Quality Engineering

ISSN: 0898-2112 (Print) 1532-4222 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lqen20

Statistics = Analytics?

Willis A. Jensen

To cite this article: Willis A. Jensen (2020) Statistics = Analytics?, Quality Engineering, 32:2,
133-144, DOI: 10.1080/08982112.2019.1633670

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08982112.2019.1633670

Published online: 07 Aug 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 269

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=lqen20
QUALITY ENGINEERING
2020, VOL. 32, NO. 2, 133–144
https://doi.org/10.1080/08982112.2019.1633670

STU HUNTER RESEARCH CONFERENCE ARTICLE

Statistics = Analytics?
Willis A. Jensen
W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc, Flagstaff, Arizona

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
In recent years, analytics has received increasing attention in the business world with more big data; data analysis; data
conferences and publications addressing how to obtain insights from data. We compare science; statistical
and contrast some definitions of statistics and analytics and provide a hybrid definition. We engineering
share an example of an analytics project which highlights some of the statistical and non-
statistical tools required to be successful. We discuss the connection of statistics and ana-
lytics to other terms such as big data, data science, industrial statistics, statistical thinking,
statistical engineering and Six Sigma. The connections we highlight result in implications,
opportunities and challenges for the statistics profession.

Introduction do statisticians play in analytics projects? Is the discip-

In recent years, Analytics has received a lot of buzz
and attention in the business world with many blogs,
articles and popular books such as Competing on
Analytics by Davenport and Harris (2007). A seminal
paper by Davenport (2006) entitled “Competing on
Analytics” was named as one of the top 12 ideas of
the decade by the Harvard Business Review (Kirby
2010). Phrases such as “data is the new oil” and the
“data economy” (Economist 2017) highlight the
importance of data going into the future. Workers,
managers and executives are all hearing about the
power of data and analytics and want to know more.
Many new conferences and publications have
appeared covering the topics of data and analytics and
how to unlock the insights contained in the data.
Popular application areas are appearing under the
names of people analytics, supply chain analytics, sales
analytics, customer analytics and more.
Despite the hype and buzz, much of this content is
not really all that new, the methods and techniques in
analytics are often well known to statisticians. They
have been described in connection with other terms
and disciplines such as industrial statistics, applied
statistics, statistical thinking, statistical engineering,
Six Sigma, big data and data science. This buzz and
proliferation of different terms raises some interesting
questions. Is analytics really just the application of
statistical methods to business problems? What role
line of statistics the same as the discipline of analytics?
How much overlap is there between the two? What
are the implications of this buzz for the future of the
statistics profession?
We discuss our perspectives on analytics based on
our recent work experiences. We explore the different
definitions of statistics and analytics and their related
terms. We provide an example of a project involving
people analytics (HR analytics), describing some of
the tools used, including the relevant statistical meth-
ods. This project involved some tools and analysis
that have not often been used in traditional industrial
statistics, such as network analysis, algorithms and
high-speed computing methods. Because of our expe-
riences much of our focus here is on business applica-
tions of analytics. Indeed, there is a field around
“Business Analytics”, but we believe that the concepts
we discuss here are relevant for any organization that
wants to make decisions based on data.
For analytics projects, there are many different skill
sets that are required to be successful. Because of the
breadth of these skillsets it is rare for a single individ-
ual to possess all of them, requiring more teamwork
and collaboration. These skillsets include statistical
methods but also many that are non-statistical and
require statisticians to adapt to be successful in this
new environment. These non-statistical skillsets have
implications on the traditional roles of statisticians
and on statistics education. We conclude with our

CONTACT Willis A. Jensen wjensen@wlgore.com W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc, Flagstaff, AZ.
This article was presented at the seventh Stu Hunter Research Conference in Induno Olana, Italy, February 2019.
ß 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
134 W. A. JENSEN
take on the answer to the question of whether or not
statistics and analytics are the same thing.
Some definitions
To understand the link and relationship between sta-
tistics and analytics, we start with some definitions. In
our review of much of the literature in the area, we
have found such a broad variety of definitions in the
terms and no real consistency in how people use the
terms. Nonetheless we need to define what we mean
for purposes of this article. Consider the following
four definitions for the term “statistics” which come
from a biased sample selected to illustrate the variety
that is present in the literature.

“A science, not a branch of mathematics but uses
mathematical models as essential tools.” (American
Statistical Association 2018).

“A branch of mathematics dealing with the collec-
tion, analysis, interpretation, presentation, and
organization of data.” (Wikipedia 2018)

“The science that deals with the collection, classifi-
cation, analysis, and interpretation of numerical
facts or data, and that, by use of mathematical the-
ories of probability, imposes order and regularity
on aggregates of more or less disparate elements”
(Random House 2018)

“The practice or science of collecting and analyzing
numerical data in large quantities, especially for
the purpose of inferring proportions in a whole
from those in a representative sample” (Oxford
Dictionary 2018a)
The American Statistical Association (ASA) defin-
ition is incidentally attributed as a quote from John
Tukey but as far as we can determine, it is actually a
subset of a quote from a talk given by Tukey in 1951
and which is printed in Tukey and Jones (1986, p.
66). We do find it interesting that a definition of sta-
tistics is not clearly or officially defined within the
ASA content on their website. Statisticians in general
recoil from the Wikipedia definition because they feel
that it is a separate discipline from mathematics rather
than being a branch of mathematics and we agree
with that sentiment. The Random House definition is
a little more complicated but agrees with the ASA def-
inition in defining statistics as a science. Similarly, the
Oxford dictionary definition also treats statistics as a
science and emphasizes the importance of samples
and inference. What is common to all these defini-
tions? Wikipedia aside, there is something in all the
definitions about the discipline of statistics as a sci-
ence as well as including elements of the collection
and analysis of data. There is some mathematical
element to the discipline of statistics although that is
becoming less fundamental as computing power
becomes more prevalent and the data analysis
becomes more dependent on software tools.
Box (1990, p. 252), noting the shift away from the
math heavy focus of statistics in the past, stated “It
seems a pity that while we statisticians have an oppor-
tunity to rate as first-class scientists we should settle for
the rather dreary role of second-class mathematician”.
One of our former university professors was fond of
quoting this more concisely as “Why do we aspire to be
2nd rate mathematicians when we can be 1st rate scien-
tists?” With the increase in computing power and data
availability that continues today, mathematics is
becoming less important for statisticians while savvi-
ness with a computer is become more important. Lenth
(2014, p. 14) in a Youden address described this as the
underlying tectonic plates shifting when he stated
“Partly due to technology, the underpinnings of the
theory of statistics have also evolved in the past few
decades. Just as the Pacific tectonic plate has gradually
shifted over the hot spot that created the Hawaiian
Islands, statistical theory has shifted so that the under-
lying hot spot has changed largely from mathematics to
computer science.” This shift in the underlying tools
for the use statistical methods does not change the fun-
damental focus of statistics on data and the science of
extracting information from that data.
Now consider the definitions of analytics. In our
opinion, there is even more variety and differences in
how the term is used. This variety and the resulting
confusion was noted by Rose (2016). Again, a biased
sample of some definitions are given as:

