Did they really want “faster horses?”
I sent a researcher to 1890 to find out.
If you work in or collaborate with someone in the research world, you know these quotes:
“If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.”
(possibly misattributed to) Henry Ford
“We do no market research. It’s really hard to design products by focus groups. A lot of times people don’t know what they want until you show it to them.”
Steve Jobs
As a researcher myself, I have almost no issue with either quote…at face value. In fact, I would go as far as to say that they are mostly accurate observations. And, I am the first to admit the shortcomings of innovation research where appropriate. But, the problem is that, over time, these observations have become broadly oversimplified and misinterpreted to the point of downplaying, ignoring, undermining, or otherwise belittling innovation research. When quoted, the implication is often quite negative: research is not a driver of innovation (pun intended).
Many people, including myself, believe that research and innovation absolutely go hand in hand. But, for the research doubters and research enthusiasts alike, rest assured that you both have valid points. I am going to take a fresh swing at more-concretely illustrating one common point of view on the debate the best way I could think of — by sending a skilled qualitative researcher back in time to the 1890’s to actually run the hypothetical insights project for Ford himself! Their objective was to lead strategic qualitative research that explores new business opportunities for late 19th century personal transportation innovation.
If you ran 10 in-depth interviews in the 1890’s, you undoubtedly would have heard many things about mass transit options like ships, railroads, and steamboats. Components of the car had already been invented, so a wealthy participant or two might mention it, especially if they had been to Germany and seen Benz’s models. That said, especially when you got to personal transportation, you would have spent much of your session focused on horses.
You would find out that your participants rode horses everywhere, in all kinds of weather, over all kinds of terrain, at multiple different speeds. They appreciated this versatility. Horses have names; they are a part of the family. But, the horse takes a lot of time and money to maintain. They had to exercise, feed, water, and socialize the horse. Horses get tired; they can be temperamental, attached to specific people, occasionally dangerous, or scared. Traveling by horse sometimes takes more time than they wish. Riders get sore, tired, or even injured. Horses without carts can carry very few people, usually one. Not all horses are the same, so riding in groups results in variability.
During these interviews, the researcher would be focused on three goals: uncovering explicit and implicit pain points, unmet needs, and workarounds.
Pain points: I don’t like this thing. It’s inconvenient and makes my experience harder than it needs to be.
“I only travel twice a week, but I have to take care of my horse 7 days a week.”
Unmet needs: This is my goal. I wish I could do this.
“My partner’s horse is older and gets tired before mine. I wish we could make it the same distance when we travel together.”
Workarounds, which are often unconscious, observed behaviors. I have my own method of doing this. Let me show you.
“I get really sore after riding my horse all day. I have found that if I adjust my posture in this way or pad my saddle in this way, that I feel better.”
After analyzing the data, the next step in the research process is to convey the critical pain points, needs, and workarounds to business partners through a bit of storytelling. Researchers will cite themes in the data: “Participants feel their travel is unnecessarily restricted because of their horse. The top 3 reasons are 1. Lack of endurance, 2. Slower speeds, and 3. Too expensive.” Researchers will try to create empathy by illustrating challenges through testimonials or reenactments: “A horse can only carry so much weight. What you see here are all of the items necessary to bring on a trip in order to keep a horse happy and healthy. Any weight associated with them is weight that cannot be used to carry food and necessities.” They might make observations: “Every saddle we saw had been modified here with extra padding.”
At this point, creative researchers will include some “thought starters” or “how might we” statements. “How might we be inspired by all of those home saddle modifications to make longer rides more comfortable?” “How might we help them travel in groups for longer distances without the need to deal with the variability in horse resting schedules?” “How might we give them a cheaper temporary travel solution for the 2 days a week they need a horse?” Are your creative juices flowing? Did you just invent Horse Lyft? Me too.
Did one of the participants make a comment about wishing they had a faster horse? Probably! Did a participant invent the car? “I want an affordable machine powered by an internal combustion engine running on fossil fuels that my whole family can ride in!!” Probably not! So, was Ford right then? Yes, it went the way he expected it to go; somebody wanted a faster horse. But, does that mean we should cancel innovation research forever?
Up to this point, Ford, Jobs, and I are aligned. The observations they made are highly likely to occur. But, this is where we digress.
Go back and read those two quotes. Notice what Ford and Jobs are expecting out of research. As others have said (I am sure I missed a few), the expectation is that participants will tell you what they “want” — that they “want” a car or an iPhone. Notice how their expectations are not being met. The participants did not invent the car or the iPhone! And that, in itself, is the source of their disappointment. I acknowledge their disappointment, and if you are a researcher who partners with an innovation team, you should acknowledge this as well. But, you should also acknowledge that this point of view might stem from a misunderstanding of the research process. The idea that a participant or “focus group” would invent the car or the iPhone in the middle of research is mostly ludicrous. The challenge I would like to make to these quotes is not that they aren’t valid observations but that the negative interpretations that have persisted and the expectations underlying them are misguided.
A savvy researcher is unlikely to directly ask a participant for solutions they “want”. An Apple researcher might have observed that a participant is annoyed because they have to travel with a computer, phone, iPod, camera, and GPS weighing down their backpack and pockets. A Ford researcher might listen as their participant explains their horse problems: “I want to visit my sister more often, but she lives more than a day’s ride away.” But ultimately, while a researcher or participant might have creative ideas to fix those problems, their primary goal is not to identify the solution. What a participant wants is to fix their problems. What a researcher wants is to collate, size, and illustrate these problems in order to inspire innovation.
The research uncovers the need. The innovator’s job is to run with it.
Many companies have innovation origin stories centered around solving unmet needs or pain points. DoorDash exists because a small macaroon shop couldn’t keep up with their delivery demand. Uber exists because of a lack of access to a taxi service on a snowy evening in Paris. Netflix exists, in part, because of an overdue rental of Apollo 13. These pain points were inspiration for invention that arose, in a way, directly from research.
So, if you are an innovator who partners with researchers, the next time you collaborate, go ahead and quote Ford. But, make it a joke. “I can’t believe they didn’t invent the car in that 1-hour session behind a 2-way mirror!” And then go home, think through the patterns you observed as participants reflected on or used your creations, the emotions on the participants’ faces and in their bodies, the words they spoke. Put them all together. Do you have any new ideas? A better path forward than you would have in the absence of research? Yes? Then the research was a success. Then research does have a place in the innovation process. What innovators should want is not a blueprint from participants but the spark of an insight that they can use to invent the next iPhone. Whether it’s horses or iPhones or anything else you are working on, what was true in 1890 is still true today — Good research should inspire the inventor.
