Summary Corner - Compiled Results and Next Steps

[V. Shuman]

Hello Folks

To help this excellent discussion along, I've done a follow-up compilation of the latest contributions. In order to "bring it alive", however, we are at some point going to have to Do the Ugly and make some tough decisions about scope - we simply can't be all things to all people right out of the gate. We can add goals and grow activities over time based on member contributions.

Looking at the discussions so far, I see possibilities like:

1) Our goal is to be a “problem solving team” for the intelligence community (which is defined as anyone anywhere who uses intelligence for anything). We will select a few (3?) key “problem areas” and work together to generate a “best and brightest” group of solutions to those issues for use by everyone. (This is similar to open source software collaborations.)
2) Our goal is to revolutionize the corporate understanding and use of intelligence. We will establish and evangelize a set of best practices/code of concepts by standardizing, branding and promoting it everywhere. (This is similar to standards work.)
3) Our goal is to become “solution central” for intelligence professionals. We will track and share all the latest and greatest tools and concepts for intelligence workers everywhere.

For a more complete list of potential goals and deliverables, see attached powerpoint. I propose that we:

a) choose an initial goal (one!), audience, and value proposition
b) choose an initial set of tactical activities related to that goal which can be accomplished in a targeted time window, and
c) do them.

Perhaps we can make the initial decision by requesting volunteers to work in the areas that are of the most interest? Whichever concept gets the most volunteers wins!

Regards

Valerie

[Jan Van Loo]

Intelligence Collaborative : Nice thinking, but is the concept not becoming too much a look-a-like of SCIP? May have become too much a training / education concept. These already exist.

What I am missing is to facilitate finding the intelligence one concretely needs.

The members of the 'collaborative' should have a "share" mind set, and a willingness to assist wherever possible. Any one member with such attitude can ask questions and all members are supposed to give it some consideration, and if appropriate come up with suggestions, hints, .. based on own experience.

the members could be split up in "circles" of expertise (financial, technology (subdivisions), competitive intelligence, market analysts, ...). Any member would know the expertise of any other member. More focused questions can be addressed to the circles of expertise.

Activity of members can be logged, and rewarded (who gave answers gets right to ask questions, we start with an initial 'start' quantity of 'question rights'.

Idea is to set up an international, cross country,company,.. cross-everything set of expertise which is available to all, which can help productivity of all.

Just thinking

[Ari Korpinen]

Hello!

One of the challenges expressed in some earlier discussions on the "Intelligence Collaborative" forum was how to widen the network internationally, to create a truly international group. Approaching various International Chambers of Commerce and International Industry Associations that have active branch networks would be one way of doing this. The best way to approach would naturally be through contacts the existing "Intelligence Collaborative" activists already have in such networks. But I think we need to wait with that initiative until we have developed a brand and agreed on some concrete content for the Collaborative.

Valerie Shuman suggests above that the Collaborative would become a "solution central" where one could find best practice solutions for various intelligence activities. Jan Van Loo says that we would create "circles of expertise". Indeed, the "solution central" concept would necessitate the creation of groups (the "circles of expertise") within the Collaborative.. But there is a risk with this approach that cross-industry dissemination of the best practice findings would be hampered if industry silos would develop within the Collaborative. E.g. intelligence collected by Procurement professionals can be useful also for the Marketing team, but there would not be any Marketing people in the Procurement circle. A way around this would be some clever keywording or tagging of the content so that the content would reach also professionals outside a specific industry group.

Then there would be the question of "push" or "pull". Would members actively push their own best practice suggestions to the Collaborative for review? What would the process be for the suggestions becoming established "best practice"? Since suggestions would be made without someone asking for it, how would one know that someone may be interested, which would give the motivation to contribute in the first place. Or, would it be "pull", i.e. someone asking for a solution and then someone else creating it. But, there are already many discussion forums and social networks out there (incl. such of the CI variant) which work according to this principle. What would our way of becoming different in this respect be? Jan Van Loo already suggested that every member would know the expertise of every other member. The way of knowing that would in a big group such as the Collaborative be through the member's individual profiles, which would then have to be quite detailed.

"Revolutionizing the corporate understanding and use of intelligence" -- The Collaborative would really have to stretch out and be seen as useful by wide corporate circles before that happens. Is this not one of the challenges that SCIP's been having over the years, i.e. CI not having been understood enough outside of the CI - department? Widespread marketing of the Collaborative would be the key for this goal to happen...

That's some initial thoughts,
- Ari

[Sandra Kelly]

I agree with Jan on this. A community that is first of all of practical use in our jobs is most appealing to me.

I love the idea of the collaborative providing an opportunity to leverage other's expertise/share/grow - - there are plenty of forums available to philosophize about management hierarchical problems and the goals/vision of CI. I don't have time for a "revolution" either. If we are of practical use to each other, then this collaborative will succeed. How do we have a structure and a format to do that?