There is an irony to life in the Washington DC region: We are home to the most technologically advanced workforce this side of Silicon Valley. This wealth of knowledge, paired with a highly competitive culture, has long fueled a relentless and highly successful drive to stay ahead of the technology curve. It has made our region’s high-tech firms the envy of much of the world, and the DC Metro area itself an ever stronger magnet for Fortune 500s looking to tap into this energy and expertise. And yet this success stands in stark contrast to the seeming inability of the area’s oldest residents – the federal agencies – to adopt new technology solutions at anything close to the same pace.

It’s tempting to point to the all-too-familiar culprits of bureaucracy, red tape and inconsistent funding in an effort to possibly explain why nearly half of the Federal IT decision-makers in our government market research study (available at www.marketconnectionsinc.com/gitec) lament the backwardness of their agencies compared to the private sector. To be sure, upgrading systems and implementing new solutions is a massive undertaking that takes sustained long-term funding and ongoing training and coordination within and across agencies, as well as between agencies and the (often more advanced) private sector.

But rather than seeing new information technology as a cost, the thinking must shift to it being an investment in greater efficiency and competitiveness that will lead to cost savings down the road. This is surely how the private sector views it. Moreover, in an era where cyber threats to businesses and infrastructure increasingly tie the fortunes of government and commercial organizations together – to say nothing of the safety and security of the general public – the need for a coordinated IT adoption strategy rises to far more than a mere financial calculation.

One way forward is for government strategists to take advantage of the world class expertise headquartered in the same city, and consult with the private sector on adoption of new IT solutions within a comprehensive framework. In a city famous for summits, an IT summit aiming at these goals is long past due.

Share this article

Hide Sites

Lisa Dezzutti will share highlights of the study on April 7th, 2010, and will guide our panelists through an in-depth discussion of the implications of the data. To register for this event, click here.

Share this article

Hide Sites

Simply click the REGISTER TO VIEW link on the left side of the page to access the recording.

Share this article

Hide Sites

That’s certainly understandable. After all, a cardinal rule of selling is to know and lead with your strengths. However, it’s important to not overlook another adage – know and provide what your customer wants.

Our experience providing research to a wide variety of government contractors has clearly taught us that, depending on the product, service, or solution being offered, there can be significant differences between defense, civilian, state and local, and commercial markets in terms of:

- How the agencies define their mission, and by extension, the priorities driving the need for the solution
- The way they define their needs
- How they go through the vendor or solution selection process – who is involved, vendor characteristics that are most important, length of the decision-making cycle

Market Connections recently worked with a design solution company, who came to us for a better understanding of how to market their highly successful commercial sector products to the “public sector,” a category in which they into which they lumped federal, state, and local markets. During our exploratory research with decision makers who buy and use design software, we found that the evaluation and selection process was quite different between federal and state-and-local markets.

For example, federal buyers were much more concerned with being able to customize the solution and integrate the existing design data they currently had. Conversely, state and local personnel were significantly more concerned with the cost of the application and the level of support they would receive when deploying it. Both segments had highly favorable perceptions of the company and its design solution. However, the company quickly recognized it would need to segment sales and marketing messages by market sector.

And, the differences don’t just impact messaging. In recent study for another client, we found that one segment of technology decision-makers in the defense market placed significantly greater value on conferences, trade shows and topic-specific events than their civilian counterparts. Conversely, civilian respondents placed greater emphasis on information from contractors, trade press, and industry associations.

Clearly, long-term success isn’t just about selling your strengths. It’s also about understanding how to prioritize and leverage your strengths to meet each market’s needs. And, that understanding comes from market research.

Share this article

Hide Sites

We owe our longevity to you – our clients and associates – and the collaboration we’ve enjoyed with you for years. We look forward to continuing our partnership with all of you, and to servicing your market research needs in the coming years.

Share this article

Hide Sites

There are many issues to consider when embarking on an overseas research study including:
- Knowing What Questions NOT To Ask
- Selecting the Most Effective Methodology
- Meeting the Highest Translation Standards

Click here for full article.

