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?

Gather a group of competitive intelligence people together and commonly you will hear the same sorts of issues. One issue is that many competitive intelligence customers do not understand the value of CI. Another common topic is how to ensure that competitive intelligence people are properly involved in decision-making. Occasionally, the discussion turns to picking the best tool or technique for an organization. Sometimes we talk about the economic conditions (i.e., how many jobs have been affected) for competitive intelligence staffs. These are all good issues but the most impactful problem is something else.

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.

First, the bane …

In the Lord of the Rings story, the fellowship travels great distances and through many adventures trying to accomplish their mission. One of my favorite parts of the story is when they must travel through Moria, an underground dwarve colony and site of their great mines. Led by Durin, the dwarves settled “under the mountain” and began to build, explore and mine the riches that they found there. What they did not know (until it was too late) was the danger that dwelt in the depths. A Balrog. Durin’s Bane. The unspeakable terror that threatened them all. And it was coming for them.

A little dramatic, I suppose, but it is worth recognizing similar banes that befall the competitive intelligence community. That is, the “terrors” that hold the potential to derail all that we know to be true and worthwhile and to make our mission difficult, if not impossible. It is not hard to identify these things. It is only hard for us, collectively, to overcome them.

Here are the five banes that I think are most troublesome.

One of the laments of the competitive intelligence community is how others erroneously define competitive intelligence. Left alone, others view CI as everything from spying to something that is indistinguishable from <file in the blank> (e.g., market intelligence, business intelligence, marketing, just good thinking). It is no wonder that many of us encounter skepticism, ignorance and doubt when we talk about competitive intelligence to potential clients or customers.

I would be pretty happy if I could say that all of my problems were due to those that garble the definition of competitive intelligence.  If customers would just understand what I do better, then my business would boom, my clients would prosper and the long awaited vacation home in the Colorado mountains would be a reality!

Fairness compels me to admit, however, that poor definitions are only the beginning of the issues faced by me and, perhaps, by others that practice competitive intelligence.

Another significant problem has to do with marketing competitive intelligence. (I have previously written about “The Failure of Competitive Intelligence Marketing.”) Undoubtedly, there are exceptions but my sense is that it is common for CI professionals to face difficulties in marketing their services. Why? One reason might be that previous successes are problematic to share. If I deliver outstanding insight to a client, it is reasonable for them to want exclusive access to that insight. Thus, I cannot ethically share this story to help me get my next client. Another reason might be that it is often hard to capture discrete, numerical benefits directly attributed to competitive intelligence. Testimonials help, of course, but the holy grail of benefiting a company’s bottom line is often elusive.

Finally, there is the issue of increasing personal value over time. How does a competitive intelligence professional get better at his or her job? Admittedly, there is no substitute for numerous client engagements to support on-the-job learning. Still, the absence of a well-established competency framework (though some are in work) to guide or certify professional development in the industry is a clear community weakness. In absence of a framework that has a commercial meaning (i.e., customers value the framework and use it to make buying decisions), how does a CI professional manage their own skill development? There is no lack of opportunities but how do you decide what to do. And, after taking advantage of some of those opportunities, how do you translate the improved skills into increased value for customers?