Business Information and Guide - Business Articles
Fire Your Analyst (Part III) PDF Print E-mail
Saturday, 05 July 2008 07:01

A study (Baxt WG, Waeckerle JF, Berlin JA, Callaham ML. Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance. Ann Emerg Med. 1998 Sep;32(3 Pt 1):310-7) introduced 10 major and 13 minor errors in a fictitious scientific manuscript. The manuscript was sent to all reviewers of the Annals of Emergency Medicine, the official publication of the American College of Emergency Physicians. The Annals has been in print for more than 25 years, and is the most widely read journal in emergency medicine. The work described in the manuscript was a standard double-blind, placebo control study of the effect of the propranolol drug on migraine headaches. The manuscript was reviewed by 203 reviewers. Eighty percent of the reviewers were professors at academic emergency medicine departments, and twenty percent were physicians in private practice.

The analysis of the reviewers" comments produced the following results. Fifteen reviewers recommended publication. The reviewers in this group missed 82.7% of the major errors and 88.2% of the minor errors. Sixty seven reviewers recommended revisions. The reviewers in this group missed 70.4% of the major errors and 78.0% of the minor errors. One hundred and seventeen reviewers recommended rejection. The reviewers in this group missed 60.9% of the major errors and 74.8% of the minor errors.

According to these results, the 15 professors who recommended publication, on average, missed 82.7% of the major errors, and 88.2% of the minor errors. In other words, the professors missed at least 4 out of 5 errors inserted in the manuscript. These errors were defined by the authors as "nonremediable errors that invalidated or markedly weakened the conclusions of the study." It is interesting to note that one of the minor errors included in the manuscript was a misspelling of the drug"s name. Out of the 203 reviewers, 30 were convinced in the correctness of the misspelled name and used it throughout their interview. The authors of the study said about the results (with the usual scientific undertone): "the small number of errors identified by the reviewers in this study was surprising. The major errors placed in the manuscript invalidated or undermined each of the major methodologic steps of the study … The identification of even a fraction of these errors should have indicated that the study was unsalvageable, yet the reviewers identified only 34% of these errors, and only 59% of the reviewers rejected the work."

Points to consider:

1. In this study, the reviewers were professors and private practice physicians with an average of 3 years experience as reviewers for the Annals and additional years of experience reviewing scientific manuscripts for 2 other scientific journals, and with 10 years of experience practicing emergency medicine. These reviewers possess a much higher level of expertise in the subject of the tested manuscript relative to even the most experienced market researchers analyzing qualitative customer data, the most experienced human resource managers analyzing candidate data, the lawyers analyzing patents, or the investment analysts and consultants analyzing business data. So, if professors and physicians failed to recognize major errors in a standard scientific manuscript, what are the chances that the less trained professionals will identify gaps and inconsistencies in non-standard qualitative business data?

2. In this study, the professors were expected to identify the technical errors found in the manuscript. The identification and elimination of this type of errors is the objective of the years of training undergone by every scientist. Unlike this study, the great majority of qualitative studies in business include psychological gaps and inconsistencies, and unlike scientists, most other professionals receive little to no training in the identifying psychological errors. If the professors failed to identify most of the technical errors, what are the chances that the less trained professionals be successful in identifying the much more challenging psychological errors?

3. How worried should you be when a market researcher is analyzing your focus groups? A typical focus group holds about 12,000 words. An average manuscript holds about 3,000 words, much less than a single focus group. A typical market research study consists of 4-8 focus groups, or 16 to 32 times more text. So, if the experts in this study failed to identify most of the technical errors in a volume of data equivalent to one forth of a single focus group, what are the chances that a market researcher will identify the psychological inconsistencies (and intellectual inconsistencies) with a much larger dataset?

4. How worried should you be when a human resource manager is analyzing a pool of candidates? A transcript of a one hour interview holds about 6,000 words (when hiring middle and top managers, the interviews might take a whole day with an order of magnitude more words). When interviewing a few candidates, the total data may include 30,000 or more words (for 5 candidates). So, if the experts in this study failed to identify the major inconsistencies in a volume of data equivalent one half of a single interview, what are the chances that a human resource manager will identify the major inconsistencies with a much larger dataset?