Share this article

Hide Sites

Case in point: our findings from a recent study for a federal IT solutions provider.  The client had 6 independent business units but the leaders of each unit rarely interacted or collaborated on customer opportunities. During the client’s annual market perception study, we uncovered a major change in the roles and technology responsibilities of their target audiences. 

Previously, various client contacts were each responsible for only one technology area. However, the research found that due to technology convergence, strained agency budgets, restructured departments, and other factors, each decision-maker was now responsible for multiple products and services that overlapped more than one of our client’s business units.

The business units most impacted by this trend are now restructuring to offer a consolidated ‘account’ approach so that customers don’t have to interact with more than one point of contact. In addition, its business development employees are being trained to cross-sell their technologies much more effectively. The research findings offered similar insights into other changes the company can make in order to maximize competitiveness as the market continues to evolve.

Before making structural changes in an attempt to improve the market relevance of your organization, ensure you truly know what those changes should be. If you’d like to learn more about how the right research program can deliver this knowledge, contact us!

Share this article

Hide Sites

Few organizations have come through the past two years untouched by the recession.  Even in the government market – one of the more stable sectors of the economy – spending is being more closely watched.  Changes to the contracting process mean that established relationships with agencies are not a guarantee of future business.  Equally important, competitive landscapes are in flux, as many companies struggling in their core commercial markets vie for a presence in more lucrative government markets.

For some, these new dynamics pose an even greater need for replacing outdated assumptions with accurate and current business intelligence that can drive smarter decision-making.

Market Connections recently completed an Attitude, Awareness and Usage (AA&U) study in which we asked our client’s federal audiences how they perceived the company and its competitors.  Interestingly, our client was unaware that it was competing against the company that respondents most strongly perceived as its competitor.
In fact, this competitor had successfully established a reputation for highly skilled technical personnel and innovative solutions within our client’s core target market. Furthermore, the research found that the audience perceived these two attributes as more important than almost all others when selecting a contractor.

In addition to identifying two serious competitors that company executives had previously discounted, the study revealed that our client identified its own strengths very differently than how the market identified them. The study results gave our client an accurate picture of:

• the competitive environment
• the vendor attributes that are most important to the market, and
• how they are perceived by the market on those attributes
• the priorities most important to their target market
• the channels and media most preferred by their target market

Our client is using the findings to develop new marketing, business development, and client engagement strategies that will more effectively discriminate them from competitors. So, if you think times are too lean to spend money on market research, think again. It could be the smartest investment your organization makes as it prepares plans for improving performance in 2010.

Share this article

Hide Sites

In this initial session, key stakeholders from both your organization and the research firm should do the following:

• Review everyone’s roles and responsibilities as they relate to the project.
• Discuss the business problems and/or information gaps you’re hoping the research program will address, including answers to questions such as:
• What, specifically, signaled to you that there was a need for research in this area?
• What are the key business questions to be answered by this research?
• Who will be the primary users of the research data and in what ways do they assume they’ll act on the results?
• Review and refine the program objectives as outlined in the research provider’s proposal.
• Review findings of relevant previous research.
• Review specific information relevant to the current program. Depending on the type of research study, this may include input on the target audiences, your products and/or services and their applications, the competitors and their relevant offerings, market dynamics and trends, and obstacles to success.
• Review the project timeline, including the typical length of each phase and if scheduling interdependencies exist between the research and other projects or decision making deadlines in the organization.
• Discuss available list options for reaching the study sample, including internal lists and databases subscriptions as well as potential list rental sources.
• Review immediate next steps for your team and the research provider.

Armed with this in-depth information, the research firm should be able to develop a strong first draft of the survey instrument – one that doesn’t require an inordinate amount of editing on your end.

Equally important, at the end of the kick-off meeting, you and your stakeholders should have a solid understanding of the project scope that can be accomplished within the budget, what to expect from the research process and final report, and the role that each of you will play to ensure project success.

Share this article

Hide Sites