The fall of Competitive Intelligence? - Competitive Intelligence2024-03-29T13:03:14Zhttp://competitiveintelligence.ning.com/forum/topics/2036441:Topic:8767?commentId=2036441%3AComment%3A21840&feed=yes&xn_auth=noThinking is man’s only basic…tag:competitiveintelligence.ning.com,2009-05-22:2036441:Comment:220542009-05-22T03:09:25.776ZVivek Raghuvanshihttp://competitiveintelligence.ning.com/profile/VivekRaghuvanshi
Thinking is man’s only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed. And his basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one’s consciousness, the refusal to think—not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know. It is the act of unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to escape the responsibility of judgment—on the unstated premise…
Thinking is man’s only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed. And his basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one’s consciousness, the refusal to think—not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know. It is the act of unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to escape the responsibility of judgment—on the unstated premise that a thing will not exist if only you refuse to identify it, that A will not be A so long as you do not pronounce the verdict “It is." - AYN RAND I have to correct Mr.Mace her…tag:competitiveintelligence.ning.com,2009-05-21:2036441:Comment:218812009-05-21T13:55:33.253ZJayanthhttp://competitiveintelligence.ning.com/profile/Jayanth
I have to correct Mr.Mace here that CI did not fail, but the operative who ought to look through things failed to see the subtle actions IN THE ENVIRONMENT and AROUND THE ENVIRONMENT.<br />
<br />
He had himself accepted the fact,<br />
<i>"By the traditional rules of competitive intelligence, I ought to feel at peace with my role in this. I did everything I could do legally to get advance information, my team and I turned out the best analysis we could, and we reported it as aggressively as we were allowed to.…</i>
I have to correct Mr.Mace here that CI did not fail, but the operative who ought to look through things failed to see the subtle actions IN THE ENVIRONMENT and AROUND THE ENVIRONMENT.<br />
<br />
He had himself accepted the fact,<br />
<i>"By the traditional rules of competitive intelligence, I ought to feel at peace with my role in this. I did everything I could do legally to get advance information, my team and I turned out the best analysis we could, and we reported it as aggressively as we were allowed to. But I think that’s a cop-out. My company screwed up on a competitive issue. Therefore I’m partly to blame."<br />
</i><br />
<br />
And also, if the analysed and the disseminated information doesnot undergo Wargaming and Scenario Planning, it would never be possible to find out the 'Worst-Case analysis' and hence, the actionable intelligence gets out of the question for the corporates ! Thanks Craig for pasting this…tag:competitiveintelligence.ning.com,2009-05-21:2036441:Comment:218402009-05-21T10:25:08.678Zklaus Söilenhttp://competitiveintelligence.ning.com/profile/klaussolbergsoilen
Thanks Craig for pasting this article.<br />
<br />
It is always good with some constructive self criticism. If I should dare to engage on some quick comments to the five points I would say:<br />
<br />
1. Yes, the CI business probably got some extra business from the fear factor after 9-11, but I would not exaggerate this point.<br />
2. I think the CI function has been well defined – responding to the Intelligence Cycle – but there is of cause always a problem of overlaps with other functions in a company, ex. Library,…
Thanks Craig for pasting this article.<br />
<br />
It is always good with some constructive self criticism. If I should dare to engage on some quick comments to the five points I would say:<br />
<br />
1. Yes, the CI business probably got some extra business from the fear factor after 9-11, but I would not exaggerate this point.<br />
2. I think the CI function has been well defined – responding to the Intelligence Cycle – but there is of cause always a problem of overlaps with other functions in a company, ex. Library, strategy/top management, and marketing department. In military intelligence this is all much simpler. To a certain extent it is a question of which function came first. CI could never really compete with Marketing. Thus we see also a return to “Market Intelligence” and “Mareting Intelligence” as more integrated fields<br />
3. This point is probably the best; analysis has been severely underestimated, also in research. In my own experience this is what customers want the most from you. The rest they can figure out or understand pretty well themselves. This is a high-knowledge input. It requires training in logics, science methodology, math.<br />
4. “The wrong people”. Well, that is a tricky one, and an argument that can often be used in about every case.<br />
5. That CI is not critical in the short run is of cause a major and well documented disadvantage.<br />
<br />
If I could attempt to make some suggestions of my own threatening CI I would say<br />
<br />
6. The development of BI is more and more about software and technical solutions. The technical engineers are to a large extent stealing the problem and there is little we can do about it except cooperate. Thus you will find more BI contributions on ECIS 2009 than ever before<br />
<a href="http://www.atelis.org/Version_ang/docs/program_ECIS_2009.pdf">http://www.atelis.org/Version_ang/docs/program_ECIS_2009.pdf</a><br />
7. The inability of SCIP to preserve and develop its theoretical/academic member base. In other words the separation between professionals and academics became clearer during the last few years, to the disadvantage of both groups.<br />
<br />
All the best from<br />
<br />
Klaus Lets not discuss Holy Grail o…tag:competitiveintelligence.ning.com,2009-05-21:2036441:Comment:217762009-05-21T04:13:22.870ZVivek Raghuvanshihttp://competitiveintelligence.ning.com/profile/VivekRaghuvanshi
Lets not discuss Holy Grail of Apple.<br />
<br />
Their competence is reflected by what they thought as misfit turned out / went on to be "Pixar"<br />
<br />
Remember Steve Jobs !
