Although competitive intelligence might help with cost saving decisions, its better use is to support strategic growth decisions. After all, strategy is forward-looking, intimately concerned with competitiveness and inseparable from significant risk/reward decisions.

It is easy to find books on growth strategy -many more, in fact, than for competitive intelligence. However, this disparity in academic or executive treatment does not obviate or lessen the need for competitive intelligence. Indeed, strategy books are replete with references to the role of competitive intelligence in strategic decision-makings.

Take an example from Chris Zook’s series of books on growth strategy. In three books – Profit from the Core, Beyond the Core and Unstoppable – Zook synthesizes ten principles of core growth and redefinition.

1. Start by Defining the Core
2. Obsess on the Full Potential of the Core
3. Fully Value Leadership Economics
4. Map Out Adjacencies to the Core
5. Recognize the Power of Repeatability in the Core
6. When Lost, Return to the Core Customer
7. Remember the Focus-Expand-Redefine Cycle of Growth
8. Exploit the Power of Hidden Assets
9. Think of Capabilities as the Building Blocks of Renewal
10. Don’t Underestimate the Power of Focus

Clearly, some of his principles have an inward focus. For instance, defining the core is self-examination of what a company fundamentally does best. Note that Zook expands the notion of core competencies to include the basis for strategic differentiation, the sustainable economic model and the boundaries of the core.

However, most of the principles include (at least implicitly) a requirement to understand the competitive environment. For example, understanding the full potential of the core requires an assessment of the commercial prospects of the core business. This is impossible in isolation. Thus, competitive intelligence can contribute essential understanding of the competitive environment to scope the opportunity. This is more than a total available market calculation since it includes an overlay of other forces that affect potential success.

In almost every principle, understanding the competitive environment adds confidence to the strategic decisions made by management.

How does a competitive intelligence person or group contribute this value? Here are three important steps.

1. Relationships. There is no substitute for knowing the strategy decision-makers and being trusted by them. If either of these conditions is not true, stop reading and start working to remedy the problem.
2. Context. Make sure that you understand the same strategic context as management. Services offered in the shared context are valued. Similarly, brilliant but unlinked analysis is not tolerated by busy managers. It wastes their time and damages your credibility.
3. Models. Competitive intelligence professionals have a rich set of models that aid in understanding the competitive environment. Study and apply the tools described in the Bensoussan and Fleischer books. Whenever you can bring clarity and insight to the decision-maker, your input will be valued.

When there is not a formal competitive intelligence input for strategy, it means that the decision-makers are doing competitive intelligence informally. It is possible that they are doing a great job. In my experience, it more likely means that they are missing valuable insights. Competitive intelligence, well practiced, can be incredibly helpful to them.

What do you think?

What should be expected of an “orthodox” competitive intelligence professional? Should they be in the prediction business?

Some will tell you that predictions have no place in competitive intelligence. Competitive intelligence professionals should limit themselves to analysis of what has happened. When talking about the future, the most that should be done is to delimit possibilities and probabilities. That equips others (e.g., senior management) to make the critical decisions that are required for the business.

There are two big reasons for this opinion. Some believe that it is simply inappropriate for competitive intelligence to move beyond a support role into advocacy. What gives a competitive intelligence professional the right (or the knowledge) to presume a decision-making capability? Another reason is that it is difficult to predict anything accurately. In fact, there is a wish fulfillment for failure when one attempts future gazing. Thus, it is appropriate, safe and expected to refrain from predictions except those couched carefully as scenarios, risk assessments and options.

Poppycock.

Predictions are essential for effective competitive intelligence. Without them, competitive intelligence is “dead.”

No competitive intelligence professional is worth their salt (in the long term) if they take timid stances about what might happen or are unwilling to share this directly with their customer or client. Obviously, the past cannot be changed (admittedly, explaining the past or present can be illuminating for many). Thus, the greatest impact for effective competitive intelligence is improving the likelihood of more positive future outcomes for the client or company. How can this be done if competitive intelligence professionals shy away from making testable statements about the future? It cannot. Hence, in my opinion, effective competitive intelligence must lead to predictions about what will happen and how to exploit the likely future states.

There are some “prediction” caveats to respect.

