Naively (and understandably), they didn’t see that patterns across multiple individuals were the more realistic opportunities to address with their solutions.

But how do we know that something we’ve found is important? How can we see if it is actionable, relevant, or insightful? For market researchers the insight is the coin of the realm. The word “insight” refers specifically to the output of a research process, less so to the dictionary definition—“the act or result of apprehending the inner nature of things or of seeing intuitively.” Designers might speak about needs or opportunities in the same way a market researcher refers to insights.

At a recent presentation by the agency Directions Research, we were reminded that “insight is in the eye of the beholder, and the beholder is your client” and that if the insight isn’t new or isn’t needed, then it isn’t an insight. I have a little trouble with this definition. If we come to our clients with a framework, recommendation, opportunity, need, or (even) insight and the response is, “Well, we already knew that,” then we might want to work further with them to understand what has stopped them from acting on it. Alternatively, if the response is, “We don’t care about that—this insight isn’t an insight because it’s not needed,” we haven’t done a good enough job of explaining the critical implications of what we are reporting. The insight is embedded in the context of the organization, their

history, and their ability or willingness to take action.

What we need in order to get to these patterns across multiple data points is permission to be confused. Confusion is part of the process. Jakob Nielsen’s famous “Five Users Is Enough” graphic ( http://www.useit.com/ alertbox/ 20000319.html) shows that in usability testing there are more results for more users (up to a point of diminishing returns). But imagine graphing a more divergent process such as contextual research. Although the trend would be similar, if we zoomed in close enough, we wouldn’t see a smooth line, but a jagged progression as more data challenges previous conclusions and opens up new ones. If you remember your university physics course (and who among us doesn’t?) it’s similar to the relationship between Einsteinian and Newtonian physics: You wouldn’t see the Einsteinian effects unless you were able to look really close at that bowling ball dropped off the Leaning Tower of Pisa. But if you never took university physics, I should explain that Newton described a number of simple equations that captured the mathematical relationships between factors like force, mass, and acceleration. Much later Einstein theorized that (among other things) as objects increased in speed (heading toward the speed of light), their length increased along the direction of travel. When we look at incredibly high speeds, we presumably can see the effects Einstein described, but for most of what any of us can experience here on Earth, the model that Newton proved holds true (enough). So perhaps with the creative pro-

cess of converging on an insight from a certain distance, it looks like the more people you look at, the more you know. But if you zoom into a different point along that process, you can see that we are probably zigging and zagging in a divergent fashion.

It’s worth being reminded from time to time that finding patterns and insights is an inherently creative process. You have to live with your data in order to get to a point where you can start to make sense of it anew. Closed-ended methodologies like focus groups and usability testing often involve a sequence of moving from one facility in a city to another facility in another city and finally delivering a report the day after returning home. And that may work for those approaches, but not every sort of insight can happen without time for reflection and gestation. Developing these insights is an act of creation, production, and generation. We are making a new thing: perhaps a new product, or service, or communication, or perhaps the new knowledge that will specifically inform the rest of the process of making a new product, service or communication. And we need to give ourselves permission to take time— just enough time—to nurture this necessary creative act.

 

ABOUT ThE AUThOr Steve is the founder of Portigal Consulting, a boutique agency that helps companies discover and act on new insights about themselves and their customers. He is an accomplished instructor and public speaker, and an avid photographer who curates a Museum of Foreign Grocery Products in his home. Steve blogs regularly for All This ChittahChattah, at www.portigal.com/blog.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without the fee, provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage, and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on services or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. © ACM 1072-5220/08/0700 $5.00

July + August 2008