Question 1

How should I evaluate AI outputs before using them in decisions?

Accepted Answer

Before using AI outputs to make decisions, you should thoroughly validate them for accuracy, relevance, and bias — ideally with some human oversight. Treat an AI's recommendations like a junior analyst's work: double-check key results on a known sample or against historical data to see if they make sense. Check for consistency and fairness as well: for instance, if the AI is scoring loan applications or summarizing feedback, ensure it isn't skewed by gender or other biases and that it isn't "hallucinating" facts outside its training. It's wise to have a subject expert or analyst review a subset of outputs, especially early on, to catch any anomalies or context the AI might miss. By setting up this review process — manual spot checks, benchmark tests, or requiring the AI to explain its reasoning — you gain confidence in the outputs before they inform real decisions.

Question 2

Does self-serve mean stakeholders won't need research teams anymore?

Accepted Answer

No — self-serve research tools don't spell the end of research teams. They let stakeholders handle straightforward queries, but expert researchers are still needed for robust methodology and deep insights. Platforms for DIY surveys or data dashboards empower non-researchers to get quick answers, but complex projects and nuanced interpretation require a professional touch. Research teams ensure surveys are well-designed (avoiding leading questions or sampling bias) and that results are correctly understood in context, something a drag-and-drop tool can't guarantee on its own. In fact, self-serve tools often shift the researcher's role rather than eliminate it: the team can spend less time on routine data pulls and more time providing guidance, advanced analysis, and strategic recommendations. Stakeholders may initiate more on their own, but they still rely on research experts to validate approaches and synthesize findings into meaningful direction. So self-service makes research more collaborative and efficient, not redundant.

Question 3

How can we prove whether CX dashboard use drives decisions and outcomes?

Accepted Answer

To show that a CX dashboard is influencing decisions, track and document instances where its use correlates with positive changes in the business. For example, measure whether teams or regions that log in to the dashboard frequently also see improvements in customer metrics like satisfaction or churn over time, implying that acting on the data makes a difference. You can supplement this with case studies: gather stories of managers who spotted an issue on the dashboard — say a drop in a service quality metric — took action, and then saw that metric rebound or complaints drop. Some organizations even conduct A/B style pilots (one group uses the dashboard, another doesn't) to directly observe differences in outcomes. By combining usage analytics with performance results and concrete anecdotes, you build compelling evidence that the dashboard isn't just a passive report, but a driver of decisions and improvements.

Question 4

How are self-checkout and cashierless stores changing in-store research?

Accepted Answer

The advent of self-checkout and cashierless stores is changing in-store research by shifting the focus to new touchpoints and data streams. Researchers now pay closer attention to how shoppers navigate the store and interact with technology - for example, observing where customers get confused at a self-checkout kiosk or how long they linger in front of smart shelves. Traditional methods like exit interviews are less feasible (there's no waiting line to intercept in a cashierless store), so more research is done via sensors, video analytics, and post-visit surveys to capture feedback. These stores also generate a wealth of digital behavioral data (entry and exit times, movement paths, what items were picked up then put back) that researchers can analyze for patterns. In short, in-store research is becoming more about unobtrusive tech-driven observation and analyzing system logs, with an emphasis on user experience design (ensuring the self-service process is smooth) and understanding shopping behavior in this new, staff-free environment.

Question 5

What are the risks of DIY growth outpacing governance and quality gates?

Accepted Answer

If do-it-yourself research grows faster than your governance and quality controls, you risk bad data and inconsistent methods slipping into decisions. Without proper oversight, different teams might launch surveys or analyze data in conflicting ways - leading to unreliable results or one department acting on findings that aren't up to standard. There's also a compliance risk: for instance, a well-meaning employee might collect customer data via a DIY tool but violate privacy policies because no one vetted the process. Quality gates like methodological reviews, approval workflows, and data validation checks exist for a reason; when DIY usage outpaces these safeguards, errors and biases can scale up quickly across the organization. In short, the convenience of unfettered DIY can backfire, resulting in decision-makers losing trust in insights (or worse, making flawed choices), so it's crucial to extend governance practices as DIY capabilities expand.

Prodege

Why choose Us

Features and attributes

What is Prodege?

Recognition

Services and Expertise

Published on Greenbook

Quick! You’ve Got Her Attention!

Market Research FAQs with Expert Insights

How should I evaluate AI outputs before using them in decisions?

Does self-serve mean stakeholders won't need research teams anymore?

How can we prove whether CX dashboard use drives decisions and outcomes?

How are self-checkout and cashierless stores changing in-store research?

What are the risks of DIY growth outpacing governance and quality gates?