First, predictions are vitally important because they reflect thinking. Or, at least, they should reflect rigorous thinking about an important subject. When this is true, the prediction statement becomes a proxy for that thoughtful analysis. A customer or client “tests” the prediction by examining the thinking and assigning a risk that reflects the measure of agreement with the prediction. Certainly, competitive intelligence professionals may assign their own risk value to the prediction. However, this is far less important than the decision-maker’s assigned value.

Second, there are predictions and there are “predictions.” Some people count as predictions only those precise, measurable statements of fact. For instance, a good prediction might be, “Competitor X will introduce a competing product with certain features for a specific market segment in the third quarter of 2010.” If a company believed that prediction (with the detailed filled in), they could prepare an effective counter attack. This is an actionable, factually testable prediction. Continually monitoring evidence might increase (or decrease) confidence in the prediction as new information was gathered.  This is the most common type of competitive intelligence prediction and is highly useful.

Other predictions are not actionable as stated. For instance, extrapolating a broad demographic trend is a prediction but usually is too general to merit specific company action.  The challenge for futurists is interpreting broad trends for specific understandings leading to possible actions for near term business.

During my MBA studies, I had a professor that I thought was crazy. He was always spouting off about what a company was going to do or the inevitable (to him) changes in the market. He felt no trepidation about being wrong or controversial. Indeed, he seemed to revel in the stimulating conversations about his predictions. I remember arguing with him for the fun of it just to show him the holes in his analysis. He had a lot of nerve to say that we should always make predictions especially when so many of his were wrong.

Later, with a little accumulated wisdom, I realized that making predictions forces someone to take and defend a stand. Exposed thinking is thinking that improves over time. Conversely, hidden or wishy-washy thinking inhibits learning. Rather than embarrassment, his approach guaranteed engagement among interested people. This is a great value in competitive intelligence.

It is less important for our predictions to be believed without question (I have never experienced such belief) than for the same predictions to represent thoughtful analysis and conviction that can be tested through discussion and debate.

Competitive intelligence is “alive” when it does the following three things.

1. It addresses an issue of strategic significance to the customer or client.
2. It gathers, organizes and interprets information from the competitive environment affecting that strategic issue.
3. It offers a prediction derived from that competitive analysis that stimulates, informs and equips the customer to make a meaningful decision.

We should make predictions.

Do not trust my predictions.

This was from nationally known people that had made it their life’s work to forecast what was going to happen in the global economies. Their companies made crucial decisions based on currency fluctuations, growth rates in various countries, the movement of interest rates and many other issues that were their province to study, interpret and report. Why, will all of their knowledge and decades of experience did both feel compelled to say humbly that their predictive abilities were suspect?

The obvious answer, I think, is that anyone that consistently ventures to predict the future in detail will often be wrong.

Hearing them state their predictive limitations made me think about the success of competitive intelligence predictions. Do we in competitive intelligence consistently and successfully predict significant future competitive events? My answer is “yes” and “no” to that question.

Competitive intelligence futurists will say (with some justification, I think) that some things are predictable. Look at many clear trends today and project their impact tomorrow. It is old news now but five years ago it was “new” news to spot the rapid spread of social media and its impact on people and businesses. The ubiquitous availability of wireless, low power and highly connected devices continues to drive many market responses. Renewable energy and all that implies seems to be in its infancy. Demographic or geopolitical trends point to a small set of probable outcomes in some areas. In these areas and others like them, it seems possible to make broad predictions successfully.

However, most customers of competitive intelligence are usually looking for other answers.

The answers that they want are nearer term and much more precise in timing and direction. How will my product fare in the competitive market? Which businesses should I enter/exit? What competitive gaps do I need to close to improve my company’s performance? What disruptive business models will likely affect my business model? Where should I deploy my resources in 2011 to gain the greatest competitive advantage? If precise predictions were available to answer any of these questions, they would be quite valuable.

It is not for lack of trying that we do not have these answers.

Indeed, we often try to predict. We make guesses (I emphasize, “guesses”) for our customers and clients. We point to outcomes that we consider are most likely. We strain to shift the competitive signals from the background noise to deliver keen insights to management.  Then, after formulating an opinion, we confidently attempt to persuade others that our view is right (or, at least, highly probable). After all, what good is competitive intelligence if it does not have the spunk to stand for something? What good is it to waffle, hedge and obfuscate?