“The scientific process of transforming data into
insight for making better decisions”
(INFORMS 2018)

“The discovery, interpretation, and communication
of meaningful patterns in data and applying those
patterns towards effective decision making”
(Wikipedia 2018)

“Information resulting from the systematic analysis
of data” (Oxford 2018b)

“It conceptually groups together the quantitative
decision science [which includes statistics, data sci-
ence, operations research, computer science, indus-
trial engineering]” (Rose 2016)

“A comprehensive, data-driven strategy for prob-
lem solving” (Nelson 2018)

There are some common themes in these defini-
tions related to the use of data, information and deci-
sion-making. Another thing that seems to be common
in these definitions is that analytics is something you
do (ie methodology or strategy) in a general sense
with data. We find the grouping concept of Rose
(2016) to be interesting. While Rose (2016) noted the
many different ways analytics is used, they do provide
a definition as a broad concept that includes a variety
of other disciplines such as computer science and sta-
tistics. In their framework, analytics encompasses
other disciplines much the same way that the broad
term of science encompasses the disciplines of physics,
biology and chemistry. Seen this way, analytics
becomes not so much a discipline in itself but a way
to group disciplines that have some element of data
analysis and decision making in them. Treating it this
way also allows you to have the alternative definition
of analytics as an action. You can do analytics just as
you can do science. This also allows one to talk about
general principles for doing good analytics, just as you
can talk about general principles to do good science.
We note that many good principles for doing good
science (e.g. starting with a question/hypothesis,
reproducible research, independent confirmation of
results) are also good principles for doing
good analytics.
To share an alternative, hybrid definition of ana-
lytics, we take a brief detour to discuss some concepts
related to Big Data. There has been a lot of discussion
about Big Data and what makes data big enough to
be considered “Big Data”. These discussions often
Figure 1. Fundamental V’s of data analysis.
QUALITY ENGINEERING 135
include discussion of the 3 Vs of Big Data in the
Volume, Velocity and Variety such as the discussion
of Jain (2013) and which were elaborated further in
Jones-Farmer, Ezell, and Hazen (2014). We wish to
shift the debate from semantics about the definition
and size of Big Data to the fundamentals of any data
no matter how big they are. In keeping with the
theme of using terms beginning with the letter “V” we
believe these fundamentals can be described with an
additional set of terms which we call the
“Fundamental V’s” and which are shown in Figure 1.
We believe that a greater focus on these 4 fundamen-
tal V’s will lead to more success with Big Data than
the focus on the 3 V’s of Volume, Velocity and
Variety. As noted by Hoerl (2019), these fundamentals
do matter!
In Figure 1, we see the importance of using the
right data with the concept of the veracity of the data
and which has been described elsewhere as the 4th V
of Big Data by ASA Working Group (2014). The ver-
acity of something means that it is truthful and cor-
rect. Truthful data implies that we have the right data
for the problem at hand. It means that the data are
correct and do not have errors in them that would
lead to incorrect conclusions. We all know the adage
“Garbage in, garbage out”, which is true for all types
of data. Systems for data gathering must be error
proof. This is represented at the left of Figure 1 to
show that the data is the raw material for data ana-
lysis, it is the input into the process of analyzing data.
The concept of the variation in data is well-recog-
nized by statisticians and they often stress the
136 W. A. JENSEN
importance of accounting for variation in the use of
any statistical tools. Variation is present in all proc-
esses that generate data, even when such generating
processes are not recognized as such. All data is gen-
erated by processes. And the fundamental first tenet
of “statistical thinking” as defined by ASQ is that “All
processes have variation” (Britz et al. 1996). This is
placed at the bottom of the figure to represent that
the sources of variation may be hidden but it is always
present, underlying any data that are collected and
used in an analysis.
The next V is Visualization. It is not enough to
simply analyze the data and obtain conclusions. The
information contained in the data must be communi-
cated to those who most are able to act on it.
Visualization is a crucial way to be able to communi-
cate the analysis results and thereby obtain more
value. If the data analyst is the only one who is able
to understand the insights obtained from the data,
then the full value and impact will not be realized.
This V is placed at the top of Figure 1 as it is the vis-
ible piece of analysis in contrast with the variation.
The final V is Value. Value refers to the benefits
obtained from the output of the data analysis. It
should be emphasized that we do not mean Value to
be strictly a monetary value although that is certainly
one possible aspect. Rather we use a broader defin-
ition of value to include information or knowledge
that can be acted upon in some way. The core elem-
ent of value is the ability to make a decision using the
data. Value comes from the answers to the questions
that drive the data collection and analysis, but it is
more than just the conclusions from a data analysis. It
also includes the “so what?” that you ask after obtain-
ing the conclusions. If you stop at conclusions, you
have not gotten any value from the data. It is at the
right side of Figure 1 because it represents the output,
the end product that comes from the raw material
of data.
We summarize the Vs with the simple equation of
Right Data þ Right Analysis ¼ Right Decision which is
shown at the bottom of Figure 1. The right data is the
correct, relevant data. Beyond the statistical methods
and modeling techniques for data analysis, the right
analysis includes powerful visualizations that correctly
account for the variation in the data and how it is col-
lected. It is important to recognize that the efforts to
do a good analysis can be wasted if the visualization
is misleading or uninformative. The right decision
creates the value to the organization that is using the
data. An alternative viewpoint on Figure 1 with more
detail is described as a framework of Information
Quality (InfoQ) in Kenett and Shmueli (2014, 2016).
Thus, to define analytics we offer a hybrid defin-
ition of the previous definitions as “Creation of infor-
mation for effective decision-making by the systematic
analysis of data.” This definition captures the doing
and action of analytics rather than considering ana-
lytics as just an outcome. In a sense we are arguing
that analytics is synonymous with the general term of
data analysis. Implicit in this definition are all of the 4
Vs that we have highlighted: veracity, variation, visu-
alization and value. Also implicit in this definition is
that it captures the work of many of the different dis-
ciplines around quantitative decision-making based on
data that Rose (2016) described. Given this broader
definition of analytics, there are many ways to seg-
ment different types of analytics.
In the analytics literature, one way to segment dif-
ferent types of analytics is by the type of question that
we seeking to answer. These different questions are
shown in it is common to refer to different types of
analytics such as descriptive, predictive or prescriptive
analytics. A common picture was shown by Elliott
(2013) as follows.
Although we don’t necessarily agree with the place-
ment of the items within the axes of this graph, we do
find it helpful to use these different types of questions
to help individuals and teams focus their analytical
efforts. In our experience, these different situations for
using these types of analytics is not always as linear or
clear cut as is shown in Figure 2. For example, we’ve
had some experiences where there were difficulties in
doing descriptive analytics, where there were no exist-
ing data systems much higher than the difficulty in
doing predictive analytics, and in another situation,
where the data was more readily available. We’ve also
found situations where descriptive analytics actually
created very high value and generated significant
returns on investment compared to more sophisti-
cated types of analytics.
Figure 2. Types of analytics based on questions.

