On the topic of synthesizing learnings...you can think of multiple levels a team can do (as you mentioned at the end)
1. Summary (for yourself, bare minimum)
2. Synthesis (for yourself, next level)
3. Synthesis (for others, most altruistic)
I’ve always been disappointed when research teams stop at 1 or 2. And I’ve found this to be most common when you lack a dedicated research function, or if it’s “too” embedded in the team.
when you think about teams that get to level 3, what process / tool / setup allows them to achieve that? a dedicated research function? or is investing in a dedicated research function a byproduct of some philosophy that pushes people to level 3?
My 2c - firstly, depending on the scope of research, hitting level 3 isn't always needed or valuable. That said, I generally feel teams under-weight the potential value of sharing learnings broadly & building a shared corpus of knowledge within their organization.
Centralized research teams tend to naturally serve this intangible need better, given their structure & wider purview. For teams that do their own research, their typically needs to be either an organizational expectation/culture or intrinsic motivation to hit level 3 consistently.
Interestingly when I read the first line, I thought you were using the candidate frame of reference :)
“One of my favorite questions to ask myself after an interview is “did I learn something from this person?”
Feels like the same rules apply either direction!
oh, I hadn't thought of it that way!
On the topic of synthesizing learnings...you can think of multiple levels a team can do (as you mentioned at the end)
1. Summary (for yourself, bare minimum)
2. Synthesis (for yourself, next level)
3. Synthesis (for others, most altruistic)
I’ve always been disappointed when research teams stop at 1 or 2. And I’ve found this to be most common when you lack a dedicated research function, or if it’s “too” embedded in the team.
when you think about teams that get to level 3, what process / tool / setup allows them to achieve that? a dedicated research function? or is investing in a dedicated research function a byproduct of some philosophy that pushes people to level 3?
My 2c - firstly, depending on the scope of research, hitting level 3 isn't always needed or valuable. That said, I generally feel teams under-weight the potential value of sharing learnings broadly & building a shared corpus of knowledge within their organization.
Centralized research teams tend to naturally serve this intangible need better, given their structure & wider purview. For teams that do their own research, their typically needs to be either an organizational expectation/culture or intrinsic motivation to hit level 3 consistently.