The truth is that we do have to stand for something; it is just not our predictions.

Management does not believe our predictions anyway. They already know two things before you or I show up to deliver our competitive intelligence product. First, predictions are hard even for the smartest people. Like our brilliant economist brethren, we can know many things but that is hardly a guarantee of omniscience. In fact, sometimes the very depth of knowledge may add to the difficulty of identifying the broad trends that actually might be useful for predictive purposes. The second thing that management knows is that they do not want predictions from competitive intelligence people. It is management’s job to make future bets and competitive intelligence people are seldom equipped to offer superior business insight.

What does management want from competitive intelligence if it is not predictions?

Simple. They want competitive intelligence people and their products to stimulate better thinking about the pressing business challenges. They want information, models and insights that improve management decision-making. They want their organization to be sensitized, mobilized and energized to compete better and win more. They want tangible, near term advantages that reflect well on their ability to lead. Finally, they want rewards for their personal performance. If competitive intelligence helps on these matters, then it will be highly valued among managers.

Our competitive intelligence challenge is to understand a myriad of issues, to help our customers and clients efficiently sort through those issues and to act humbly as we acknowledge the limits of our capabilities.

I humbly submit that I do not know what you will think about these points.

Should a company spend money on competitive intelligence?

Well, if they knew that their returns would be twice their investment, then they might quickly answer “yes.” Conversely, if the return was half the needed investment, then it is equally clear that the answer would be an emphatic “no.”

Those answers are easy when credible numbers are assigned to both the investment and return sides of the equation. However, as most experienced CI professional know, this is not a trivial matter. Although incontrovertible, quantitative evidence of impact is highly desirable, CI professionals usually have to use qualitative ROI “measurements.”

Sometimes the investment side is easy. For instance, it is often clear what a consulting engagement costs or the sum of the tools and salaries for an internal staff. However, this precision is often missing on the return side.  After all, competitive intelligence is a support function for decision-makers. Their decision-making process can be quite complicated and involve many factors beyond the direct CI input. In the end, did CI tip the scales one way or the other? Was the CI input valuable or not? How valuable? Who would know the answer to these questions?

I recently completed a survey of competitive intelligence professionals. (The survey results are discussed here.) Although the sample size is small (16 professionals) and the results are not statistically valid, it is nevertheless interesting to note a couple of points.

First, in response to the question about improving their competitive intelligence skills, only 6% of those surveyed indicated that they explicitly asked their customers/clients about how to improve. Think about that for a moment. Presumably, the decision-makers that commissioned the CI project are important within their company. Their ongoing support is critical for a successful competitive intelligence program. Furthermore, their perceived successful use of the CI data is often the best testimony to the value of CI.

If the questions, “what did I do well and what can I improve?” are not asked, how can a value for the CI work be assigned? In my experience, it is dangerous (and foolish) to expect that the managers “will just know” the value. In fact, it benefits no one to leave this question open to debate. The CI professional loses when the feedback is not given because they miss the chance to calibrate their services and understandings. The manager loses because he or she may not realize the actual value of the CI input.

The solution is to embrace a qualitative ROI. A qualitative ROI works best when it follows three simple principles.

1. Establish the need at the beginning of the project. Indeed, this is among the first crucial conversations with the CI sponsor. “How will we know that the CI information helped you?” we should ask. If an authoritative quantitative measure is possible, use it. Otherwise, make clear that, working together with the manager, a qualitative method will be used.
2. Set the expectation of continuous improvement. CI professionals and managers should know that the CI function is improving. The feedback cycle, therefore, is a critical engine for that improvement. Clarify that CI will continue after a specific project and ask that the manager contribute to future successes through their frank assessments.
3. Make a mutual assessment the final deliverable. The end of a CI project needs to be defined as clearly as the beginning. A CI professional should make clear that every project has an explicit assessment after the final deliverable. A summary report describes how, where and when the CI helped. It also includes lessons learned about where it might have been done better.

A second point from the survey confirms (for me) the importance of a qualitative ROI process. I asked about which skills (if improved) would make the largest impact on the respondent’s CI success. The graph shows the results indicating that half of the people felt that the finding clients and gaining sponsors skills would be the most impactful improvements.