Regardless of the type of question being asked,
there is data involved, there is a systematic analysis,
there is decision-making and there is information. So,
our definition of analytics does not preclude these dif-
ferent types of analytics. Descriptive analytics is a
more retrospective view with the data and often
involves reports, summary statistics and dashboards
with historical trends of data. Diagnostic analytics
involves root cause analysis and data exploration to
determine underlying reasons for why the data are the
way they are. Predictive analytics involves building
models to determine significant variables that impact
the response and make predictions when we are confi-
dent the models are sufficiently accurate representa-
tions of reality. Prescriptive analytics goes one step
further to identify proactive actions that can be taken
based on predictions in order to improve the out-
comes before they actually occur.
This segmentation based on the questions or pur-
pose of the analytics does not preclude other ways to
segment analytics. Another way to segment is based
on application areas of these types of analytics. That’s
why it makes sense to refer to areas such as sports
analytics, HR analytics, supply chain analytics, market-
ing analytics, web analytics, customer analytics and
more. Many of these application areas use the same
types of tools in descriptive, diagnostics, predictive
and prescriptive analytics. So, you can for example, do
predictive analytics in the marketing analytics arena as
well as in the supply chain analytics arena. Regardless
of the segmentation used, the fundamental concepts
shown in Figure 1 still apply.
Statistics versus analytics
Given these definitions of statistics and analytics, what
is the overlap and distinction? Clearly, both have
something to do with data analysis. However, we
would argue that statistics has a stronger science
element while analytics has a stronger decision-mak-
ing element. None of the definitions for statistics pre-
viously share include elements around decision
making. There-in lies a fundamental shift from statis-
tics as a science to analytics that involves decision-
making or action. One can do science for the sake of
science just as you can analyze data solely for the sake
of learning something from that data. But there is no
value in the information obtained from data unless it
impacts a decision or is acted upon. Note that the
choice to not take a particular action as a consequence
of a data is a decision that can be just as valuable as
the choice to act.
QUALITY ENGINEERING 137
Given the general focus in business to make profit
or for organizations to aspire to make a difference in
the world, it should not be surprising that decision-
making and action are important priorities. Insight, in
and of itself, does not provide value unless it becomes
actionable insight. Thus the “Value” dimension shown
in Figure 1 is crucial to any analytics effort and we
see that as a crucial distinction from traditional statis-
tical methodology which focuses more on the analysis
tools for the data at hand.
A project example
To illustrate an example of an analytics project, we
share a project we worked on that combined a variety
of tools and approaches at Gore. Gore is a large com-
pany of nearly 10,000 associates spread out in multiple
divisions in multiple countries across the globe. The
problem involved the peer-to-peer evaluation process
at Gore that was described in Hamel and Breen (2007,
Chapter 5). Individual associates at Gore are ranked
by their peers in terms of their contributions that they
are making to the company and compensation deci-
sions are made based on the evaluation results.
However, over time this annual process became time-
consuming and cumbersome because many individu-
als were working in more diverse and geographically
dispersed teams. A more efficient way of gathering
the peer ranking input that accounted for the chang-
ing work environment was needed.
An idea of a better way, using the network of con-
nected associates was proposed. In this idea, each
associate nominated 5–20 other associates that they
felt would best understand their contribution to the
company and who could rank them. The nominations
are pooled together and based on the collective net-
work map of all the nominations, pairs are selected to
be ranked by those who were nominated. The pairs
were selected using a sophisticated algorithm provided
by an external vendor that seeks to find the optimal
set based on some key criteria to maximize the quality
of the information provided by inputters. A web-
based tool was built to collect the ranking data from
the nearly 10,000 associates who are asked to provide
input. The data on ranked pairs are analyzed with
statistical software to determine the relative ranking of
associates and the data output is provided to the com-
mittees who determine the final rankings. The final
rankings are used as an input into compensa-
tion decisions.
How did this work get started? The idea was
pitched by a statistician to leadership who supported
138 W. A. JENSEN
the idea and a small prototype experiment involving a
smaller group of associates was executed. After the
successful execution of the prototype, we joined a
cross-functional team of about 20 associates tasked
with scaling up the concept to be used across the
whole Enterprise. This team included individuals from
IT, HR, Project Management, Leadership and
Statistics. Our role included more than just the statis-
tical analysis of the data, but also included education
of statistical concepts to the project team, simulation
of potential scenarios that could happen in the execu-
tion, testing of the algorithm results and involvement
in the change management efforts. As a result of the
project successfully meeting timelines, the resulting
process has resulted in a conservative estimate of
more than 10,000 labor hours saved every year.
Looking back on this project, how would one
define the work? Is this an example of good statistical
consulting or collaboration? It is a big data or data
science project? Ultimately, it required the use of
many different skills and disciplines, so it is challeng-
ing to classify it as a project in a single discipline. The
complexity of the project makes it difficult to categor-
ize, yet there is no denying the value of statistical
methods involved along with other methods from
other disciplines. However, the statistical methods
were just one small aspect of the project. Using the
broader definition of analytics given in Rose (2016),
we feel comfortable calling this an analytics project
because it involves methods from many different dis-
ciplines. Ultimately, this work falls under our defin-
ition of analytics as “Creation of information for
effective decision-making by the systematic analysis
of data.”
Connections to other disciplines
In this preceding discussion on statistics and analytics,
we have not discussed much other related terms. As
the field of data analysis has evolved over time, there
are many different terms and perspectives and move-
ments that have been proposed. We share some
thoughts on some of these terms including – big data,
data science, Six Sigma and statistical engineering.
As mentioned previously, another buzzword is that
of Big Data. In reality, it doesn’t matter how big or
little the data are, good data analysis is still crucial to
be able to get the information from the data.
Analytics is still analytics, regardless of how much
data one has at their disposal. Yes, the computing
techniques and analysis methods are different to
account for large volume, velocity and variety of data
but the fundamentals Vs shown in Figure 1 are still
highly relevant. We believe a focus on getting the
right data needed to answer a question or solve a
problem will be more successful than simply doing a
Big Data effort. In spite of the increasing availability
of data being generated by new technology, good ana-
lytics is still essential to be able to extract the value
from that data.
Data science is another term that has been used
with increasing frequency. There are plenty of debates
about what data science is and how it is related to sta-
tistics and other disciplines such as the arguments of
Donoho (2017). From our perspective, data science
should have been the term that statisticians used to
describe their work. The definitions on statistics that
we shared earlier generally incorporate the terms
“data” and “science” and regardless of how the term is
used now, it may have been a missed opportunity for
the statistics profession. Tukey (1962) regarded data
analysis as a science and suggested it should be its
own discipline. Statisticians didn’t use the term and
consequently the computer science profession later
began to use the term to describe the computational
tools used for data analysis. As a result, data science
now has a predominant computer science flavor to it
and is often seen more as a computationally heavy
approach to data analysis as reflected in data mining
techniques and machine learning algorithms for work-
ing with larger data sets. Some of those working as
“data scientists” do great work with the data but don’t
have as much experience with the science aspects of
data analysis. A scientific approach to data analysis
would always start with the question to be answered
and then get the right data to match that question
rather than the approach of starting with the data and
see what information can be extracted from it as
described by Leek (2013). We recognize that data sci-
ence as a term has been evolving and that there is a
wide variety in the mix of “data” and “science” focus
that data scientists do in their work. Regardless of
how one uses the term data science, it is still covered
by our broad definition of analytics.
In general, we see statisticians as those who advo-
cated for real understanding of what is happening in
the relationships between the variables, who want to
understand the causal effects, the science behind what
is happening in the data. In contrast, many individu-
als in the newer data science arena who are doing
algorithmic (e.g. machine learning) models are less
concerned with the science and more concerned with
getting good predictions in the models that are built.
They seek less to understand the causal effects.

