There was a time when I was younger that I believed certain things to be true. For a while, there was evidence that I was right. My life proceeded along a path that adhered to those “truths” more or less predictably. For instance, here were 10 things that I thought were true.

1. I would live forever (or at least for a very long time).
2. Good health was a given.
3. My income would always increase.
4. All important relationships would endure.
5. People at work would come to care about me like a family member.
6. All decisions would be between something good and something better.
7. Power would come through my “rank” at work.
8. People would naturally respect me more as I got older.
9. Nothing good could come from bad situations or experiences.
10. The best years in life would be when I was young (think 25).

Depending on your age and experiences, you might be chuckling right now. Maybe you recognize that the wisdom or hopes of a youth don’t always turn out to be true. The fact is that every single truth I held back then has been challenged. I have come to realize that the experiences of life refine and clarify what we hold dearest. My responses (e.g., learning, coping, re-thinking, accepting) to those challenges has led me to new wisdom that is less starry eyed yet richer and more satisfying.

Strategy work is similar for me. There was a time when I thought certain things about doing business strategy. For example, my firmly held “truths” about strategy included the following.

1. The best ideas (i.e. mine) will win.
2. Leaders want and will commonly accept great strategy ideas from subordinates.
3. All important factors affecting strategy would be obvious to me.
4. Peers would be naturally attracted to and supportive of my ideas.
5. Well crafted presentations would ensure that my strategy inputs would be accepted.
6. Everyone would understand what I was saying when I said it.
7. The organization would change to adapt to a new strategy.
8. Someone else would worry about and manage the strategy implementation.
9. Silence in meetings meant agreement.
10. Decisions would always be made in open discussions that I was invited to attend.

Ah, but the years have passed and I have painfully discovered that my understandings needed to change. This is all good (after the pain lessened) because a strategist must have a reflective and learning disposition. Without such a personality, one is doomed to marginalization (and probably a new career in another field). So, we experience, we reflect and we learn. The benefit is that we are disabused of simple notions when they are insufficient and we are enriched with understandings that are powerful.

I am both more humble these days and much better equipped to solve difficult strategy problems with people.

What about you? Are you learning new things as you live life and work on strategy?

In Star Trek, The Prime Directive dictates “that there can be no interference with the internal affairs of other civilizations, consistent with the historical real world concept of Westphalian sovereignty.”

In medicine, the most well known part of the Hippocratic Oath says, “I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.”

In the legal world, the rule of law is a general legal maxim according to which “decisions should be made by applying known principles or laws, without the intervention of discretion in their application”.

It is time for there to be a prime directive for competitive intelligence. The directive is specifically aimed at those that profess to practice competitive intelligence in service of others. The directive is meant to be helpful by defining a standard or goal against which one’s activities can be compared. Indeed, sometimes we will fall short but that should not obviate the directive.

THE COMPETITIVE INTELLIGENCE PRIME DIRECTIVE

In all that I do I will deliver valuable answers and insights in a timely manner to strategy leaders to help them make better decisions about the competitive environment.

It is possible to miss the nuances in the prime directive.

For instance, the directive does not say to deliver unfiltered masses of information. It does imply that the value in the answers and insights is determined by the strategy leaders – not the competitive intelligence person. Timeliness is also a key since this requires synchronization (i.e., relationship) between the strategy leaders and the CI people. Finally, competitive intelligence must be useful in making or supporting decisions. “Interesting but unuseful” competitive intelligence is distracting. Finally, the ultimate measure of competitive intelligence in business is that it leads to winning strategies. Fantastic insight at a failing enterprise is no victory.

What is your own prime directive for competitive intelligence?

“Please, please, please” come the pleas from senior management!

“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!

In meeting with leaders from multiple companies, there is a common thread that I observe about the need for and lack of competitive intelligence in their businesses. Given the dearth of competitive intelligence insight, why don’t companies spend more time and money getting better at this function? There are five common reasons that I hear from companies.

1. We already do competitive intelligence (but it is not helping us).
2. We can’t afford it (but we can accept the costs of not doing it).
3. We don’t believe it can help (because we think we are already are doing everything we need to do).
4. We tried it before (and it didn’t deliver valuable information).
5. We need certainty (and there is some risk in the answers).