Home About Services Blog TOC References Contact
Feb
16

Most Competitive Intelligence is Above Average?

Tom Hawes Competitive Intelligence 2010-02-16

I recently surveyed Competitive Intelligence professionals and received 23 responses. Admittedly, the survey is not scientific and the sample size is small. Furthermore, it was publicized in forums frequented by certain types of people. Namely, people that use social media such as LinkedIn (SCIP Group), CI NING and Twitter were targeted. My guess (and it is only a guess) is that these folks might be more active than the broad population of CI professionals in sharing and thinking about Competitive Intelligence. One other attribute of the survey is that it was intentionally short (only five questions). Hence, there is not much demographic or industry information included.

You can see all of the results on my website at http://www.jthawes.com/surveyci.html.

Okay, caveats aside, the interesting result to me is that the self-rating (all companies combined) of CI effectiveness is above average in every category. The categories included the following.

  1. Identifying Needs
  2. Gaining Sponsors
  3. Conducting Analysis
  4. Interpreting Information
  5. Presenting Conclusions
  6. Effecting Change

The distribution (based on averaging the ratings per company across the six categories) suggests that most of these companies are being well served by their competitive intelligence professionals. Of course, it would be better also to survey the CI customers to determine their perceptions. Indeed, I did some of this in my 2010 Strategy Survey last month. The results from fourteen organizations is described at http://www.jthawes.com/surveystrategy.html. In that survey, one measure of competitive intelligence (“Reacting to Competitors”) received the lowest rating from strategy leaders.

Consider that for each of these six effectiveness areas, there were five possible responses (1=poor, 2=below average,3=average, 4=above average,5=excellent). Multiplying the six areas times the number of respondents means that there were 138 ratings. Observe that that the histogram shows a pronounced skew to the right (i.e., higher effectiveness).

The survey results prompt more questions than they answer. For instance, how would most of our customers evaluate our competitive intelligence services? If collectively we are so effective, why are there (seemingly) widespread questions about the need for and delivery of competitive intelligence? How are in-house CI teams doing compared to CI consultants? What is the actual impact that CI professionals want to make in an organization? And, how do competitive intelligence professionals think about improving their skills?

Maybe you would draw different conclusions than I did. What do you think that the survey results reflect?

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
please wait...
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Competitive Intelligence, survey
Address: http://blog.jthawes.com/2010/02/16/most-competitive-intelligence-is-above-average/
« Competitive Intelligence Case Studies
Competitive Intelligence Signal-to-Noise »
Trackback

4 comments until now

  1. Arik Johnson @ 2010-02-16 16:39

    Very interesting Tom – thanks for sharing this – I just retweeted your link postulating an old cognitive bias – illusory superiority aka the “Late Wobegon Effect” – was involved.

    Arik

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    please wait...
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  2. Twitted by Competia @ 2010-02-17 04:40

    […] This post was Twitted by Competia […]

  3. Giora Ketter @ 2010-02-17 14:15

    Thanks Tom for an insightful article.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    please wait...
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  4. Tom Hawes @ 2010-02-17 15:01

    Giora, glad that you found it valuable. Thanks for your comment. — Tom

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    please wait...
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Add your comment now

  • Archives

    • November 2010 (1)
    • September 2010 (4)
    • August 2010 (1)
    • July 2010 (3)
    • June 2010 (1)
    • May 2010 (5)
    • April 2010 (5)
    • March 2010 (4)
    • February 2010 (4)
    • January 2010 (6)
    • December 2009 (2)
    • November 2009 (2)
    • October 2009 (7)
    • September 2009 (6)
    • August 2009 (11)
    • July 2009 (9)
    • June 2009 (12)
    • May 2009 (6)
    • April 2009 (4)
    • March 2009 (12)
    • February 2009 (5)
  • Categories

    • Competitive Intelligence (94)
    • Early Warning (6)
    • Maintenance (1)
    • Organizational Development (13)
    • Strategy Effectiveness (56)
  • Recent Posts

    • The Hard Sell – Strategy to an Experimenter
    • Can You Answer This Question?
    • Competitive Intelligence’s Just Do Its
    • You Know What It is Like When …
    • The Three Basic Competitive Intelligence Questions
  • Tag Cloud

    Academy of Competitive Intelligence alignment analysis analytical techniques Apple approximations behavioral modeling Branding business development business strategy case studies change CI techniques Competitive Intelligence consulting decision making Early Warning Ed Tufte effective presentations evaluation facilitation failure signs future focus gap analysis graphical facilitation ideas infrastructure Innography integrity job listings management Marketing Michael Porter product marketing professional competence SCIP senior management SMB strategy Strategy Effectiveness strategy evaluation strategy implementation survey SWOT trap question
Strategically Thinking · coogee theme · 2008
RSS Feed · WordPress · TOP