The end of my involvement
In general we all have worked hard, trying to make the NIMMO-telepanel a success. In general we also had a nice time together, doing our research in this new way. However, an event happened which made it clear to me that I could not function at the NIMMO-telepanel as director anymore. Therefore I resigned as director of the NIMMO-telepanel.
This was the problem
In August 1994 a student, Jan ´t Hart, wrote in Folia, the journal of the university, the following:
“The total amount of money the foundation telepanel in three years had swallowed was about 8 million guilders.”
This remark was based on a confidential note of the board of the University of Amsterdam. How he came to this conclusion was unclear.
His remark illustrates that he neither knew the real numbers nor understood the difference between a subsidy for an investment and the costs of exploitation. The note of the UvA suggested that in three years a debt was created of 2.9 million. However also this number was hard to believe, given revenues of the Eurostat project of around 1 million and other large projects such as regular surveys for a big trade union FNV, the research for the Product organizations and the Banks.
In October 1994 I received the confidential note of the board of the University on which the Folia publication was based. However the note didn´t make it clear how they came to this result. Although I was the director of NIMMO-telepanel, I was not informed, neither asked a clarification about this by the board of the university. I did not ask for this information because I understood that my task for the NIMMO-telepanel was finished anyway.
The "journalist" knew more
He wrote: “According to a reliable, well-informed source, Saris purchased far too old computers against the advice of his advisor. The result was that they broke down. Participants permanently complained about the computers, that many had to be replaced, but also the questionnaires were often not completed".
According to another source: "Saris told his clients that 2000 households were involved in the investigation. In reality, there were around fourteen hundred households where computers were installed. If one adds that at least 200 people each week did not want to or could not enter the data, the clients received data of half of the number of households that was promised.”
Every sentence presented above was incorrect. These problems did not occur, let alone that we were misleading our clients. I wrote to the author of the paper, the board of the faculty and the board of the university that all this was not true. But how did he get this information?
In August 1994 a student, Jan ´t Hart, wrote in Folia, the journal of the university, the following:
“The total amount of money the foundation telepanel in three years had swallowed was about 8 million guilders.”
This remark was based on a confidential note of the board of the University of Amsterdam. How he came to this conclusion was unclear.
His remark illustrates that he neither knew the real numbers nor understood the difference between a subsidy for an investment and the costs of exploitation. The note of the UvA suggested that in three years a debt was created of 2.9 million. However also this number was hard to believe, given revenues of the Eurostat project of around 1 million and other large projects such as regular surveys for a big trade union FNV, the research for the Product organizations and the Banks.
In October 1994 I received the confidential note of the board of the University on which the Folia publication was based. However the note didn´t make it clear how they came to this result. Although I was the director of NIMMO-telepanel, I was not informed, neither asked a clarification about this by the board of the university. I did not ask for this information because I understood that my task for the NIMMO-telepanel was finished anyway.
The "journalist" knew more
He wrote: “According to a reliable, well-informed source, Saris purchased far too old computers against the advice of his advisor. The result was that they broke down. Participants permanently complained about the computers, that many had to be replaced, but also the questionnaires were often not completed".
According to another source: "Saris told his clients that 2000 households were involved in the investigation. In reality, there were around fourteen hundred households where computers were installed. If one adds that at least 200 people each week did not want to or could not enter the data, the clients received data of half of the number of households that was promised.”
Every sentence presented above was incorrect. These problems did not occur, let alone that we were misleading our clients. I wrote to the author of the paper, the board of the faculty and the board of the university that all this was not true. But how did he get this information?
The first reliable source
In the very beginning I had asked a person more familiar with computers than I, to look for a good computer that we could use for the telepanel. He looked around and in the end he came with a proposal of a computer which was rather advanced from a firm which I had never heard of. When I had to make the decision, I did not dare to choose 2000 of these computers. I wanted to be sure that we would not have problems with the computers. Therefore, I preferred a less advanced very established computer from a well-known firm. This decision annoyed this person so much that he stopped his cooperation with NIMMO. That was of course not a very nice start. However, it turned out that the chosen computer was very robust and good enough for its task.
In the very beginning I had asked a person more familiar with computers than I, to look for a good computer that we could use for the telepanel. He looked around and in the end he came with a proposal of a computer which was rather advanced from a firm which I had never heard of. When I had to make the decision, I did not dare to choose 2000 of these computers. I wanted to be sure that we would not have problems with the computers. Therefore, I preferred a less advanced very established computer from a well-known firm. This decision annoyed this person so much that he stopped his cooperation with NIMMO. That was of course not a very nice start. However, it turned out that the chosen computer was very robust and good enough for its task.