This is understandable when cast in the light of missing qualitative ROI’s.

It is hard to attract senior managers to unproven support activities. Why would they spend their money or time on something when the benefits are not clear? What would they sponsor activities if the perception was that those activities do not provide value? And why would they support a function that is not actively improving? The short answer is that they would not.

It is no wonder that CI professionals have trouble without this support. Yet, the remedies need not be complex. They start with accepting that qualitative ROI measures are okay when they are built into an ongoing dialog with management, part of a continuous improvement process and transparently reported.

Managers can (and do) respect this approach despite a lack of numbers. What they cannot respect is unspoken assumptions of value (especially for a support function). As CI professionals, we can easily make value evident through planned discussions with the managers. Our livelihood depends on it and our customers will thank us when their perceptions about CI are corrected or reinforced.

What do you think?

The most common issue is how to connect with senior management effectively.

This topic came up at the recent SCIP Conference in Washington, DC. In one session, everyone around a table shared their challenges about making the case for competitive intelligence to a prospective sponsor. One person explained that they were due to present such a case in about a month to a senior manager. Understandably, this important meeting caused much stress. What information should be presented? What splendid arguments should be assembled to convince the reluctant or uninformed manager? What presentation style was most appropriate? In short, what was the best approach to gain ongoing support for competitive intelligence from this senior manager so that the competitive intelligence person’s assignment and job was safe (at least, temporarily)?

There were many good suggestions bandied about.

Admittedly, it is hard for outsiders to know the right answer for another organization without more background than we could get in a short conversation. Still, one guiding principle emerged from the discussion.

Namely, the first, best competitive intelligence project executed should be about the senior management sponsor.

Why? Because, when this project is done effectively, it will have the most personal impact on the manager. It will demonstrate the competitive intelligence professional’s skills on a “captive” subject. Moreover, it will position the CI person appropriately to get the next assignment. That is, to help with a problem that is important to the senior manager.

There are seven straightforward goals of the project. You will want to understand better:

1. The senior manager’s decision-making style and habits (i.e., how they evaluate information and act)
2. Pending decisions that might be affected by CI (i.e., where they need help immediately)
3. The manager’s success criteria (i.e., how is their performance measured)
4. Their current information sources (i.e., what data they have been using)
5. The significant politics (i.e., what relationships constraint or enable them)
6. Their business priorities (i.e., what they and their organization is expected to accomplish)
7. A history of decisions and results (i.e., how does their past affect the present)

Accept for a moment that these are worthy goals. What value would be demonstrated to the senior manager if you knew this information with reasonable certainty? My guess is that he or she would be impressed and more likely to listen to similar information about the competitive environment from you.

Now, assume that you are missing some of this information when you approach the senior manager. Does it seem professional to miss information about the senior manager when that directly affects your job? Would you be more likely to gather and interpret information better about the external environment if you could not assemble information successfully about the internal environment? The answers seem obvious.

How do approach the meeting?

1. Think of it as a test of your competitive intelligence skills.
2. Formulate it as a project with specific deliverables.
3. Understand that a “passing grade” for this project makes future support much more likely.
4. Present the findings and recommendations with authority.
5. Ask specifically for feedback about your recommendations.

You can be quite successful when you have the sponsor’s support. That is why the first, best competitive intelligence project is aimed at getting it. If you skip this project and jump to another task, you may wonder why the support is inconsistent or fading. Don’t make that mistake.

A General Manager must decide the complete range of activities to implement to enter a new market segment. Does she need competitive intelligence?

The Marketing vice president struggles to clarify the winning proposition for the key brand of the company. Does his organization need competitive intelligence?

It is easy to answer “yes” to these scenarios. Each decision-maker faces choices that affect their organizations and, ultimately, influence their chances for success. However, the choices are rarely simple. For example, favoring one approach means that another must be deemphasized leading to disruptions in the organizational roles and responsibilities. Changes often imply new investments, processes and skills. These things cost precious money, time and energy that must be deducted from a finite “bank” within the company. Moreover, other stakeholders assert their importance along vectors independent of competition. For instance, owners, regulatory agencies, communities and others regularly inject their priorities into the mix considered by senior managers.

