FOCUS GROUPS

Focus groups, a group of people with the same purpose, are a powerful means to evaluate services or test new ideas.
The purpose of this working group is to provide information.

In Quality management systems, the information gathered from focus groups will be on a particular product or service, in the spirit of customer satisfaction.

Participants in the focus groups were chosen according to the characteristics that they share with the argument that will be the leitmotif of the discussion of the group.
The relational dynamics of the focus group will be conducted in a relaxed and friendly way, with no external psychological pressures.

If we compare the focus group to another widely used tool in the same context, it would certainly be brainstorming: a group of people in a room that faces on a given subject in full freedom.
Just like the famous "brain storm", in fact, the focus groups should be poorly structured, fluid, and conducted in a serene environment to bring out the best from each participant.

The focus group or teamwork, is a discussion lasting an average of an hour and a half, which takes place between a group of people composed, typically, six to ten elements.
Some people start focus groups composed of more people but the risk is to exclude anyone from the debate while involving fewer than six persons would be to limit the interaction between people and let the one with the stronger character is imposed on others.

A group of six elements will be more naturally led to an argument, rehearsed all social security aspects that bring out many opinions to think about (something easier with a group of more people). For this reason you should choose the number of elements may be involved depending on the objective that we intend to achieve.

Pay particular attention to focus conducted with people working in the same organization at different hierarchical levels. It is possible that there are impediments to take unorthodox positions compared to the philosophy of the organization and that there is a tendency to align the position of superior authority.
In this case, unfortunately, the group will be of little help because it lacks the spontaneity and sincerity which is the prerequisite for obtaining useful information from this important tool for improvement.

Unbalanced groups like these are always to be avoided but, if you have to moderate one, try to act in this way:

• minimize the possibility of influencing, directing the discussion on objective facts rather than interpretations
• ask each participant comments relevant to the role that each plays and not the overall view in which we can indulge in facile generalizations and rhetorical positions taken
• remember areas left in the shadows, for reasons of delicacy or modesty, and gather information on them with other instruments and other time (eg. with a discussion in depth)

The task of the moderator is to ask specific questions, along a predetermined order, and assume an attitude than do the dynamics of the group (give and take away the word). Should also intervene if the discussion is stagnant, if nobody speaks, or if someone monopolizes the discussion by preventing others to express themselves.

The conduct of a focus, the moderator will use a sort of grid with topics that you want to investigate. Asking specific questions about them, trying to fit into the debate when it considers more appropriate to follow on in some way to the actions of the participants.

At the beginning of the discussion will be appropriate to specify that the responses of participants are not under any circumstances right or wrong but are all interesting ways and who are the opinions of the participants in interest, of whatever kind they are.
The operator will try to keep the conversation within the programmed tracks, possibly using a ladder of points to touch. He must ensure that all participate in the interview, to encourage those more reticent and introverted, paying attention to the less explicit desire to intervene and help those most secretive using the technique of the relaunch of stimuli that had already emerged earlier.

The important thing is that the discussion group does not become a sort of game of ping-pong between the conductor and, in turn, each participant. Does it take, on the contrary, enhance each element of discusssione, comparison between the respondents themselves.
The moderator will be able to remain in positions of absolute neutrality, not to betray in any way what is your opinion. Otherwise, it would create conditions so heavy as to invalidate the results.

To summarize briefly, the duties of the conductor are:

• guide the conversation within a programmed path
• ensure that the debate is dominated by a leader
• encouraging discussion among participants
• maintain a position of neutrality
• facilitate the participation of all
• do not let the group become a place to vent
• never enter into conflict with the participants

Another thing essential to the success of focus groups and is often left out eche, if not familiar with, the participants in the debate, when reading the data collected might not be able to attribute with certainty the identity of the voices that we heard and we collected in our notes.

It would be important, however, whether a given opinion comes from, say, a manager or by an agent in the front office. For this reason it should be in two during the focus (focus group with two moderators). The moderator before beginning the discussion, after presenting himself, he must apply the name and job title (or other characteristic information) to all present. The employee, meanwhile, next to each name will pull a number or letter. Will then draw a stylization of the table with the numbers indicating the participants and, when a person speaks, it must record its number and the concept expressed.
In this way, we can attribute with certainty what those who say otherwise.

An interesting variant that can be applied to the focus groups when you can count on the presence of two moderators is called "focus groups with moderators duelists" where two individuals, deliberately take opposite sides on this debate in order to stimulate responses in the group.

Close, indicating another factor that could be considered in relation to the size of the group is the sensitivity of the issue: If the issue is controversial and may stimulate recriminations between the participants is advisable to keep down the number of contributors to discussionei.