5. How worried should you be when an investment analyst is analyzing some companies for you? An annual report might include tens of thousand of words. For instance, the IBM 2004 annual report is 100 pages long and includes more than 65,000 words. So, if the experts in this study failed to identify the major problems in a dataset that holds less than 5% of the data included in the IBM 2004 annual report, what are the chances that an investment analyst will identify the major problems hidden in the much larger dataset?

Mike T. Davis, Ph.D., SCI, Rochester NY We are the inventors of Computer Intuition™, a psycholinguistics based program that analyzes the language that people use to describe themselves and their environment, and “converts what people say into what people do”™. When clients hire our services, they send us their qualitative data. We input the data to the computer, which calculates the psychological intensity, or psytensity, of every idea found in the text. We then isolate the ideas with the highest psytensities, and document them in a report that also includes our "Do this, do that"™ recommendations. Within a week of receiving the data, we present the results to the client. SCI"s clients include many Fortune 500 companies, such as Apple Computer, Sears, Allergan Pharmaceuticals, Chrysler, Citibank, IBM, Motorola, Anheuser-Busch, Gannett Newspapers, and Xerox. We also serve many smaller companies and individuals who came to realize that Computer Intuition™ is the only tool for a correct analysis of text.

 
Should We Believe the Experts? (Part I) PDF Print E-mail
Saturday, 05 July 2008 03:00

D. W. Griffith is regarded by many as one of the greatest filmmakers of all time. More than anyone of the silent era, he recognized the potential of movies as an expressive medium. During that time, his achievements were momentous. In 1915 he finished the feature “Birth of a Nation,” regarded as the first masterpiece of cinema. In 1919 he finished the movie “Intolerance” (1919), which marked a new standard in filmmaking. His next two movies, “Broken Blossoms” (1919) and “Way Down East” (1920), sealed his reputation as America’s preeminent director. According to James Agee, "To watch his work is like being a witness to the beginning of melody, or the first conscious use of the lever or the wheel; the emergence, coordination, and first eloquence of language; the birth of an art: and to realize that this is all the work of one man." The great silent movie actor Lillian Gish called him "the father of film" and Charlie Chaplin called him "the teacher of us all." During the same time, D. W. Griffith also exhibited superb business instincts by founding the United Artist production company together with Douglas Fairbanks, Charlie Chaplin, and Mary Pickford, the three greatest performers of the day.

However, from the mid to late 1920s things began to change. His intuitive powers started to wane. In 1924, at the age of 49, Griffith wrote in an article published by the Saturday Evening Post, “We do not want now and we shall never want the human voice with our films.” Only three years later, in 1927 the first talking movie, “The Jazz Singer” with Al Jolson was released. The reaction of the public to the movie was astounding. The picture was a sellout, one of the big box office hits of all time. In October 1930, the Fortune magazine wrote, "The advent of American talking movies is beyond comparison the fastest and most amazing revolution the whole history of industrial revolutions." Griffith’s failed prediction was only an early sign of his now chronic misguided intuition. From the late 1920s, Griffith"s movies were slowly sinking into oblivion. In the glitter of the Jazz Age, his filmmaking was considered hopelessly old-fashioned. His last picture, “The Struggle,” was made in 1931 and played in theaters for merely a week before being withdrawn. On July 23, 1948, Griffith died in a small Los-Angeles hotel virtually forgotten by the industry he helped build.

What was the cause of Griffith’s transition from great intuition to misguided intuition? One of the most common causes of misguided intuition, and therefore, the limited success of experts in predicting the future, is the “situation bias.” Experts, like all humans, tend to imagine future technologies as an extension of current technologies. The bias grows stronger when the individual has a vested interest in the current technology and is concerned that the new technology will diminish the popularity of his or her prized, older technology. Griffith was a master of the silent movie. His skill in eliciting powerful reactions from the audience without resorting to spoken dialogue was legendary. This unique skill was the reason for his downfall. It distorted his intuition and prevented him from foreseeing the potential of the human voice in movies.

