Minimum viable research
Research is a rabbit hole - one with a very real return to a point, followed by a cliff of diminishing returns as you seek an impractical level of certainty or an unobtainable answer.
Knowing when to act on research versus, seeking more is a tricky thing with an annoying answer, 'it depends'. But I'm not going to leave you there, here are a few methods for establishing when to act on research and when you should keep going with the research.
I'll title these methods, MVR, Minimum Viable Research:
Method 1: The 80% rule
Knowing when to act on research versus, seeking more is a tricky thing with an annoying answer, 'it depends'. But I'm not going to leave you there, here are a few methods for establishing when to act on research and when you should keep going with the research.
I'll title these methods, MVR, Minimum Viable Research:
Method 1: The 80% rule
- You went in with a clear research question, should I or should I not do something
- You're confident you have 80% of the available information to make the decision
- Make the decision
This method sucks because 80% of what you do not know is very unreliable - but this rule will help in situations where you have to make a case for scarce resources.
Method 2: The acceptable cost of being wrong
- You went in with a clear research question, should I or should I not do something
- You've done your research and you've got an acceptable level of certainty that the downside of you being wrong is acceptable
- Make the decision
This method accepts that research is flawed, but manages the risk to the downside while you test outside of a research environment
Method 3: Pinned Assumptions
- You went in with a clear research question, should I or should I not do something
- You haven't been able to find an answer to your question, it's practically unobtainable
- Pin your assumptions to the wall
- Make the decision
This method sucks but is realistic in the face of weighing considerations.