Since competitive intelligence is only one of the voices in the mix, how can it be effective (and not be unwisely drowned out)?

Here are three ideas to consider.

1. Identify with the decision maker. This means that all of the competitive analysis activity should be focused on the values, terminology, models and methods used by the person making the ultimate strategy decision. Commonly that implies that the analysis be multi-variant (i.e., considers the many dimensions important for making the decision versus simple analysis), the presentation be “big number” focused (i.e., large impact versus details) and the overall process be tailored to what the decision maker is prepared to support (i.e., centered on effectiveness versus elegant but unused analysis).
2. Master strategy models. While it is true that many decisions are made independent of formal models, knowing those models sensitizes the competitive intelligence professional to critical strategy issues. For instance, understanding Clayton Christiansen’s resources, process and values characterization of an organization’s capabilities gives both a framework and a readymade set of examples to explain the range of possible responses from a competitor. Kaplan and Norton’s Balanced Scorecard is an excellent way to visualize and represent the critical dimensions of successful strategy implementation. The list goes on.
3. Embrace the politics. Many people will disagree with this point. For them, the primary role of competitive intelligence is probably analysis and presentation. That is, figure out what is happening and clearly express that to someone. My view is that these steps alone are insufficient to enable meaningful change or decisions. However, that is exactly what is needed in most strategy discussions. The politics are important because the decision-maker does not exist in a vacuum. His or her decisions are complex precisely because they must balance so many factors including internal winners and losers. Of course, the competitive intelligence person does not make those decisions yet considering that the issues are present in the decision-maker’s mind can increase the effectiveness and richness of the information supplied to him or her.

The CEO, General Manager and Marketing Vice President need help to make good decisions on difficult strategy topics. Competitive intelligence can be quite helpful to them when framed appropriately. A first step is for the Competitive Intelligence person to make some fundamental decisions about how to approach and support the decision-makers.

Do you agree? What other key ideas are important in your experience?

Of course, these foods are not completely bad. Maybe if I ate a few chips or only one slice of cheese pizza, I would do better. Perhaps I could eat other healthier foods more often and combine them with better exercise habits. I need the whole package to reach and maintain the correct weight. Whatever else I do, I especially need to be aware of the common pitfalls to avoid (goodbye to deep dish pizza).

In competitive intelligence, it is my experience and observation that we have pitfalls that inhibit us from reaching the desired goal. That goal, in my opinion, is to help strategy leaders make better decisions. Nevertheless, the pitfalls distract the competitive intelligence professional from usefully satisfying the needs of strategy decision-makers.

Here are my five (least) favorite pitfalls that should be avoided. I wonder if you agree with me.

1. Gimmick analysis. There will be some argument with this point. However, I do not think that most senior management people are enamored with clever search skills or the latest Twitter details. Many competitive intelligence professionals, on the other hand, seem to spend a lot of time on such cleverness. It is seductive, for sure, because it is immensely interesting to find information that hitherto fore was unreachable. But, when we feature this type of “analysis,” senior management often dismisses our potential valuable contributions.
2. Pretending that the competitive intelligence function is important. Frankly, it is not important. At least, as a separate function, the value of its existence is shown regularly to be minimal. That does not stop us from asserting that all progressive companies should engage in competitive intelligence. No, they should not because they have businesses to run, decisions to make and goals to reach. Competitive intelligence is only important only to the extent that it helps senior management in those three ways. We are needlessly fooling ourselves to think otherwise. Senior management values value not functions.
3. Working timidly. Most people should not be in competitive intelligence. In particular, many analytical (introverted) types are ill equipped to fight the right fights within the company. The dirty secret that new people to competitive intelligence should be told is this. Unless you are prepared to stake out positions, argue them with powerful people in an organization and withstand all types of personal and professional criticisms, you are going to fail in competitive intelligence.  It is better that these folks move to some other role.
4. Expecting too much. In my experience, I am amazed at how little senior managers understand about the competitive environment. Many cannot adequately characterize the major competitors, explain how the company strategy uniquely positions it for success or how competitive information should or can influence strategy formulation. Thus, the value that they can reasonably get from the best competitive intelligence is limited by their own understandings. This means that the competitive intelligence person has to be alert to the education requirements of senior management. Missing that realization may cause one to deliver valuable but ultimately unusable information to an organization.
5. Giving too much of the wrong thing. This is my personal pitfall. I cannot help giving great amounts of information in pretty ways to busy executives. By the way, I have learned that they do not want, cannot absorb and do not respect this vast quantity of information. They would rather have three things. First, they want understanding of their problems. Second, they want meaningful interpretations of information. Third, they want to understand their options and risks. Everything else should be in backup.

