In god we trust. Everyone else we measure.

I'm a big believer in collecting usage data but most people don't share the same enthusiasm. They're not to blame. Daily grind and ops takes away so much of their time and energy that it's easy to get blindsided by it. Ops starts to seem like the great alpha of everything and terms like big data and analytics sound like jargon and theory. A classic trap of success - what got us here will get us there as well. Not likely.

Let me explain.

Data, especially in India, is associated with sales figures and page visits (in case of web businesses). India is such a big country that even an average product can succeed and get big numbers. At the risk of oversimplification, I would say that if India were the size of Israel or Thailand then more than half of businesses would have failed in year one itself. The reason is simple : when you have lesser number of first adopters to market to then the focus usually lands in the lap of innovation and actual usefulness. Things starts failing when younger companies starts stepping on your toes and reach out to the cake in your hand. This is more important with B2C companies which might have large permutation and combinations of product engagement and interactions.

Sales data is always essential but's its only an effect. Until we start focusing on the cause which is visible through behavior and engagement, the daily grind will continue. One day when a company starts running out of money to keep selling to new people, a realization will dawn that we need to understand how the product is  actually being used and if it really solves a  task that the consumer needs to get done.  

This brings us to our credo- YOU CANNOT IMPROVE AND MANAGE WHAT YOU DON'T MEASURE.
Sales data flows in when people buy products, products sell only when they are worth using. People use the products only if they help doing an existing job faster and more efficiently. And the only way to know that is to listen to data that shouts out consumer behavior and the way the product is actually being used. You might have a growth of 50% each quarter but if your churn is 70% then it's just not sustainable (please exclude products like baby diapers!) This blog's message is to strike balance between sales and behavior and look forward to behavioral and engagement data with the same cool friction of anticipation as sales.

Firstly, Start liking it.CXO's should establish a bent of mid and get into the habit of assigning importance to real consumer engagement data. Our belief of what consumers will appreciate and what consumer will actually appreciate are almost always different. The fact might not be true in the case of new products and blue ocean markets but is a certainty as far as product innovation, pivots and continuous improvements are concerned.

Secondly, Decide what to get. Every decision that changes the product in someway should be attached to a success metric. For instance, we would consider a product UI (User Interface) and UX (User experience) overhaul successful if it increases engagement and online chatter by at least 30% within 3 months. Else we pivot again. This might not increase immediate sales but if it helps engagement then its a successful move.

Thirdly, Get the data. Critical user engagement points should be identified and ways to measure them should be put in place. Find the kind of user behavior that you would call successful in a product and then go ahead and stack a ruler next to it! Tools like Splunk and Mixpanel provide good ways to attach meters and semantics to behaviors which define good usage. For instance, an online video companies can understand a great deal by measuring the time spent by people watching specific genres of videos. How did you think TED came up with 10 minute talks? or how longer TED talks magically have a much deeper message  for a niche audience or how videos for a motivated audience with a purpose are usually longer and the casual ones designed to entertain and marginally educate are shorter. Everything has a reason.

Finally, Analyze it. periodic review meetings and management reports should attach equal importance to behavioral data than sales data. Doing this allows equal weightage to short term, medium term and longer term strategies and tactics. It will feed into the marketing plan to find new ways to market to people as well as provide insight into what is working and what isn't. Additionally, it will act as a ego balance where division leads will, in time, feel motivated to innovate. If at least 40% of your staff is not working towards what can be and what will be then someone else is going to dictate what you have to be.

"IN GOD WE TRUST. EVERYTHING ELSE WE MEASURE"
You can subscribe to http://snip.it/c/iq4 for an ever-growing curated list of articles on Big Data collected from all over the web. Feel free to add to it.

Multitasking or Focus - What should we use?

It's been said, in a sweeping generalization that nevertheless has a grain of truth at its core, the the old world is obsessed with 'focus', and the new world is obsessed with 'multitasking'.

What do we know about focus and multitasking? For one, they both claim to be a factor that helps people reach the elusive and most misunderstood concept of our times. Success. But wait a minute, aren't both philosophies sworn enemies and polar opposites? Unable to survive simultaneously?

In school and in workplace the more popular opinion is of 'focus' or in academic terms 'specialization'. That is, in order to succeed or make money you need to 'focus'. It's been said that you can succeed if you focus on one thing and do it well. Conversely, the multitasking camp find their method to be an indispensable skill that helps you "deal with more at the same time".

My take- both are necessary. The answer may lie more in time than in space.

In all such arguments we often miss the fact that what gets people to rung A in their pursuit of success might not get them to rung B. Alpha to Bravo is not a straight line. As responsibility and authority changes, so do the working philosophies that people need to get things done.

Multitasking works well when you are at a level where a major fraction of your to-do pie is delegation, reporting, follow-ups or work of similar nature. I'm talking about managers, senior associates and the likes of them (read -'not leaders'. There is a big difference between the two) This form of work style gives results because once one has learnt the art of hiring right, delegating to a team, reporting to management and then monitoring results then there is little left for laser like focus for daily ops. In all the years that it took to rise to a managerial/leadership level, the manager has been honing this balancing act that finally becomes intuitive (which is why he became a manager/leader in the first place).

Focus, on the other hand, works well, ironically, for leaders and young professionals/workers alike. Both need to set examples, the former for others and the latter for oneself and both have to make sure they get  things right, basically because they are learning through the process and/or the job is extremely critical or new.

An organization works well when both these forces work in tandem.

Order within the competitive chaos is achieved when the management understands that their worker bees need to focus on a few achievable tasks if quality is expected and use multitasking to manage the whole team. Expecting multitasking of the actual workers will always be a big mistake.

Yes, there are exceptions to the scenario. But really? Do we want our task force to keep shifting their attention or do we understand that their focus can have organizing power. After all, we could always use more of that when vital things are getting done.