Breiman (2001) described these differences in two dif-
ferent cultures of statistical modeling and argued that
more emphasis needed to be placed on the algorith-
mic modeling culture. Similarly, Shmueli (2010) dis-
tinguished between explanatory modeling which seeks
to understand the causal effects of variables from pre-
dictive modeling which seeks to obtain better predic-
tions. We don’t see this as an either/or issue. Rather
we that both cultures and both types of modeling are
needed, depending on the problem at hand. Nelson
(2018) described the synergy that can happen where
algorithmic models are used to help discover patterns
and relationships in the data and generate hypotheses.
The hypotheses can be tested and confirmed with
more traditional statistical models and experiments to
ensure that the results are explainable and reprodu-
cible. Both exploratory data analysis to generate ques-
tions and confirmatory data analysis to understand
the causal effects are important. Analytics as a broader
term embraces both of these cultures and modeling
types as necessary to solve problems.
Six Sigma and its variations (e.g. Design for Six
Sigma and Lean Six Sigma) is an approach that
received a lot of buzz in the 90s and early 00s in the
business world in the United States. It continues to
receive a lot of attention and focus throughout the
world with journals, books and conferences. It is a
more holistic approach to problem solving and has a
lot of similarities with the broad concept of analytics
as a systematic way to gain information for decision
making. There are several deficiencies in the Six
Sigma approach, although it has the right idea in
focusing on real business value. The methodology is
very structured, going by acronyms such as DMAIC.
This structure can be limiting for more complex kinds
of problems. The statistical tools that are taught in Six
Sigma tend to be more appropriate for smaller data
problems in industrial statistics as shown in Hoerl
(2001) and often don’t reflect tools that are needed in
other areas outside the traditional manufacturing or
industrial environments. Six Sigma has been very suc-
cessful for a certain class of problems and can con-
tinue to be successful. As such we believe that the
systematic methodology of Six Sigma falls under the
broad umbrella of analytics as a relevant methodology
for a certain class of problems.
Hoerl and Snee (2017) elaborated on the concept
of “statistical engineering” which has gained traction
in some circles as a discipline. Statistical engineering
was defined by Hoerl and Snee (2010, p. 123) as “The
study of how to best use statistical concepts, methods,
and tools and integrate them with information
QUALITY ENGINEERING 139
technology and other relevant sciences to generate
improved results.” Other definitions include “The
study of systematic integration of statistical concepts,
methods, and tools, often with other relevant disci-
plines, to solve important problems sustainably.”
(International Statistical Engineering Association
2018) and “The collaborative study and application of
the tactical links between statistical thinking and stat-
istical and discipline-specific tools with the objective
of guiding better understanding of uncertainty in
knowledge and decision-making to generate improved
results to benefit the organization and/or society.”
(ASQ Statistics Division 2018). These definitions have
substantial overlap with the broad definition of ana-
lytics as a grouping of many disciplines and also
include the element of decision making. The method-
ology of statistical engineering is sound as its underly-
ing focus is the use of the scientific method to solve
problems. However, these definitions have a statistics
perspective and how to link statistics to other disci-
plines rather than a more egalitarian, holistic perspec-
tive of multiple disciplines working together in an
analytics effort. We do not believe the term “statistical
engineering” resonates with those in the business
world, although we do believe there is a strong desire
to hire and retain employees who have good problem-
solving skills. In our personal experience, acting as a
statistical engineer has been very beneficial for career
opportunities, even when not using the label as a job
descriptor. We do see potential for statistical engineer-
ing as a sound approach within the ana-
lytics umbrella.
Roles of statisticians in analytics
Statisticians have felt undervalued for decades. The
papers of Bross (1974), Pfeifer, Marquardt, and Snee
(1988), Boroto and Zahn (1989), Hahn and Hoerl
(1998), Hahn et al. (1999), Hahn (2002) and Meng
(2009) have a common theme in addressing what sta-
tisticians can do to provide more value for their
organizations. They emphasize the need to move
beyond the tools to a broader skillset. The message
hasn’t changed much over the years, statisticians could
do so much more and are sometimes limited by what
their organizations let them do. If only our organiza-
tions really understood our unique skillsets goes the
refrain, we could really do something. In some cases,
it is already changing and changing rapidly. But for
other organizations, why has the situation not
changed over the years?
140 W. A. JENSEN
We believe that this is because statisticians have
