I think the main issue with being a data-driven company is that it's a known secret. Sure, you can snowball a small edge into a winning position over a few years, but isn't it more likely that your competitors become more data-driven, mitigating your one advantage and enhancing their advantages?
Do data-driven companies win?
61–63 of 63 posts
Re: Do data-driven companies win?
#62I see too many "data driven companies" that are not data driven, but selectivly use data to do what the executive wants to be done. On top of that I see companies with employees who didn't understand college mathematics but now want to be data driven - E.g. basing major decisions on 10 customer feedback data points. Or who don't know the difference between median and average.
> I see too many "data driven companies" that are not data driven, but selectivly use data to do what the executive wants to be done. Bingo. And judging by many of the comments here, it's spoiled people's opinions on what it really means to be "data driven". I mean, imagine advocating for "good judgement" when so much empirical research says it's not repeatable?
Do you have empirical research / data supporting data driven companies being more successful? Genuine question - I'd be interested to see it but I notice a lack of data supporting the argument that being data driven is associated with success in this thread.
Re: Do data-driven companies win?
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
This idea is sometimes called the McNamara fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy
There are a lot of powerful ideas in that article. Every leader of a "data driven company" should read it and tremble.
I did a lot of reading on this particular subject. An opinion which I think is the most correct is that the war was driven mostly by knee jerk reactions and whatever faulty data there was, was never considered.
LBJ didn't want to "lose" Vietnam. LBJ remembered Joseph McCarthy who accused the Truman administration of losing China to communism.
JFK and Ngo Dinh Diem were murdered in 63, Gulf of Tonkin incident in 64, and full US armed intervention by 65. This was a rollercoaster ride that the US military didn't plan for and didn't want.
McNamara picked Westmoreland to lead the military effort. It was a disaster. Their lack of a coherent strategy was doomed from the start. The body counts and #bullets per enemy killed was akin to rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking Titanic. On top of their minds was the Korean War, when the US military operated at China's border and China intervened militarily. Hence, US military land operations was limited to South Vietnam. There were no plans to invade North Vietnam.
Nixon and Kissinger decided the end game was to breakup the USSR-China alliance. With China on the US' side, the USA no longer had a national interest in what happens to Vietnam. The US left Vietnam in 73 and the country was overrun two years later.