Discussion

First of all, recognize that there are mainly two types of 1-1 interviews:

1. executive interviews;
2. all others.

The reason I separate out the executive interview is that these interviews are generally in a category by themselves in terms of preparation, level of interviewer experience, interviewer knowledge about either business or topic, costs per interview, and so on. One project running yearly at a major IT firm was so invested in high level executive phone interviews that there was a staff of interviewers hired to do nothing but these interviews. A very expensive proposition, but one so worthwhile to the client that the system has been in place for many years, and each year the same executive-level interviewer interviews the same executive, thereby forming a relationship that enables rather frank discussion. What's at stake here is often not so much the gathering of detailed information as it is in creating and maintaining a relationship. Thus, these are very different interviews than most.

Within the two categories above there are generally two other divisions:

1. those that are done in person;
2. those that are done over the telephone.

Recently, with the rise in popularity of computer talk, one might also include the 1-1 dialog that can take place over the computer, using either text only, or now with high bandwidth everywhere, live audio and video. I would rather set these into a new category and talk about them separately, so for now let's stick with the in person and telephone interviews.

Within those done in person, one could sub-divide once more into those that are:

1. performed on premise (or in the person's environment)
2. performed at a facility or other location that requires the respondent to purposefully travel to the interview.

Phone interviews are just that, 1-1 interviews performed over the phone.

Finally, for all interviews, there is a division that has to do with the interview strategy:

1. Open-ended interview. One which has a specific topic that is to be discussed, where free flowing dialog is the interview strategy.
2. Structured interview. One which relies more on an interview guide having a large number of required questions asked by the interviewer.

I once interviewed home owners in California who had tried a new type of electric service. The goal was to gain as many interviews as possible within the volunteer group, but each was highly structured, leaving very little time for probing or discussion. Clearly the respondent's input was of value, but also clearly, the number of completions was of more value than individual insight. Not that we didn't get insight, but a free wheeling discussion was not needed or wanted in this case. Just the facts, Ma'am.

Your topic, how detailed or complex it is, how sensitive the subject matter, what type of respondent, the geographic location, whether or not you need a white board or other device to use during the discussion, all go into determining the ultimate character of the 1-1 interview. What does not change is that there is a desire to gain a detailed discussion with just one person at a time.

What are the main issues?

The number one issue is cost, of course.

Executive interviews are the most expensive. You can do these over the phone, but many are done in person. Consequently there are travel costs involved above and beyond normal time and materials.

Normal respondent phone interviews are the least expensive, but these are limited in terms of how long a person will sit on a phone, and the inability to demonstrate a product, or even the ability to see body cues that an in-person interview provides. 1-1 interviews that take place at a facility are somewhere in-between, and often offer the best of both worlds. However, you then become highly dependent on the person keeping the appointment.

Most respondents also need an incentive to participate. Depending on the type of respondent, such incentives can become rather escalated in value. I once interviewed dentists on-site. Not only did the client have to pay for my travel and expenses, but also for the lost time the dental practice incurred for the interview, plus an incentive, plus the recruiting costs to line up the interview. Ouch! However, the information led to a new product and these costs were deemed as a developmental investment.

As for focus groups, recruiting is another issue. It is very difficult these days to get an appointment, if you are trying for an executive interview. As there are executive interviewers, there are also executive recruiters, and their prices can be very high. A good executive recruiter is like gold to the industry. He or she is personable, savvy at getting past the gatekeepers most executives have, very rigorous in insuring that the interviewer makes the appointment, and follows up with the executive or his/her office to ensure all went well.

Another issue is information capture. All interviews can be recorded, if allowed, and recently many do not allow recorders. How, then, are you to keep track of all that is discussed? If it is only the interviewer in the room taking notes furiously, then much of the detail cannot possibly be recorded. This situation often requires an assistant note taker, which is not out of the question, but there goes the intimate setting, and there goes costs.

Finally, I would look at the questionnaire used for the interview. Highly structure 1-1 interviews will use a questionnaire that has a large number of closed ended questions. This is fine, but make sure that the following are possible:

1. There is not so much rigidity to the questionnaire that the interviewer cannot allow the person to participate in a discussion. The purpose of the 1-1 interview is to gain the individual's perspective on the topic, not dictate the questions and the flow of thought.
2. There is room and time for discussion. That is, give the interviewer the ability to probe. Go beyond the questionnaire if possible and discover what the person is really thinking.
3. As the interviews progress, do not be afraid to change the questionnaire. There is debate on whether doing so mid-stream would essentially invalidate the research. I would argue that that would certainly be true of quantitative research, but most 1-1 interviews are done to learn. Whether that learning is how folks naturally structure the discussion differently than you, or what type of questions are more important than the ones you have provided. In essence, it is the respondent's show, not yours. After all, that is why you want to talk to them. Get their ideas. Gain their perspective.