For IBISWorld's Industry Risk Rating Reports, how should we weigh providing more granular risk assessments against keeping the reports concise and easily digestible?

Introduction

The trade-off we're examining today is between providing more granular risk assessments in IBISWorld's Industry Risk Rating Reports and keeping these reports concise and easily digestible. This scenario touches on the core challenge of balancing depth of information with user-friendliness in data-driven products. I'll approach this analysis by first clarifying key aspects, then diving into the product details, metrics, and experimentation before concluding with a recommendation.

Step 1

Clarifying Questions (3 minutes)

• Context: I'm thinking IBISWorld is a leader in industry market research. Could you confirm if these Risk Rating Reports are a new product line or an enhancement to existing offerings?

Why it matters: Helps frame the strategic importance and potential impact on existing products. Expected answer: Enhancement to existing industry reports. Impact on approach: Would focus on integration with current products and user expectations.

• Business Context: Based on the nature of these reports, I assume they're primarily used by financial institutions and investors. Is this correct, and are there any other key customer segments we should consider?

Why it matters: Identifies target users and their specific needs, crucial for balancing granularity vs. digestibility. Expected answer: Primarily financial institutions, but also used by consultants and corporate strategists. Impact on approach: Would tailor the solution to meet diverse user needs and technical expertise levels.

• User Impact: I'm thinking the main user behavior we're trying to influence is decision-making speed and confidence. Is this accurate, or are there other key behaviors we're targeting?

Why it matters: Helps prioritize features and information presentation. Expected answer: Decision-making speed and confidence are primary, but also depth of analysis for some users. Impact on approach: Would consider a tiered information structure to serve different user needs.

• Technical: Regarding the granularity of risk assessments, are we limited by our data sources or analytical capabilities, or is this purely a product design decision?

Why it matters: Determines if we need to consider technical constraints or data acquisition strategies. Expected answer: Some limitations in data granularity, but primarily a product design decision. Impact on approach: Would focus on optimizing presentation of available data rather than expanding data collection.

• Resource: Given that this involves potentially significant changes to a core product, do we have dedicated resources for this initiative, or will it be competing with other priorities?

Why it matters: Helps understand the scope and timeline possibilities for implementation. Expected answer: Dedicated team, but limited resources due to other ongoing projects. Impact on approach: Would prioritize high-impact, low-resource solutions initially.