|
November 2009
|
||||||
 |
  Theory Can Be Great, But Practice Can Be Tough Over the decades that I have been in the business, I have repeatedly, if not constantly, been offended by the extent to which marketing research data are utilized for only one purpose, with the report or presentation then being shoved in a drawer never to be heard from again. While years ago I taught in my seminar series that all pharmaceutical marketing research should be “purpose built,” i.e., designed to answer only the marketing research question currently being explored and presented only in that context, I have since reversed my perspective on this issue. More specifically, I now believe that every drop of information should be wrung out of any pharmaceutical marketing research and resulting data, and that such information should be stored appropriately for use in later applications. Tougher marketing challenges, more constraints on research budgets and myriad other factors have led to this change in my thinking. That having been said, I advocated in last month's Orange Pages module for health care companies to develop knowledge bases, into which their research findings and other data could be poured. When subsequent questions arise, this database can be accessed as an initial, robust and historical source of information on the topic, before incremental dollars are spent to conduct new research that may very closely parallel the work previously done. While this makes a lot of sense, one of our astute readers and a long time friend and colleague of mine who has had extensive experience in using such knowledge bases, was kind enough to e-mail me after reading The Orange Pages and identify some potential hurdles in such an approach. First, she pointed out that designing a knowledge base to hold a wide variety of research data and service a wide variety of research needs would be no small accomplishment. In fact, she noted that the dearth of organizations dedicated to such tasks constitutes a genuine business opportunity for a multidisciplinary think tank with the core competencies necessary to accomplish this task cost-effectively. Second, she pointed out that once such a knowledge base was created, entering pre-existing data would be a challenge. Relatedly, establishing rules such as how long data should be maintained in the knowledge base would have to be agreed upon. Third, on a more ongoing basis my contributor pointed out the obvious consideration that getting data recipients to enter their information into the knowledge base on a regular and timely basis would also be no small challenge. Research professionals already have full-time jobs, and the need to organize their findings into a format suitable for entering into the knowledge base, select appropriate key words, etc., could add substantially to this workload. Finally and most tellingly, our reader noted that most researchers, herself included, would have a difficult time conducting a meta-analysis of information contained in such a knowledge base. Accessing the knowledge base for a few select pieces of information, she observed, would not constitute a great challenge. But accessing multiple sources of information within the knowledge base to form a complete picture of a topic under study would require a special set of core competencies of understanding not only the logistics of this knowledge base, but also the art and science of meta-analysis per se. More specifically, a good meta-analysis does not simply result from pulling fact-bytes at random from the multiple sources in the knowledge base. Rather, it is the product of thoughtful organization, arraying the information into a carefully constructed story that not only answers the research questions at hand, but provides guidance as to the “whys” behind the answers, the relative credibility and currency of the sources from which the information is being drawn, and other information that helps to contextualize the information being provided. Again, very few people are trained in the art and science of meta-analysis, a situation that will need to be rectified if knowledge bases are going to enjoy the use that they deserve. Once meta-analysis becomes a commonly and expertly employed technique, however, the information on which business decisions will be made will not only be much more cost-effectively assembled, but more robust as well. In summary, as always I appreciate feedback from readers, and especially feedback that helps me expand my thinking on a topic. More specifically, this reader’s contribution exemplifies that while it is easy to sit in our ivory tower and make profound recommendations, it is quite another thing to take these recommendations, given the pragmatics of the health care industry, and put them into practice. I sincerely thank her for this contribution, and look forward to further dialogue with other readers that will expand the scope of our thinking. 
Richard B. Vanderveer, Ph.D. CEO, GfK Healthcare 
| |||||
        
|
||||||