been too tool-centric in their focus. They love to get
into the data and come up with cool ways to analyze
that data. They’ve been too focused on the science
aspects of data analysis and not enough on the value
of the information coming from the data analysis and
how that information translates to better decision-
making. They focus more on innovative methodolo-
gies for analyzing the data and less on the innovative
applications of methodologies to real problems. The
statistics journals are full of incremental improve-
ments to existing methodologies that have little
impact on real world problems with data. Yes, it is
important to develop new methods but there is a far
greater need for more individuals who know how to
apply the right methods to real problems than in
developing new methods.
As mentioned previously, some have called for sta-
tisticians to move beyond the mathematical aspects of
statistics to more of an applied focus. This is captured
in a remarkable paper written more than a half-cen-
tury ago, Tukey (1962, p. 2) argued for this broader
focus to graphical methods and data analysis when
saying “For a long time I thought I was a statistician,
interested in inferences from the particular to the gen-
eral. But as I have watched mathematical statistics
evolve, I have cause to wonder and to doubt … All
in all, I have come to feel that my central interest is
in data analysis” He includes in his definition of data
analysis the planning of data collection, analyzing and
interpretation of the data. This is similar to the con-
cept in the Box quote shared earlier of becoming 1st
rate scientists. This is an admirable goal for statisti-
cians and a way that they can make contributions to
their organizations.
However, even the shift to being 1st rate scientists
can still be limiting. The business world generally sees
scientists as subject matter experts and consultants.
Scientists are generally not seen as decision makers or
problem solvers. So, we offer a possible alternative in
the form of the earlier quote of Box, “Why do we
aspire to limit ourselves as scientists when we can
solve real problems and influence decision-making?”
Being a first-rate problem solver means working on
high impact challenges that provide value to the
organization. It means supporting good decision mak-
ing across all levels of the organization.
Note that we are not advocating that as problem
solvers that we dispense with the scientific method. On
the contrary, the scientific method is foundational to
the problem-solving methodology and to decision
making. What we are advocating is a broader view of
the profession beyond just the focus to a single meth-
odology. A singular focus to statistical methods and
the scientific method places more emphasis on hypoth-
esis testing and statistical significance which work well
for a certain set of problems. However, hypothesis test-
ing as a confirmatory analysis is limited in the types of
problems for which it is relevant. We have to incorpor-
ate other tools to expand our toolbox and the different
approaches to solve problems. These include techni-
ques for data mining, machine learning, meta-data
analysis and exploratory data analysis. Use of these
methods have to be paired with more emphasis on
data visualization. We believe that graphical methods
for exploring data are more than just a way to commu-
nicate the results of an analysis, they are a form of ana-
lysis. They are a way to discover insights.
The business world and many other organizations
need scientists, but they also need individuals who
can translate the insights into decisions and actions. It
needs those who can drive change based on the data
analysis results. There will continue to be a role for
statisticians in the traditional sense as data analysts,
consultants and teachers to help others learn how to
analyze their data. But there are additional roles that
are appearing to meet gaps that organizations cur-
rently experience in implementing analytics. These
roles may encompass tools and approaches for a par-
ticular application area such as supply chain analytics
or marketing analytics. In addition, other roles may
involve broader skillsets. For example, analytics team
leaders or analytics project managers require individu-
als who have both leadership and project management
skills with a strong understanding of the different dis-
ciplines within analytics. These roles require a more
holistic view and experience with the broader strategy
to solve problems and aid in decision making.
What does this mean for the future?
The rise in analytics is a continuation of the democra-
tization of statistics which has been noted for some
time (Hahn 2003). In some cases, individuals with a
more limited statistical expertise have job titles such
as Business Analyst, Data Scientist and others. The
potential for misuse of statistical methods may be less-
ened by the wide availability of accessible training and
software but counteracted by the increasing potential
for misuse because of the ease of use of the tools
(Trikha 2015). It is easier than before to apply
machine learning models to datasets. In some cases, it
doesn’t take much more than a few clicks and the
effort to get started is significantly lower than before.

