It is no surprise that competitive intelligence issues and activities regularly show up in business news. After all, intelligent and motivated professionals everywhere are furiously competing to win. To the untrained eye, it may seem that companies’ activities are disjointed or nonsensical (and sometimes they are). However, to someone trained in competitive intelligence, there are stories behind the public moves. From those stories, emerge motivations, strategies and opportunities.

For example, take the recent New York Times article, “Apple Buys Intrinsity, a Maker of Fast Chips” at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/technology/28apple.html, about Apple. Apple, flush with cash and the serial hits of the iPod, iPhone and iPad, purchased a chip design company. What does this mean? How does it fit with previous Apple moves? How does it confirm or change Apple’s perceived strategy? What might their next move be?

These questions are fundamental questions for someone competing with Apple and the core domain of competitive intelligence professionals.

Without a doubt, there have been two dominant strategic business themes in the last eighteen months. First, wherever and however possible, reduce costs. Companies have rushed to reduce staffs, shutter factories and delay R&D spending. Conserving cash during the recent credit crises has been a paramount concern. The second major theme (which is gaining steam) is to grow revenue and profit. The tension between the two themes is apparent. Often growth requires some kind of incremental (or, at least, reallocated) investment.

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

There is a verse in the Christian Bible that says, “faith without works is dead.” It is talking to people that say they are Christians but show no evidence of that identity. The background of the statement is the assumption that being (or becoming) a Christian is reflected in visible changes in a person’s outlook, attitudes and actions. Orthodox Christianity does not endorse wishy-washy faith any more than it canonizes competing worldviews. (Presumably, other faiths hold similarly strong views of what is right and wrong for their adherents. )

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

In the last month, I have had the privilege of hearing two prominent economists speak. At the recent SCIP national conference, we heard from the chief economist from Intel Corporation. Earlier in March, I met and listened to the chief economist from IBM. They talked about many of the same things. For instance, both covered the state of the economy. Both talked about global competitiveness issues. Surprisingly to me, both of them included humor in their talks that was very effective (who knew that economists could be so funny?). Still, the most fascinating statement from both men was simply this.

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?