Are there other pitfalls that you work to avoid?

Along the way, she thought about the meeting she had just finished with Bob. It fit the pattern that Alice had observed with so many clients for competitive intelligence.

First, they were wary about her group before tentatively showing some cautious curiosity. Then, like Bob, they seemed determined to make it clear that they were already doing everything possible to understand and beat the competition. Eventually, every manager asserted that no competitive intelligence group could do better! Finally, confronted by unanswered questions and undesirable results that they knew so well, a few asked for help.

Alice empathized with them. She saw the pressure that they endured and the earnest efforts to succeed. She knew that feeling “stuck” or unsure about how to proceed was an uncomfortable and vulnerable feeling. Over time, Alice had learned to listen calmly to the emotion. The “CI attacks” and challenges were not about her or her team. In fact, she learned to reframe them into a personal request for help. She knew that asking for help takes courage.

Janet and Sam were waiting for Alice in her office.

Janet recently joined the CI team as the information specialist. She had already proven that she could locate obscure and difficult to find data quickly. Just “Janet it” had become the byword for doing the tough searches. She mastered the hard-to-find details.

Sam’s forte was different. If Janet saw the trees and had names for each of them, Sam was adept at seeing patterns in the forest. Alice counted on his intuition to make sense of seemingly random data. He often saw what others missed.

She closed the door and sat down to face them.

“Well, we have a new project with Bob’s team,” she began. “His business is in a bind and he needs our help to reconsider his product line strategies. Next week he is reporting to his boss on his plans for improvement. He specifically needs to explain the competitive issues.”

Alice continued, “I am meeting with Bob at 4 PM today and we need to get prepared. Where do we get started?”

Janet and Sam exchanged a glance. Sam spoke first. “Bob’s team needs help?” he asked with some incredulousness. “That is the last team in the entire company that I would expect to ask for our help.” (Bob’s reputation was well known.)

Alice laughed and replied, “No kidding. Nevertheless, I think that he is mystified about how to improve his business. A big part of the mystery is what our competitors are doing and how that affects his product line. I told him that we could help and apparently he is willing to give us a try.”

It was Janet’s turn now. “I’ve heard about his team. It is a smart group. Do you think that they will respect anything we contribute?”

Alice thought for a moment. That was a good question. An important part of her job was to coach Janet and Sam. They needed to know how to do competitive intelligence and navigate the corporate structure. “No, they won’t accept our input just because we are the competitive intelligence team. It is more likely that they will suspect our role at first. It will help, of course, if Bob is on board and that is why I want your thoughts about my meeting with him later today.”

Sam smiled and went first. “Let’s get the basics started. We need to ‘Janet it’ the financials, product details, trend summaries and analyst reports,” he said. Janet nodded. The two of them had developed a complementary way of working.

He continued, “I’ll start with a list of key competitors and some initial strategy summaries for each one. We need to know what they are doing and changing. Plus, I know that Bob’s team has some summaries for his product line strategy. I’ll get a copy to prepare for some comparisons.”

Alice said, “That’s a good start. Why don’t you complete a survey of what we have and what we need as soon as possible? Shoot me an email by 3 PM today. Don’t forget to assemble the internal help list.”

The “internal help list” was an ad hoc list of people that could help with the analyses. Cultivating these people served two purposes. One, they could contribute information and interpretations. Second, when they were appropriately involved, they owned and promoted the conclusions far better than Alice’s team could do by itself. Alice had learned the hard way that ignoring them would slow her down or, worse, cause the same people to work against the conclusions of the CI team.

After Janet and Sam left, Alice took a deep breath.

This type of assignment was exciting but there were also risks. Would her team be able to produce valuable information fast enough? Would Bob become impatient with the process? Would she get the support she needed from other people? Would Bob’s team help with the assessment and accept the recommendations?