This creates a different set of challenges going forward
in the future.
Some software packages have features for auto-
mated model building where all models are fit and the
“best” one is output for the user to use, with little
understanding of what the models actually or doing
and without a real look as to whether or not the
model makes sense for the data. Statisticians are well
aware of the limitations of models and the masking of
underlying differences and issues that can occur when
making judgements solely based on a goodness-of-fit
criteria or other predictive measures. This will create
more opportunities to educate and teach others how
to appropriately use analytics tools. In cases where
very large data sets require automated model fitting
procedures, there are opportunities for developing
methodologies that will be robust for users with less
experience in model building.
These opportunities in analytics mean new opportu-
nities and new possible roles for those with skills in
data analysis, including statisticians. These opportuni-
ties lead to some important implications for the future
of the profession. We discuss three key implications in
more detail. First, statisticians should define their spe-
cialties by application areas and not by tools and meth-
ods. Second, collaboration across multiple disciplines
will become more crucial. And third, it is possible to
grow our skillsets into other areas and be successful in
other disciplines. We address each of these in order.
Specialization
Statisticians can no longer be the only experts in data
analysis. The availability of data and the demand for
data analysis skills far outstrips the supply.
Statisticians have to specialize a little more, the field
of data analysis and the quantitative data sciences is
too big for any single discipline. But this specialization
can be more than just specialization in the tools, it
can be in the application areas. This is similar to the
concept of being a scientist or engineer. Because the
field of science is so broad, scientists work in a nar-
rower capacity focusing on a specific set of problems.
Similarly, in engineering, there are fewer generalists.
Rather you see engineers specializing in a particular
area, such as electrical, mechanical, civil, aerospace, or
computer engineering.
While statisticians love to be able to “play in many
backyards”, the number of backyards where data ana-
lysis is needed is becoming so large that it is impos-
sible to play in all of them. Rather, one must focus on
a group of similar backyards in a neighborhood to be
QUALITY ENGINEERING 141
successful. For those who have been playing in the
“industrial statistics” neighborhood, there is plenty of
opportunity to contribute to the field even as it has
become populated by many without degrees in statis-
tics. It requires gaining more experience and know-
ledge of the subject matter, to become more
“embedded” as noted by Hahn (2003).
Anderson-Cook, Lu, and Parker (2019) discussed
the importance of being able to understand the con-
text under which the data are collected. As world gets
more complex, it takes more time to understand the
context and this leads to more specialization in appli-
cation areas. So, it is not enough to just be a statisti-
cian who understands a little bit about certain
business areas. A greater depth of understanding will
be required to be able to successfully apply analytics
in different areas. Certain areas tend to use different
sets of tools so there will naturally be some specializa-
tion in tools when specializing in an application area.
For example, marketing problems will use more tools
to assess consumer preferences, finance problems will
involve forecasting methods and people problems will
involve network analysis. This specialization will open
up different career paths that may not have been as
available to statisticians in the past.
Collaboration
Analytics requires work across multiple disciplines. To
continue the analogy with science, for broad complex
scientific problems, it is not enough to just be able to
use tools in physics or tools in chemistry. Multiple sci-
entific disciplines can be used together to solve com-
plex scientific problems. Likewise, for complex business
decisions, it is not enough to be able to do statistics or
build some computer code or use some machine learn-
ing algorithm. The tools across multiple disciplines
have to be used together as described in Trikha (2015).
Anderson-Cook, Lu, and Parker (2019) and the
ensuing discussion highlight the importance of collab-
oration for statisticians with those in other disciplines.
While working with others has always been important
for the profession, collaboration is more than just
working well with others. A consulting relationship is
not collaboration. True collaboration is a joint effort on
a common goal and a real team effort. Collaboration
skills will become increasingly crucial for analytics
projects and teams to be able to tackle more complex
problems. Some of these collaborative efforts will be
more temporary in tackling specific problems. But we
see a growing need for collaborative, multi-disciplinary,
cross-functional teams that are fully dedicated to
142 W. A. JENSEN
tackling broad and complex analytics challenges.
Statisticians can be a part of these teams and move
beyond a consulting role to roles as core team mem-
bers. Increased collaborative efforts in methodology
development will also help ensure that those methodol-
ogies can be usefully applied to real problems.
Expanding skillsets
The skills required to be successful in broader uses of
statistics have been noted previously by authors. Hahn
and Doganaksoy (2012a) give a comprehensive look at
these skills that go beyond knowledge of statistical
methods. These skills include communication skills,
holistic thinking, flexibility, teamwork, leadership and
lifelong learning. These skills are applicable and espe-
cially relevant for analytics work. Others who have dis-
cussed some of these skills include Hahn (2002, 2003),
Steinberg et al. (2008), Hahn and Doganaksoy (2012b),
Nelson (2018, Chapter 12) and Anderson-Cook, Lu,
and Parker (2019). Nelson (2018) in particular dis-
cusses a number of practices and approaches to be suc-
cessful with analytics efforts, well beyond the specific
data analysis tools. These include skills related to
understanding the source and quality of the data being
used, the potential biases that can occur when using a
set of data and how to translate the analysis result to
actions to take or decisions to make. We believe the
traditional statistics curriculum with its heavy focus on
inferential procedures and p values is not adequate in
preparing statisticians for the future opportunities that
are appearing in the analytics arena.
The different elements described in Figure 1 corres-
pond to different sets of skills needed. For example,
data engineering skills are necessary to be able to
bring different data sources together and prepare it so
that it is the right data for analysis. Data visualization
skills with graphical layouts, dashboard design and
storytelling are important for communicating the data
analysis results.
Given the speed at which the world is evolving, it
is no longer possible to stop learning and still be suc-
cessful. Software is becoming more and more power-
ful and the toolbox must be adapted to match the
data that is available and the problems that are pre-
sent. As these new skills are gained, it opens up add-
itional opportunities and allows more career mobility.
An opportunity to rebrand?
Different authors have noted the difficulty of statisti-
cians gaining some level of respect and appreciation
as a profession (Anderson-Cook, Lu, and Parker
2019). We have found in our own experiences that
shifting our focus from statistics to analytics has cre-
ated opportunities that would not have been possible
otherwise. Activity seeking out business problems has
allowed us to increase our impact on the organization.
Business leaders are desperate for analytical talent and
don’t often realize that statisticians have the skills that
they are looking for, provided that statisticians are
open to new problems, new applications, new tools
and different ways of working.
Rather than bemoaning the fact that organizations
don’t really understand statistics or statisticians or
that they are following the hype of Big Data, why not
jump onto the analytics bandwagon? There is a huge
talent gap when it comes to data analysis skills.
Companies are fighting for the talent which is scarce.
Statisticians can help with analytics problems if they
are willing to step out of traditional statistician roles
and embrace broader and more diversified roles that
are available. Of course, we believe there will continue
to be roles for statisticians well into the future, as
long as there is data. But we also believe that there
are opportunities to develop a broader set of skills
beyond the statistical and increase one’s mobility to
be better positioned for a rapidly changing workforce
environment.
Some in the statistics profession have previously
noted the importance of linking the information to
action and decision making, such as those advocating
for the concepts of Six Sigma or of Statistical
Engineering. However, rather than trying to create
another term or discipline and further muddy the
waters, why not take an existing term no matter how
imperfect it is and make it our own? Why not join
forces with many others with non-statistical back-
grounds who have an interest in data analysis?
The idea to expand the boundaries of statistics to a
broader field has been noted by other authors such as
Breiman (2001, p. 231) who shared “Oddly, we are in
a period where there has never been such a wealth of
new statistical problems and sources of data. The dan-
ger is that if we define the boundaries of our field in
terms of familiar tools and familiar problems, we will
fail to grasp the new opportunities.” We believe we
can expand the boundaries by embracing the opportu-
nities being presented by analytics.
Tukey (1962, p. 64) again provides a remarkable
insight into the future and says it better than we can
say it when he shared “The future of data analysis can
involve great progress, the overcoming of real difficul-
ties, and the provision of a great service to all fields of

