The notion of simplifying competitive intelligence does not originate with me. However, I do see the need for simplification regularly as I speak to companies and organizations that have little experience with the topic. My thorough treatments of competitive intelligence, as often as not, leave the audiences overwhelmed and sometimes confused. All of that confusion could be overcome with time, no doubt. Still, there is a lingering sense that maybe I have not left them with actionable information. That is, have I given them a simple framework to quickly assess what they have been doing so that they can decide what to differently or additionally?

This video is my humble attempt at remedying the problem. Indeed, at a recent company presentation, these three questions “stuck” more than the process information, analytical techniques or strategy implications of competitive intelligence.

For people with a chronic and serious illness, there often is a periodic set of tests used to assess whether or not their disease has progressed. For instance, for people with cancer, many “enjoy” CT scans, MRI’s and blood tests regularly to determine if the cancer has returned, grown or spread. The routine of getting the tests done, waiting for specialists to interpret the results and talking with the doctor is an anxiety-filled time. Many people that I have known dread this sequence. The uncomfortable tests, irritating waiting and difficult discussions dissuade some from proper treatment. And yet, without the proper treatment, how will one get better?

Competitive intelligence is sometimes a similarly difficult topic for some businesses.

Competitive intelligence does three things that can be painful.

1. It forces an organization to look externally. Indeed, in my experience, most organizations admit that their focus is intensely inward. They are concerned about operations, execution and tactics. The more experienced people sheepishly concede that their balance is out-of-whack. The pain comes from admitting that they have been missing important information from the competitive environment.
2. It asks why an organization is getting the results it sees. Every company that I talk with wants to improve. Either they want to turnaround a mediocre (or failing) business or they want more growth. Hence, the management creates strategies to improve the results. Competitive intelligence methodically puts those strategy decisions in a competitive context. The pain comes from exposing the leaders’ decision-making thought processes.
3. It requires new approaches. Especially for companies that have not done competitive intelligence, starting CI will change them. The changes include new allocations of time, augmented strategy decision-making processes and a shift in the culture. These are not trivial changes. The pain comes from seeing that the solution requires long-term changes.

I suppose that there are other real and imagined barriers to competitive intelligence.

Commonly, people that recognize that there is a deficiency do not know where to start to improve. They need guidance and are unsure where they can get it. A lack of support within the organization sometimes stymies even motivated people. They feel that they do not have the latitude to begin competitive intelligence. I have also seen that there is a shock for some when confronted by the difference between what they are doing and what they might be doing (or their competitors are doing). Actions that follow shock are rarely bold. Rather, as with a serious medical diagnosis, the first reaction is often to become more conservative (i.e., avoid starting new things).

If any of this is true for you, your company or your clients, there are some common sense ways to decrease the fear.

A small-to-medium size business (SMB) is different from a large corporation in many ways (I don’t think that I am breaking any news by this statement). An SMB views the world differently.

Aside from the obvious facts that an SMB has smaller revenues, fewer people and (probably) a narrow product or service scope, there are other less obvious differences in strategy issues. Here are a five common strategy differences.

1. Strategy Responsibility: The responsibility for strategy is often shared among a small number of senior managers rather than vested in a named function (e.g., vice president of strategy). It is a part-time, diffuse task.
2. Strategy Definition: The company completes few formal strategy exercises. Emergent strategy is assigned much greater value. That is, strategy is “recognized” rather than prescribed.
3. Decision-Making: Decision-making speed is valued over reflection. Rapid adaptation and reaction are the currency of the day.
4. Tactical Activities: Day-to-day pursuit of customers, creating products, closing deals and operations consumes management’s time. In short, tactics dominate strategy.
5. Internal Focus: Attention to the external environment is narrowed to match the SMBs near-term customers and prospects. There is less attention paid to broad trends, unexpected competitive threats and tangent opportunities.

All right, what about the SMBs that do think that strategy and competitive intelligence are (or might be) important? What is a feasible set of practices for them to initiate and sustain over time?  For whatever stage of strategy and competitive intelligence maturity they find themselves, how do they move to the next stage?

Before talking about the stages, there are four meta-principles for SMB competitive intelligence practices.

I often talk with SMB owners and managers. When they ask about what I do, I explain that I help companies with competitive intelligence. “Isn’t that spying?” they ask as they usually take a defensive step back from me. “No,” I hasten to explain, “it is about understanding the competitive environment better so that you can make better decisions.” If they trust me even a little, they exhale and begin to relax. I then get a chance to answer the implied question, “What does competitive intelligence have to do with me?”

The key is to recognize that SMB’s already are doing competitive intelligence whether this is recognized or not by management.

Their competitive intelligence efforts may be ad hoc, incomplete or ineffective. Nevertheless, competitive assumptions are made and used.

Could it be done better?

From this point, things move faster. It is easy to talk about the important questions that every SMB must answer. (My post “Competitive Intelligence Value for SMB’s” identifies these questions.) “Wouldn’t you like timely, credible information that helps you improve your results and decrease your risks?” I ask. That is easy for them to answer. “Of course,” they reply though there is some mystery about how such information can be obtained within their budget and capabilities.

“Not to worry,” I tell them. “Once you know your competitive intelligence priorities, you can allocate your time and resources according. Then, for the priorities that you act on, there are specific approaches that you can tailor to your budget.” (more about this in a later post)

I have their attention now. Before I suggest priorities, I set the context with some questions.

“Is your industry competitive? Does knowing about competitors and the environment help you decide your strategies? Assuming you had valuable information, would you use it?”

Again, it is easy to answer “yes” to these questions. Now the issue becomes how to apply limited resources more effectively. Hence, I have developed my Top 10 list of priorities for SMB’s. Competitive intelligence supports each one.