Lets not discuss Holy Grail of Apple.<br />
<br />
Their competence is reflected by what they thought as misfit turned out / went on to be "Pixar"<br />
<br />
Remember Steve Jobs ! Dear Craig,
Correct me if I…tag:competitiveintelligence.ning.com,2009-05-21:2036441:Comment:217732009-05-21T04:10:16.379ZVivek Raghuvanshihttp://competitiveintelligence.ning.com/profile/VivekRaghuvanshi
Dear Craig,<br />
<br />
Correct me if I am wrong. I read this article and according to it Michael Mace says: 3. The focus was on intelligence, not analysis.................................<br />
<br />
I think Michael Mace needs to understand that Analysis comes before and not Intelligence as he has mentioned in point No 3 as a header! I think the Competitive Intelligence brotherhood needs to educate him to interpret correctly.<br />
<br />
Tell Michael Mace that Analysis is before Actionable Intelligence:<br />
<br />
1. Collection<br />
2.…
Dear Craig,<br />
<br />
Correct me if I am wrong. I read this article and according to it Michael Mace says: 3. The focus was on intelligence, not analysis.................................<br />
<br />
I think Michael Mace needs to understand that Analysis comes before and not Intelligence as he has mentioned in point No 3 as a header! I think the Competitive Intelligence brotherhood needs to educate him to interpret correctly.<br />
<br />
Tell Michael Mace that Analysis is before Actionable Intelligence:<br />
<br />
1. Collection<br />
2. Analysis<br />
3. Wargaming<br />
4. Scenario Planning<br />
5. Generates Early Warning ie Actionable Intelligence. The Apple situation the origi…tag:competitiveintelligence.ning.com,2008-08-28:2036441:Comment:87802008-08-28T20:32:36.375ZTim Powellhttp://competitiveintelligence.ning.com/profile/TimPowell
The Apple situation the original author describes is a great case example of how intelligence fails. One of the most common ways intelligence fails is when it is not sufficiently communicated and/or acted upon. The example I often use is Xerox, which is ironic in that Xerox invented many of the technologies that Apple later commercialized (the GUI and the mouse, for example) – and that Microsoft even later “adapted”, as the author describes.<br />
<br />
There is no proven business value or ROI for CI in…
The Apple situation the original author describes is a great case example of how intelligence fails. One of the most common ways intelligence fails is when it is not sufficiently communicated and/or acted upon. The example I often use is Xerox, which is ironic in that Xerox invented many of the technologies that Apple later commercialized (the GUI and the mouse, for example) – and that Microsoft even later “adapted”, as the author describes.<br />
<br />
There is no proven business value or ROI for CI in many companies – and no process in place to even try to measure it. As a result, it is expendable. The primary failure of CI to create value is that it does not connect with what the business itself actually does to create value.<br />
<br />
In the business world (and government too, I’d hope) there are no points awarded for good intelligence—only for superior results. Whether you have lousy intelligence, or—as in this Apple case—good intelligence without using it, the net result is the same. Non-linkage to business results and value-creation = irrelevance = extinction. The law of the corporate jungle.<br />
<br />
And absent tangible, demonstrable results, why should it be otherwise?<br />
<br />
But business threats have not withered away, and if anything are potentially more dangerous, faster-moving, and harder to detect than in the 1990s (when I wrote Analyzing Your Competition, one of those “how-to” books the author refers to).<br />
<br />
Let’s take <b>Apple (AAPL),</b> since the author uses that example. The iPhone was released in June 2007 with a proprietary SIM chip that in effect would direct part of the phone service revenue stream back to Apple. Within a matter of weeks, the chip was counterfeited by an eastern European firm—a clear threat to Apple’s revenue model.<br />
<br />
Apple is a smart company, and responded quickly by opening up the SDK (developers’ tool kit) to third-party developers. Their counter-strategy seems in part to be, more developers = more applications = more iPhone users = more handset sales and phone service revenues = market pre-emption for rival offerings.<br />
<br />
Could they have detected this without some kind of business environment monitoring capability? Probably not as quickly, and in their markets—in all markets, really—speed plays a huge strategic role. Would they have missed it if their intelligence process was just focused on direct rivals like Microsoft, Dell, and Lenovo? Yup.<br />
<br />
FULL DISCLOSURE: I bought Apple stock when I learned about this. Not because the iPhone is a “cool” product (which it is), not because I love my iPod and 8-core Mac Pro (which I do)—but because I think that <i>Apple as a company reacts quickly and effectively to its business environment</i>.<br />
<br />
I like that in a company.<br />
<br />
The more I ponder it, the more I believe that this “strategic adaptability” is the only thing that comes even close to being deemed “sustainable competitive advantage.” That ability defines the essence of what “intelligence” is.<br />
<br />
There is an even greater need than ever for an intelligence process to support this—whether or not we call it “CI”. So, please, let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater. CI 1.0 may be over, but CI 2.0 needs to be created—and it needs to work.<br />
<br />
Incidentally, it’s worth going back to the referenced blog “Stop Flying Blind” by Michael Mace. His comments excerpted here make more sense in context. Still, I think he rests his argument too much on conflating “competitive” intelligence with “competitor” intelligence (one, but only one, of the former’s components)—another of the common ways intelligence fails.<br />
<br />
Now please stop it—these questions are too interesting, and I can’t get any work done!<br />
<br />
Have a great Labor Day weekend! This is one of the most usefu…tag:competitiveintelligence.ning.com,2008-08-28:2036441:Comment:87712008-08-28T17:03:34.243ZEric Garlandhttp://competitiveintelligence.ning.com/profile/EricGarland
This is one of the most useful things I've ever read on the subject. Thanks for posting.
This is one of the most useful things I've ever read on the subject. Thanks for posting.