How is this example related to qualitative research? The situation bias is especially strong in manual interpretation of qualitative data. During such interpretation, the analyst shows a strong tendency to look for the familiar. Pat Bentley from Apple emphasizes this point: “When you analyze the respondents’ answers manually you look for repeats, things that sound important either because you heard them before or you’re looking for them yourself; therefore, they make sense to you.”

Do you want to observe your own situational bias? Click here and follow the instructions.

Mike T. Davis, Ph.D., SCI, Rochester NY We are the inventors of Computer Intuition™, a psycholinguistics based program that analyzes the language that people use to describe themselves and their environment, and “converts what people say into what people do”™. When clients hire our services, they send us their qualitative data. We input the data to the computer, which calculates the psychological intensity, or psytensity, of every idea found in the text. We then isolate the ideas with the highest psytensities, and document them in a report that also includes our "Do this, do that"™ recommendations. Within a week of receiving the data, we present the results to the client. SCI"s clients include many Fortune 500 companies, such as Apple Computer, Sears, Allergan Pharmaceuticals, Chrysler, Citibank, IBM, Motorola, Anheuser-Busch, Gannett Newspapers, and Xerox. We also serve many smaller companies and individuals who came to realize that Computer Intuition™ is the only tool for correct analysis of text.

 
Paper Shredder Oil: Keep Your Shredder Running Smoothly PDF Print E-mail
Saturday, 05 July 2008 02:00

Asking why you should keep your shredder lubricated is no different than asking why you should change the oil in your car every 3,000 miles. Not only is proper maintenance a requirement to maintain an active warranty, but all mechanical parts need a little oil to help them turn smoothly and to keep them clean. Applying shredder oil to the cutting heads inside a shredder lubricates them so that they efficiently destroy documents sheet after sheet. Fortunately, you will find that taking good care of your shredder is less expensive, faster and easier than caring for your car.

Every time you shred a sheet of paper a fine dust made of tiny paper particles is produced. This dust collects in the cutting assembly of a paper shredder. If allowed to build up, this dust will compact until it completely blocks the smooth turning of the cutting head. Shredder oil will actually break up the compacted dust lodged in the cutting assembly, allowing the parts to move and push out the softened dust.

Shredder oil is specially formulated to eliminate oil residue on the cutting head. Other oils, like WD-40, will attract dust, further clogging the cutters. When lubricating your paper shredder, only use oil specifically designated for shredder use or risk voiding your warranty and further clogging your shredder.

The frequency with which you should oil your shredder depends on several factors: frequency of use, shredder capacity, cut size and type of paper. Your shredder will need more oil the more you use it, the more paper you shred at once and the thicker the paper is that you shred. Also, shredders with smaller shred sizes require extra oil. A 1/4" strip cut shredder used only one to two hours per week will only require a weekly oiling. A cross cut shredder, on the other hand, requires oil after every half hour of use. If you remember to oil your shredder every time you change the bag you"ll be in good shape.

There are two fast, easy ways to oil a paper shredder:

The first method involves applying the oil directly to the cutting head. Shredder oil is packaged either in plastic squeeze bottles or aerosol cans, designed for easy application. No tools are required, just aim the bottle directly at the cutting head, through the paper entry point, and apply a fine stream of oil from one end of the cutter to the other. Run the machine in reverse for 10-15 seconds until the entire cutting mechanism is coated. Finally, shred a few pieces of paper to remove any excess oil from the cutters.

The alternative method requires streaming oil onto a piece of paper. Do not soak the sheet in oil, but cover it evenly from edge to edge. Shred the oiled sheet of paper and then run the shredder in reverse for 10-15 seconds to allow the oil to coat the entire cutting mechanism. Finally, shred a few sheets of paper to remove any excess oil from the cutters. This procedure may be repeated up to three times to ensure proper lubrication.

If you take a few seconds once a week or every time you change your shredder bag to oil the cutting mechanism in your paper shredder, you"ll maintain your warranties and keep your shredder running smoothly and efficiently document after document.

Visit FEI Office for a wide selection of paper shredders and shredder oil.

For more information about paper shredders, visit our Paper Shredders Info Blog.

 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

Page 1 of 1250