She knew that the key to getting started was the right set of questions. That is what she intended to talk with Bob about that afternoon. If the questions were focused and reasonable, then the answers could help Bob adjust his strategies.

At 3:45 PM, Alice began packing her notes for the meeting with Bob. Sam and Janet had come through as she expected. The information inventory was complete, the internal help list was done and a brainstormed list of key questions was prepared.

It was 4 PM and Alice was standing outside Bob’s office door.

At 4:15, there was still no sign of Bob.

[Would you like to know what happens next? Leave a comment to let me know.]

Still, there weren’t many options for places to go. It was a given that sooner or later the good guys went there too.

So you might imagine going there with a friend. Ah, your friend. The paragon of truth and justice. A cowboy that was strong and good. He represented all that right about the world and that is exactly what made him a target. Others (the bad guys) could not prosper when he was there and they knew it.

As a friend, how would you prepare him for the saloon so that he could walk out alive?

There are 5 things that you might do.

1. Scout the saloon. You would survey who frequented the saloon, when the bad guys usually showed up and how the dynamics changed when they did.
2. Check the entrances and exits. This could be critical if a gunfight erupted. Knowing the design of the saloon building could come in quite handy if a quick escape or a different plan was required.
3. Chose the seating. Certain tables would be more or less vulnerable to attack. Usually the corner table was best because it gave the best vantage point. No one could come in behind your friend and all of the action would be in front of him.
4. Recruit some allies. It is rare that everyone would be against your friend. However it is possible that they would not be organized to help him. You would work on this ahead of when they were needed.
5. Give an early warning. The proverbial bad guys always announced their arrival and usually their intentions. The sooner the good guy knows that they will sooner enter the saloon, the better prepared he (and his allies) will be. You would be actively watching.

If you did these five things, your friend would have a lot of advantages. He would be ready to proactively respond to whatever came his way. It is more likely that his day would go well and that the bad guys malevolent intents would be thwarted.

Now change the terms to a present day situation. The “saloon” becomes the competitive environment. The “good guys” become your company or client. The “bad guys,” of course, are your competitors. The “entrances and exits” are your strategic options. The “seating” is your market or product position. The “allies” are your alliance partners and ecosystem. Finally, the “early warning” becomes your gap analysis process.

Our jobs in competitive intelligence are to help the “good guys” win against competitors. We orchestrate many things to proactively equip senior management with what they need to know about the environment, specific competitors and possible strategic options. Our jobs matter because few other functions have such a broad portfolio of tasks that affect the “safety” of the company in a dangerous competitive landscape.

Living and working in a competitive environment is not an option for most companies. There are competitors and dangers. There are outcomes which are harmful to our clients or companies. There are others that are aggressively pushing their agendas which will diminish the our prospects. Luckily we are far from helpless.

We fight back with “saloon lessons” to equip our management better.

May the good guys carry the day. Giddy up.

“Please do me and yourselves a favor about competitive intelligence” they say. “Listen and respond to what I tell you and we will both be better off.”

And this is what they say …

First, I do not need more information from you since I have more than I need already.

I am literally swimming in information from all of my managers, the stack of publications that I read and the many discussions that I regularly have with customers and investors. It is good that you can find and summarize data. Share that information with others. What I need is something that helps me interpret the information that I have. I need models, comparisons, correlations, trends and opinions which help me organize and respond to information that I largely already have.

Second, I am not impressed with fancy presentations because they waste my time.

Why do you think that I would care about fancy PowerPoint presentations that sequentially rollout information to me? This is slow, inefficient and a waste of my time. Don’t do it! Frame data simply and clearly. Allow me to see the whole and control the sequence. And, most of all, make sure that your presentation is the basis for a successful discussion that I control rather than a testament to your artistic ability.

Third, I do not need help with easy questions since it is the hard questions which affect my strategies.

Your job is to help me with the difficult questions that have unobvious answers. Answers to easy questions that can be derived from public information distract you and me. Instead, I need you to develop answers to the really tough questions that affect the strategic decisions that I have to make. Then tell me the risk involved with the answers that you have provided. I will take it from there.

Senior management desperately needs effective competitive intelligence. CI professionals can easily damage their reputations and hinder their effectiveness when they ignore the common pleas from senior management. Be smarter than that!