In a recent article on Research-Live.com, JD Deitch delves into answering this question. While automation poses great potential benefits for market research, implementations often fall short due to misalignment of goals between sample suppliers and clients. Through no fault of the technology itself, many clients are being let down by its unfulfilled promise.

 

JD outlines reasons why automation often puts sample suppliers in a position where they fail to deliver. These key issues include:

  • Inadequate data mapping, resulting in inconsistencies and errors that can easily reduce feasibility by 10-25 percent
  • Failure to build programmatic intelligence into feasibility calculations and field monitoring, which means all pieces don’t match up and creates a “Frankenstein-style” process
  • Abuse of respondents by bouncing them from survey to survey in search of a complete due to poor mapping and integration
  • Insufficient fraud detection techniques in a landscape where “industry standard” defenses are inadequate and obsolete

 

Many of these problems can be easily solved by proper, thorough implementation of automation technology. For example, marrying AI detection techniques with more traditional processes can help to mitigate fraud. Respondent satisfaction can increase dramatically when sample companies prioritize great experiences and shutting down bad ones through use of technology.

 

He writes: “More often than not, when a supplier that tells you what automation can’t do, he is actually telling you what his company has been unable or unwilling to tackle. There is every reason to believe that automation improves speed and cost as well as quality and dependability. If you are not seeing these benefits, well, it isn’t the fault of automation.”

 

He covers solutions to common implementation issues and more in the complete article, which can be found at: https://www.research-live.com/article/opinion/are-sample-vendors-only-automating-whats-good-for-them