The second reliable source
The second reliable source was the person who was responsible for the program that should record all steps in the process. In the past I had left him in Crete to finish this program. Later we detected that not all the details were finished. At some point in time we did not know where a large number of computers were, because the administration was not registering the computers. As before, I asked him several times to complete the program. This had little effect.
He was busy helping other researchers to create complex questionnaires. The software developed for writing questionnaires was made in such a way that all people without programming knowledge could design even complex questionnaires. However one could also write some questionnaires in a more efficient way if one would use the programming possibilities which also were available in the program. He was a very smart programmer and liked to help the people who made questionnaires. However, if he helped them once to make a complex questionnaire, they needed him again the next time for minor changes and in this way several researchers became dependent on him and he could not do his own work.
After having warned him several times, I had to conclude that it could not go on like this. I had warned him so many times. Therefore I came to the conclusion that the only possibility was to fire him. This led of course to protest of all the people who were dependent on him, but I told them that they should do their jobs themselves. It was not possible that all should be dependent on one person. With the support of the director of the faculty, I could push this decision through. Then it turned out that indeed all people could make their own questionnaires even though they were maybe a bit less efficient than before.
The second reliable source was the person who was responsible for the program that should record all steps in the process. In the past I had left him in Crete to finish this program. Later we detected that not all the details were finished. At some point in time we did not know where a large number of computers were, because the administration was not registering the computers. As before, I asked him several times to complete the program. This had little effect.
He was busy helping other researchers to create complex questionnaires. The software developed for writing questionnaires was made in such a way that all people without programming knowledge could design even complex questionnaires. However one could also write some questionnaires in a more efficient way if one would use the programming possibilities which also were available in the program. He was a very smart programmer and liked to help the people who made questionnaires. However, if he helped them once to make a complex questionnaire, they needed him again the next time for minor changes and in this way several researchers became dependent on him and he could not do his own work.
After having warned him several times, I had to conclude that it could not go on like this. I had warned him so many times. Therefore I came to the conclusion that the only possibility was to fire him. This led of course to protest of all the people who were dependent on him, but I told them that they should do their jobs themselves. It was not possible that all should be dependent on one person. With the support of the director of the faculty, I could push this decision through. Then it turned out that indeed all people could make their own questionnaires even though they were maybe a bit less efficient than before.
The damage was done
Whether the information in Folia was true or not, it did not matter anymore. The market research company GFK saw its chance to regain its monopoly in consumer research and copied the information from Folia and sent it around to all its clients. They also wrote in the market research periodical “Onderzoek” that the financial problems of the telepanel were due to the fact that we calculated too low prices. According to them this was an example of unfair competition. Besides, they suggested repeatedly that NIMMO did not have the capacities to do this research.
The student continued his work
The student continued to publish weekly in Folia "new hot information" about the telepanel and GFK copied these articles and sent them around.
Because I did not see that I could play a role anymore for the NIMMO-telepanel, I resigned as scientific director and was substituted by my colleague Dirk Sikkel. The telepanel could be continued at the University of Amsterdam till 1997 when it moved to the University of Tilburg with some of the researchers of NIMMO and there it successfully was functioning till 2002 in combination with the “high income panel”. This suggests that the idea of a computer based panel was not so bad, it could be exploited with a positive result, but not at the University of Amsterdam.
Just recently I asked and received the information from the University of Amsterdam on which the earlier note mentioning the debt of 2.9 million was based. In the next section I will present this information and clarify what happened.
Whether the information in Folia was true or not, it did not matter anymore. The market research company GFK saw its chance to regain its monopoly in consumer research and copied the information from Folia and sent it around to all its clients. They also wrote in the market research periodical “Onderzoek” that the financial problems of the telepanel were due to the fact that we calculated too low prices. According to them this was an example of unfair competition. Besides, they suggested repeatedly that NIMMO did not have the capacities to do this research.
The student continued his work
The student continued to publish weekly in Folia "new hot information" about the telepanel and GFK copied these articles and sent them around.
Because I did not see that I could play a role anymore for the NIMMO-telepanel, I resigned as scientific director and was substituted by my colleague Dirk Sikkel. The telepanel could be continued at the University of Amsterdam till 1997 when it moved to the University of Tilburg with some of the researchers of NIMMO and there it successfully was functioning till 2002 in combination with the “high income panel”. This suggests that the idea of a computer based panel was not so bad, it could be exploited with a positive result, but not at the University of Amsterdam.
Just recently I asked and received the information from the University of Amsterdam on which the earlier note mentioning the debt of 2.9 million was based. In the next section I will present this information and clarify what happened.
<< back to Home