science and technology. Will it? That remains to us,
to our willingness to take up the rocky road of real
problems in preference to the smooth road of unreal
assumptions, arbitrary criteria, and abstract results
without real attachments. Who is for the challenge?”
About the authors
Willis A. Jensen is a member of the HR Analytics team at
W. L. Gore & Associates, where he works on data and ana-
lytics problems related to people data. He previously led the
global statistics team that provided statistical support and
training across the globe. He holds degrees in Statistics
from Brigham Young University and a PhD in Statistics
from Virginia Tech. He served for 5 years as an Associate
Editor of Technometrics, currently serves as a member of
the editorial board for Journal of Quality Technology and
previously served as a member of the editorial board of
Quality Engineering. He was a steering committee member
of the ASQ/ASA Fall Technical Conference and is a three-
time winner of the Shewell award for best presentation of
that conference. He is a recipient of the Nelson and
Bisgaard awards from ASQ and is an ASQ fellow.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank their colleagues Claire Crawford, Chris
Chen and Cameron Willden at W.L. Gore & Associates as
well as Roger Hoerl at Union College for their input and
many discussions that have contributed to the ideas
shared here.
References
Anderson-Cook, C. M., L. Lu, and P. Parker. 2019. Effective
interdisciplinary collaboration between statisticians and
other subject matter experts with discussion. Quality
Engineering 31 (1):164–76.
American Statistical Association 2018. What is statistics?
Available at: https://www.amstat.org/asa/what-is-statistics.
aspx. (accessed December 14, 2018).
ASA Working Group. 2014. Discovery with data:
Leveraging statistics with computer science to transform
science and society. Available at: http://www.amstat.org/
policy/pdfs/BigDataStatisticsJune2014.pdf. (accessed
November 6, 2014)
ASQ Statistics Division. 2018. Statistical engineering.
Available at: http://asq.org/divisions-forums/statistics/
quality-information/statistical-engineering (accessed
December 20, 2018).
Boroto, D. R., and D. A. Zahn. 1989. Promoting statistics: On
becoming valued and utilized. The American Statistician
43 (2):71–2. doi:10.1080/00031305.1989.10475618.
Box, G. E. P. 1990. Discussion of communications between
statisticians and engineers/physical scientists.
Technometrics 32 (3):251–2. doi:10.2307/1269094.
Breiman, L. 2001. Statistical modeling: The two cultures
(with comments and a rejoinder by the author).
QUALITY ENGINEERING 143
Statistical Science 16 (3):199–231. doi:10.1214/ss/
1009213726.
Britz, G., D. Emerling, L. Hare, R. Hoerl, and J. Shade.
1996. Statistical thinking. ASQC Statistics Division Special
Publication. Available at: http://asq.org/statistics/1996/03/
statistical-thinking.pdf (accessed December 17, 2018).
Bross, I. D. 1974. The role of the statistician: Scientist or
shoe clerk. The American Statistician 28 (4):126–7. doi:
10.2307/2683335.
Davenport, T. H. 2006. Competing on analytics. Harvard
Business Review 84 (1):98–107. Available at: https://hbr.
org/2006/01/competing-on-analytics (accessed June 22,
2018).
Davenport, T. H., and J. G. Harris. 2007. Competing on
analytics: The new science of winning. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business Press.
Donoho, D. 2017. 50 years of data science. Journal of
Computational and Graphical Statistics 26 (4):745–66.
doi:10.1080/10618600.2017.1384734.
Economist. 2017. The world’s most valuable resource is no
longer oil, but data. Available at: https://www.economist.
com/leaders/2017/05/06/the-worlds-most-valuable-
resource-is-no-longer-oil-but-data (accessed December
14, 2018).
Elliott, T. 2013. #GartnerBI: Analytics moves to the core.
Available at: http://timoelliott.com/blog/2013/02/gart-
nerbi-emea-2013-part-1-analytics-moves-to-the-core.html
(accessed May 4, 2016).
Hahn, G., and R. Hoerl. 1998. Key challenges for statisti-
cians in business and industry. Technometrics 40 (3):
195–200. doi:10.1080/00401706.1998.10485516.
Hahn, G. J. 2002. Deming and the proactive statistician. The
American Statistician 56 (4):290–8. doi:10.1198/
000313002542.
Hahn, G. J. 2003. The embedded statistician. In WJ Youden
Address, 47th Annual Fall Technical Conference, El Paso,
TX.
Hahn, G. J., and N. Doganaksoy. 2012a. A career in statis-
tics: Beyond the numbers. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Hahn, G. J., and N. Doganaksoy. 2012b. Traits of a success-
ful statistician. Available at: http://stattrak.amstat.org/
2012/06/01/successfulstatistician/ (accessed December 26,
2018).
Hahn, G. J., W. J. Hill, R. W. Hoerl, and S. A. Zinkgraf.
1999. The impact of six sigma improvement—a glimpse
