Early in my career, I supported the computers that ran a machine shop factory. The factory was a large, open room filled with machinery of every sort designed to form, cut and polish metal fixtures. I remember things about that factory. One memory is of the smell of machine oil. Another memory was of the cleanliness of the aisles between the production machines. The primary memory, however, was of the sound. When the factory was running (most of the time), there were all kinds of sounds. Drills, cutters, polishers and packaging machines were operating at the same time. Though it was possible to carry on a conversation in the factory, it was not the best place to hear or communicate important messages. Of course, overhearing conversations was just about impossible.

There were ways to get around all of this noise.

• You could take advantage of the times that the factory shut down. That removed all of the background noise. Unfortunately (if your goal was talking instead of production), this happened very infrequently.
• If you knew exactly who to talk to, you could move close to them and speak loudly. If you were the listener, the right strategy was to focus on the speaker’s words while ignoring the barrage of other sounds.
• If you wanted to “overhear” something, then the only recourse was to become involved in the conversation. That, of course, depended on the acquiescence of the other participants. Thus, you were unlikely to hear much of value accidently.

Conversely, some approaches would only make the problem worse.

• You would not want a goal of hearing everything that was being said in the factory. That would simply complicate the problem of separating an important conversation from the background machine noise. Lack of focus was a sure way to hear nothing of value.
• You would never want to amplify the sounds in the factory. Though this might increase the volume of the speaker’s voice, it would also increase the sounds from the machinery.
• You would not want to encourage people to whisper. Obviously, this made it harder to hear since the level of noise would overwhelm the conversation

Both of these lists could go on and on. They illustrate the common problem that we have of separating the important from the unimportant. The difficulty arises because every important communication is surrounded by background (i.e., contextually unimportant) noise. The world (much like the factory) is full of noise. What we want to hear is typically competing with so much that is unimportant (or less important). Furthermore, sometimes we want to “overhear” or discern things not originally meant for us. The background noise makes that task especially hard.

Thus, we get to the fundamental task in competitive intelligence. That is, targeting the signals that we desire to hear, decreasing the “volume” of the background noise and, finally, interpreting the important signals correctly.

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?

ANNOUCING NEW WEBSITE AND OPPORTUNITIES!!

We have several recurring issues in the competitive intelligence community.

One common problem is that it is difficult to discuss factual competitive intelligence projects due to the reluctance of companies to share detailed information. Of course, CI projects often represent sensitive work that reflects a company’s priorities and/or concerns. There are good (legal and ethical) reasons not to share many kinds of information.

However, as a result, the competitive intelligence community has a paucity of rich, relevant stories that stimulate effective problem-solving discussions. Furthermore, side-by-side comparisons of problem solving approaches are often missing in competitive intelligence community discussion. Without those comparisons, the typical solution discussion reflects one approach from one person.

We can do better.

Why not have a place where practitioners can share realistic (but not confidential) competitive intelligence cases? Starting from those richly detailed cases, we could have experts address the issues of the case and suggest problem-solving approaches. The broader community could also respond to both the case study and the experts’ comments.

That is why the Competitive Intelligence Case Studies website was created.

Competition is a constant.

My son competes in basketball. His team has many challenges. Perhaps the biggest challenge is that they are a new team (formed this year) competing against established teams that have played together for multiple seasons. Moreover, the other teams have “serious” coaches that teach sophisticated offenses and defenses. Those teams execute plays with coordination, skill and timing that give them decided advantages against less prepared teams.

Here is an interesting point. My son’s team has talented athletes. In fact, they have enough talent to win any game (even against the best teams in the league). Talent alone, however, is not enough. They need to have better offensive and defensive plays. They need to make better adjustments during the game to react to what the other team is doing. They need to learn more from their opponents to make their team better.

Is business any different?