Sign In

The need to base business decisions on data not intuition

The uni­verse is an odd place. The Casimir Effect is one of its most baf­fling won­ders. Place two con­duct­ing plates in the vac­u­um of out­er space and, when posi­tioned close­ly in par­al­lel, the plates pull togeth­er. The force isn’t grav­i­ty. Rather, the suc­tion is caused by mys­te­ri­ous vir­tu­al par­ti­cles appear­ing from the void, bounc­ing between the plates and van­ish­ing. The Casimir Effect is proof that emp­ty space is far from emp­ty. It is teem­ing with vir­tu­al par­ti­cles flash­ing in and out of exis­tence.

The Casimir Effect isn’t the sort of thing you can fig­ure out by intu­ition. No lay per­son could guess the uni­verse pos­sess­es this prop­er­ty. It’s too rad­i­cal. Most of what hap­pens at the quan­tum lev­el is. Hen­drik Casimir pub­lished his the­o­rem in 1948 based on the work of physi­cists such as Nils Bohr, who famous­ly warned: “If you can fath­om quan­tum mechan­ics with­out get­ting dizzy, you don’t get it.”

Cognitive bias

But it’s not just physics where com­mon sense is flawed. It seems we are pret­ty poor at mak­ing even mun­dane judg­ments. In 1971 two aca­d­e­mics, Daniel Kah­ne­man and Amos Tver­sky, estab­lished the notion of cog­ni­tive bias­es. These are sys­tem­at­ic flaws in our judg­ment.

Con­fir­ma­tion bias is the ten­den­cy to seek out infor­ma­tion which agrees with our pre­ferred posi­tion and to ignore con­tra­dic­to­ry infor­ma­tion. Recen­cy bias is the ten­den­cy to inflate the impor­tance of the most recent piece of data. Foot­ball fans who cel­e­brate each5.18bn estimated revenue generated by the UK market research industry in 2016 vic­to­ry as though it her­alds the dawn of a new era will be famil­iar with the con­cept.

Kah­ne­man and Tver­sky dis­cov­ered dozens of bias­es. The more the pair test­ed human intu­ition, the more flaws they unearthed. Nobel lau­re­ate Kah­ne­man not­ed: “Even sta­tis­ti­cians are not good sta­tis­ti­cians.”

To sur­vive in this per­cep­tu­al warp takes a clever strat­e­gy. Since intu­ition is unre­li­able, evi­dence is essen­tial. For busi­ness­es this means test­ing assump­tions and going where the data leads.

Campaign success

Sport Eng­land offers a great exam­ple. It is under pres­sure to get ordi­nary Brits to be more active. Alas, by every mea­sure women are more reluc­tant to play sport than men. But why? Maybe women don’t have the time, the mon­ey or access to the right facil­i­ties. Sport Eng­land con­duct­ed a sur­vey to find out the truth.

Jen­nie Price, chief exec­u­tive of Sport Eng­land, explains: “Before we began this cam­paign, we looked very care­ful­ly at what women were say­ing about why they felt sport and exer­cise were not for them. Some of the issues, like time and cost, were famil­iar, but one of the strongest themes was a fear of judg­ment.”

It was a rev­e­la­tion. Of the least active school­girls, 36 per cent said they feel like their body is on show dur­ing PE lessons. One in four women said they “hate the way I look when I exer­cise or play sport”, and 48 per cent said get­ting sweaty is not fem­i­nine.

Armed with these insights, Sport Eng­land worked with cre­ative agency FCB Infer­no to change per­cep­tions. “Sweat­ing like a pig, feel­ing like a fox” and “I kick balls, deal with it” were among the taglines. The ad images fea­tured a woman putting in a gum shield, anoth­er grit­ting her teeth on a row­ing machine.

The #This­Girl­Can videos went viral, viewed 37 mil­lion times in the first year. The press reac­tion was uni­ver­sal­ly favourable. The Inde­pen­dent said: “Noth­ing should ever be about how to sim­ply achieve a nar­row beau­ty stan­dard. But final­ly, it seems like more peo­ple in posi­tions of influ­ence are real­is­ing this.” Analy­sis sug­gests 2.8 mil­lion women took up exer­cise as a result of #This­Girl­Can, with 1.6 mil­lion doing it reg­u­lar­ly.

Pitfalls of assumption

With­out data we rely on guess­work. Anoth­er exam­ple: Accen­ture Strategy’s lat­est Glob­al Con­sumer Pulse Research indi­cates that online retail­ers are being short-changed by an assump­tion about cus­tomers. Rachel Bar­ton, man­ag­ing direc­tor of advanced cus­tomer strat­e­gy at Accen­ture Strat­e­gy says: “Many organ­i­sa­tions have an uncon­scious bias where­by they assume that their dig­i­tal-savvy cus­tomers – born dig­i­tal, stay dig­i­tal – are the most prof­itable.”

Busi­ness lead­ers are real­is­ing they can make bet­ter deci­sions through using data and ana­lyt­ics more sys­tem­at­i­cal­ly

But it’s not true. Data shows that mul­ti­chan­nel “exper­i­men­tal” cus­tomers are the most prof­itable. Ms Bar­ton says the error leads to over­in­vest­ment in dig­i­tal chan­nels, cost­ing UK busi­ness­es up to £221 bil­lion.

There’s a long way to go. A report by PwC called Guts and Giga­bytes shows when exec­u­tives make major deci­sions, data and ana­lyt­ics ranks a low­ly third (23 per cent) behind intu­ition and expe­ri­ence (41 per cent) and the expe­ri­ence of oth­ers (31 per cent).

Yann Bon­du­elle, PwC con­sult­ing data and ana­lyt­ics part­ner, says: “Busi­ness lead­ers have long used their own tried-and-trust­ed intu­ition along­side more sci­en­tif­ic and finan­cial fac­tors to make deci­sions, and this has served them well in the past. As data become more per­va­sive, algo­rithms become more accu­rate and visu­al­i­sa­tion more intu­itive, busi­ness lead­ers are real­is­ing they can make bet­ter deci­sions through using data and ana­lyt­ics more sys­tem­at­i­cal­ly.”

Intu­ition will always play a role. When Casimir pro­posed his the­o­ry, he had an exist­ing body of knowl­edge and used it to devel­op a hypoth­e­sis, lat­er proved by exper­i­men­ta­tion. Data alone can­not tell us which ques­tions to ask or which ideas to test.

But it’s clear that intu­ition with­out evi­dence is flawed. As the great sta­tis­ti­cian W. Edwards Dem­ing put it: “With­out data you’re just anoth­er per­son with an opin­ion.”