Beyond Analytics

​As technical professionals we can pride ourselves in our analytical skills - after all, they often form the foundation of our professional value-add, particularly in the earlier stages of our careers. They are important, yes, but they are not sufficient if we want to:

• ​keep growing over our careers,
• avoid displacement by increasingly-sophisticated automation, and
• have a meaningful impact on the world beyond the numbers. 

The 'extra' bits are what Cole Napper describes as 'inquisition' and 'change' - more on these later. Cole is a people analytics professional, and co-host (with Scott Hines) of the Directionally Correct podcast, which I listen to given my interest in blending people/human and analytical/STEM skills. What strikes me is how aligned Cole's description is to other scientific/technical professions, including the 'actuarial control cycle' and similar cycles in data science. 

Cole explains three steps in the 'value chain of people analytics', which is really a cycle i.e. it repeats:
1) Inquisition
2) Analytics
3) Change 
He argues that the analytics portion of the value chain cycle is about to become almost completely automated with technology and generative AI. "Most of what people analytics does is analysing rows and columns of data. Pretty soon, most of that type of analysis will be highly automatable. What will people analytics professionals do then?" We could say the same about any analytics professionals! 

Most of what people analytics does is analysing rows and columns of data. Pretty soon, most of that type of analysis will be highly automatable. What will people analytics professionals do then?"
COLE NAPPER

Inquisition
'Inquisition' means asking good questions. It's analogous to the 'specify the problem' step of the actuarial control cycle (i.e. define what you're trying to answer). Cole says that the onus is on the researcher (i.e. the analytics expert) to solve the problem of induction when it comes to scientific inquiry - they must determine what business problems to tackle, what research questions to ask, and what hypotheses to test: "[inquisitors] must ask the right questions and be in-tune with the business". Ask questions, challenge assumptions, and look for new and better ways to do things, he says. That's how we help push our professions forward and drive innovation. 

Change
The other critical step, after the analysis is done is to be a 'change agent'. Sadly, analytics professionals too often stop when we have a sophisticated model or an 'answer' with decimal places. Instead, we need to push on: the 'so-what' is key i.e. what business or customer outcome is the analysis for? ​Cole argues that a people analytics function should be more than merely 'decision support' - it should be at the forefront of making real business decisions, owning the consequences, and putting change into action: "We must be the change agents. And, we must acquire the power to bring about that change." 

What do you think about the three steps in the cycle? Which of them should we invest more of our energy into? 

I end with another quote by Cole, once again applicable across scientific/technical professions: 
"You are no longer a neutral arbiter of data. When leading people analytics, you are a stakeholder, not just a data provider. You are in the arena. The decision making arena, that is. Risk, uncertainty, accountability..." 
Thank you Cole (and Scott) for urging us to think and act beyond the numbers! ​​