How do you describe other methods that did not work?

“We have already tried that.” This statement opens an important part of audience research. What was tried, for what purpose and under which conditions? Does not working mean the result failed to materialise, the effort was excessive or the approach never came into full use?

The Other methods that did not work field records previous attempts relevant to the current choice. It helps you understand the experience someone brings and what needs investigating in a subsequent approach. A past disappointment does not automatically establish that a method is generally unsuitable.

The field Other methods that did not work describes in the target group profile which approaches the audience actually tried previously and in what relevant respect they fell short of the intended result, according to the available information. This is Neurofactor’s practical working definition for the field.

A useful entry identifies the attempt, its purpose and the experienced or established shortcoming. Add a cause only with an appropriate source status. “Used a shared scoring sheet but, by their own account, still had to reconstruct supplier evaluations” is more precise than “Spreadsheets do not work”.

The label also covers partly successful, abandoned or excessively burdensome attempts, provided the outcome is explicit. It concerns relevant experience of the researched audience, not a general list of weak competing solutions.

An option that was not selected is not a failed attempt. A participant’s explanation is not automatically an established cause or an incorrect assumption either. The same subject can appear in several fields, but each answers a different question.

The field label is a practical classification. We draw on original publications about causal explanations and intervention delivery; they do not validate this target group profile.

Weiner describes how people explain success and failure through perceived causes, including stability and controllability as dimensions. His theory concerns attributed causes. Weiner (1985)

Carroll and colleagues provide a framework for implementation fidelity: how far an intervention is delivered as intended. It helps include implementation when assessing outcomes. Carroll et al. (2007)

Our practical interpretation is to record the attempt, actual implementation, outcome and explanation separately. The following questions and statuses are our own research guidance. They do not establish that poor implementation is always the cause; an approach may genuinely fail to fit the purpose or context.

Use these possibilities as research questions, not predetermined explanations.

Alongside the judgement, record whether measurements, documents or only a recollection are available. “No demonstrated result” may mean no measurement took place; it is not synonymous with a demonstrated absence of effect.

1. Ask openly about the history. “What have you done so far to address this?” Include attempts with positive or mixed results.
2. Make one attempt specific. Record its goal, period, participants, version or procedure and initial reason. “A training course” says little about what actually happened.
3. Reconstruct implementation. Ask which elements were used, how often, by whom and with what support. Do not equate purchase with use.
4. Investigate the evaluation. What counted as a good result beforehand? What was subsequently experienced or measured? Did the criterion change along the way?
5. Ask for the explanation and its basis. Record who identifies a cause, what supports the explanation and what remains unknown. Seek additional information where possible.
6. Connect the experience to the current choice. Ask what the person wants to retain, avoid or investigate differently. Check whether the experience actually affects the current decision.

Invite participants to correct your summary. If stakeholders have different experiences, record them alongside one another. The decision-maker’s account need not match that of the daily user.

For example, write “According to the interviewee, time for maintenance was unavailable” when that is your source. Do not change it to “The method failed because of insufficient time” without further support. Checking records may confirm part of the account while other elements remain uncertain.

Entirely fictional example; not a customer quotation or research finding. A team used a shared scoring sheet to compare suppliers. It wanted to explain an evaluation without repeatedly reconstructing every conversation.

In this invented case, the sheet improved the overview. Yet it remained unclear why colleagues scored the same supplier differently. The team leader says: “We had the scores, but still had to explain the evaluation all over again.” This describes a shortcoming, not its established cause.

A fictional profile sentence is: “Used a shared supplier scoring sheet that improved the overview but, according to those involved, insufficiently recorded why evaluations differed.”

Possible follow-up questions concern criterion definitions, the recording of arguments and how the sheet was used. Which factor explains the problem has not been established. A new tool therefore does not demonstrably solve it simply by being new.

An associative target group is a bounded group of people whose similar associations guide decisions within a specific choice context.

Investigate the meaning participants attach to their previous attempt. In a fictional situation, a new dashboard may be associated with “more maintenance again”. For another group, it may evoke “finally one overview”. Using the same technology does not mean the experience or association is identical.

Record past experience separately from present expectations. Also ask where the comparison ends: which conditions have changed? One negative experience does not establish permanent resistance, a fixed associative target group or a BIS/BAS score.

• Equating not selected with failed. Reviewing a proposal is not trying a method.
• Summarising everything as failure. Retain what worked and why the approach was nevertheless insufficient.
• Recording one person’s explanation as the cause. Make the source and uncertainty explicit.
• Immediately blaming the method or user. Investigate design, implementation, purpose and circumstances too.
• Using brand names as evidence. A brand does not automatically identify the procedure or version experienced.
• Automatically presenting a new offer as the solution. A relevant difference must be feasible and substantiated.
• Extending every recollection to the segment. Check differences between people, roles and use contexts.

Use this working template: “Tried [approach] for [purpose], but [experienced or established shortcoming], according to [source or status where needed].” Add a cause only if it remains clear whether it is assumed, attributed or substantiated.

Alongside the sentence, retain the period, implementation, evaluation criterion, positive partial results, explanations and relevance to the current choice. Give an attempt its own record so several articles or profiles can use the same source without changing its meaning.

Without a previous attempt, write “No previous attempt reported”. With insufficient information, write “Not yet investigated” or “Result cannot be established”. Without a product, investigate previous approaches to the relevant problem; do not invent a product history.

This field describes what has already been tried and where the outcome fell short. Separating purpose, implementation, outcome and explanation makes clear what someone brings to a subsequent choice. Whether a new approach fits better requires its own substantiation.