into the future of statistics. The American Statistician 53
(3):208–15. doi:10.2307/2686099.
Hamel, G., and B. Breen. 2007. The future of management.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Hoerl, R. W. 2001. Six sigma black belts: What do they
need to know?. Journal of Quality Technology 33 (4):
391–406. doi:10.1080/00224065.2001.11980094.
Hoerl, R. W. 2019. The integration of big data analytics
into a more holistic approach. JMP whitepaper Available
at: https://www.jmp.com/en_us/whitepapers/jmp/integra-
tion-of-big-data-analytics-holistic-approach.html (accessed
June 4, 2019).
Hoerl, R. W., and R. Snee. 2010. Statistical thinking and
methods in quality improvement: A look to the future.
Quality Engineering 22 (3):119–29. doi:10.1080/08982112.
2010.481485.
144 W. A. JENSEN
Hoerl, R. W., and R. D. Snee. 2017. Statistical engineering:
An idea whose time has come? The American Statistician
71 (3):209–19. doi:10.1080/00031305.2016.1247015.
INFORMS. 2018. Certified analytics professional handbook.
Available at: https://www.certifiedanalytics.org/index.php
(accessed December 28, 2018).
International Statistical Engineering Association. 2018.
What is statistical engineering? Available at: https://isea-
change.org/page-18073 (accessed December 20, 2018).
Jain, K. 2013. What is big data and how is big data architec-
ture designed? Available at: http://www.analyticsvidhya.
com/blog/2013/07/big-data (accessed December 17, 2018).
Jones-Farmer, L. A., J. D. Ezell, and B. T. Hazen. 2014.
Applying control chart methods to enhance data quality.
Technometrics 56 (1), 29–41. doi:10.1080/00401706.2013.
804437.
Kenett, R. S., and G. Shmueli. 2014. On information quality.
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics
in Society) 177 (1):3–38. doi:10.1111/rssa.12007.
Kenett, R. S., and G. Shmueli. 2016. Information quality:
The potential of data and analytics to generate knowledge.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Kirby, J. 2010. The decade in management ideas. Available
at: https://hbr.org/2010/01/the-decade-in-management-
ideas?referral=03758&cm_vc=rr_item_page.top_right
(accessed June 22, 2018).
Leek, J. 2013. The key word in “Data science” is not data, it
is science. Available at: https://simplystatistics.org/2013/
12/12/the-key-word-in-data-science-is-not-data-it-is-sci-
ence/ (accessed December 20, 2018).
Lenth, R. V. 2014. The web of statistics. Statistics Division
Newsletter 33 (1):12–19.
Meng, X. L. 2009. Desired and feared—What do we do now
and over the next 50 years?. The American Statistician 63
(3):202–10. doi:10.1198/tast.2009.09045.
Nelson, G. S. 2018. The analytics lifecycle toolkit: A practical
guide for an effective analytics capability. Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.
Oxford University Press. 2018a. “Analytics” in Oxford
Dictionary online. Available at: https://en.
oxforddictionaries.com/definition/analytics (accessed
December 17, 2018).
Oxford University Press. 2018b. “Statistics” in Oxford
Dictionary online. Available at: https://en.oxforddiction-
aries.com/definition/statistics (accessed December 28,
2018).
Pfeifer, C. G., D. W. Marquardt, and R. D. Snee. 1988. A
time for change. Chance: New Directions for Statistics and
Computing 1 (1):39–42.
Random House. 2018. “Statistics” in Random House
Unabridged Dictionary online as Dictionary.com,
Available at: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/statistics
(accessed December 14, 2018).
Rose, R. 2016. Defining analytics: A conceptual framework.
Or/MS Today 43 (3):34–8.
Shmueli, G. 2010. To explain or to predict? Statistical
Science 25 (3):289–310. doi:10.1214/10-STS330.
Steinberg, D. M., S. Bisgaard, N. Doganaksoy, N. Fisher, B.
Gunter, G. Hahn, S. Keller-McNulty, J. Kettering, W. Q.
Meeker, D. C. Montgomery, et al. 2008. The future of
industrial statistics: A panel discussion. Technometrics 50
(2):103–27. doi:10.1198/004017008000000136.
Trikha, R. 2015. The risky eclipse of statisticians. Available
at: https://blog.hackerrank.com/the-risky-eclipse-of-statis-
ticians/ (accessed January 2, 2019).
Tukey, J. W. 1962. The future of data analysis. The Annals
of Mathematical Statistics 33 (1):1–67. doi:10.1214/aoms/
1177704711.
Tukey, J. W., and L. V. Jones. 1986. The collected works of
John W. Tukey. Vol. 3, philosophy and principles of data
analysis: 1949–1964. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Advanced
Books & Software.
Wikipedia Contributors. 2018. “Statistics.” In Wikipedia,
The Free Encyclopedia. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Statistics (accessed December 14, 2018).
Wikipedia Contributors. 2018. “Analytics.” In Wikipedia,
The Free Encyclopedia. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Analytics (accessed December 28, 2018).