Why Humility Matters in Research Technology Innovation

By Forsta

• article

• Innovation Research
• Automated Reporting
• Dashboards
• Data Visualisation
• Reporting
• Survey Analysis

Tobi Andersson is General Manager for Market Research at Forsta. He founded Dapresy – now Forsta Visualizations – in 2003 after recognising the need for better data visualisation whilst working at a fieldwork house in 1999. Over 15 years, he scaled Dapresy from a local Swedish company to a global business with over 100 employees.

Learn more by watching or listening to Tobi on the Founders and Leaders Series podcast here:

When I started Dapresy in 2003, I had a very specific vision. I wanted to solve one problem: helping organisations consume market research data in a more efficient way. I did not set out to revolutionise the industry, disrupt existing practices, or convince everyone they were doing everything wrong.

That focus on solving a real problem, within the context of how the industry actually worked, turned out to be one of the most important decisions I made. Over 15 years, we grew from a single-person Swedish company to a global organisation with more than 100 employees operating across every region. But we never lost sight of the fact that our success depended on fitting into the existing ecosystem, not trying to blow it up.

I mention this because I see a very different narrative in much of today’s research technology space. Startups backed by venture capital often talk about disruption. They position themselves as the solution to an industry that is broken, outdated, or resistant to change. They promise to completely transform how research is done.

This approach might make for compelling press releases, but, in my experience, it is the wrong way to build a successful research technology business. Let me explain why.

The Market Research Industry Works Rather Well

Market research is a mature industry. That is not a criticism. It is simply a statement of fact. Over many decades, we have developed robust methodologies for collecting reliable data. We have established quality standards for sampling, questionnaire design, and statistical analysis. We have created processes that allow agencies and in-house teams to deliver insights that genuinely inform business decisions.

Are there areas where we can improve? Of course. Every industry can be more efficient, adopt new technologies, or adapt to changing respondent behaviours. But the foundation is sound. The core principles of good research have not changed, even as the tools and techniques have evolved.

When a technology startup enters this space, claiming that everything needs to be torn down and rebuilt, they are essentially telling potential customers: “You have been doing this wrong. Your experience and expertise are outdated. Ignore what you know and trust us instead.”

That is not a recipe for building trust. More importantly, it is not accurate. The people working in market research today are not doing things wrong. They are applying well-established methodologies that have been refined over decades. They have deep knowledge of their clients, their categories, and what constitutes reliable evidence for decision-making.

Innovation Should Reduce Risk, Not Increase It

When I speak with research organisations about adopting new technology, I always hear the same underlying concern: risk. They worry about data quality, whether the new tool will integrate with their existing systems, the learning curve for their team, and explaining changes to clients who are comfortable with current approaches.

These are all legitimate concerns. A research agency’s reputation is built on the quality and reliability of the insights it delivers. An in-house research team’s credibility depends on stakeholders trusting the data and recommendations they provide. Introducing new technology that adds uncertainty or requires people to completely change how they work is a genuine business risk.

The most successful technology innovations in our industry have been those that reduce this risk rather than increase it. They fit into existing workflows, enhance current capabilities rather than replacing them entirely, and allow organisations to deliver better results without requiring clients or stakeholders to understand or accept a fundamentally different approach.

When we built Dapresy, we made a conscious decision that the tool should be able to take any kind of market research data. We did not dictate a specific data collection method or require people to change their survey design. We accepted data in whatever format it came, and made it easy to visualise. That reduced friction and made adoption much easier.

The lesson applies more broadly. If your innovation requires your customers to take on substantial risk, change their established processes, or convince their own clients to accept something fundamentally different, you are making your own path to market much harder. And you are probably not being realistic about how organisations actually make decisions about technology adoption.

Learn Your Target Group

One of the most important lessons I learned while building Dapresy was the value of working closely with customers to understand their real challenges. Not the challenges I assumed they had, but the actual problems they encountered in their day-to-day work.

In the early days, I spent enormous amounts of time talking to research professionals. What frustrated them about current tools? Where did they spend time on tasks that felt mechanical rather than strategic? What would make their clients happier? What would make their own jobs more satisfying?

This deep understanding of customer needs shaped every product decision we made. We built features that solved real problems, not features that seemed technically impressive but had limited practical value. We prioritised capabilities based on what would genuinely make our customers more successful in their own businesses.

This approach requires humility. You have to accept that your customers know their business better than you do, be willing to listen carefully (even when what you hear does not align with your initial vision), and have to resist the temptation to build what you think is cool and instead build what will actually create value.

I see many startups today that have not learned this lesson. They build technology based on what they believe the industry needs, rather than what research professionals are actually asking for. They prioritise innovation for its own sake, rather than innovation that solves clearly defined problems. Then struggle to understand why adoption is slower than expected.

Step by Step, Not Revolution

When organisations adopt new technology, they do so in stages. They start with a pilot project, test with a small team or a single client, and validate that the technology delivers the promised benefits. Then they train more people, gradually expand usage, and, eventually, if everything goes well, the new tool becomes standard practice.

This is entirely rational behaviour. It manages risk. It allows organisations to learn and adjust. It gives time for people to develop expertise with the new capability. It creates evidence that can be used to justify broader investment.

If your innovation requires organisations to make a big leap all at once, you are fighting against this natural adoption pattern. You are asking people to take more risk than they are comfortable with, making a successful sale much harder to achieve.

Far better to offer something that can be adopted incrementally. Something that enhances what people already do well, rather than requiring them to abandon it. Something that delivers visible value quickly, building confidence and momentum for broader adoption.

The Role of Patience

Building a successful research technology business takes time. Dapresy did not become a global company overnight. It was years of steady growth, continuous product improvement, and building trust with customers one relationship at a time.

This requires patience. It requires accepting that transformation happens gradually, not suddenly. It requires focusing on sustainable growth rather than trying to force rapid scale before you have truly proven value.

I recognise this message may not be what venture capital investors want to hear. There is an expectation in that world that technology companies will grow explosively, dominate their market quickly, and generate huge returns within a compressed timeframe.

But market research is not social media. It is not a winner-takes-all market where network effects create natural monopolies. It is a professional services industry where relationships, trust, and proven capability matter enormously. Success comes from understanding that reality and working within it, not from trying to force a different dynamic.

The Path Forward

None of this means we should not innovate. The market research industry absolutely benefits from new technology, fresh thinking, and better ways of working. AI is opening up genuine opportunities to work more efficiently. New data sources are creating possibilities for richer insights. Better visualisation tools are making research more accessible to decision-makers.

The innovations that will succeed are those built on a foundation of humility. Humility about the strengths of existing practices, the legitimate concerns of potential customers, how organisations actually adopt new technology, and the fact that lasting success comes from solving real problems, not from pursuing disruption for its own sake.

If you are building a research technology startup or leading innovation within an established company, I would encourage you to spend less time thinking about how to disrupt the industry and more time on how to make research professionals more successful in what they already do well. Learn your target group deeply. Fit into existing workflows. Reduce risk rather than increasing it. And have the patience to grow steadily rather than explosively.

That may not make for exciting press releases, but it is the path to building something that genuinely creates value and stands the test of time.

Learn more by watching or listening to Tobi on the Founders and Leaders Series podcast here:

Author

Learn more about