At the end of an invigorating but overwhelming day of discussing competitive intelligence, I often hear people ask for simplicity.

As I wrote about in “The Three Basic Competitive Intelligence Questions”, the simple formulation of “What? So What? Now What?” regularly resonates. People tell me that they finally understand competitive intelligence after internalizing those three questions. While that is encouraging, the questions are a framework with only the hints of specific actions.

“Just tell us what to do,” they say. “You’ve convinced us that competitive intelligence is important and that there is a lot to know about doing it right. Give us a three step approach that we can wrap our arms around and remember. We want something tangible to do!” they demand.

“Okay, okay, I’ll give you some steps,” I say. (Unsurprisingly, these steps correlate to the three questions in the framework.)

Here are three tangible steps that most anyone can take to get moving. If these issues are well covered, then there is a good start at competitive intelligence. Furthermore, after one pass through these steps, a company will understand competitive intelligence far better than most any simple formulation.

There are official definitions and there are practical ones. We need both in competitive intelligence.

The official definition helps remind us of the foundational principles for the domain. The foundational principles distinguish competitive intelligence from similar but different areas (e.g., market research) while pointing practitioners and customers toward the great value possible from competitive intelligence.

Meanwhile, the practical definitions help connect the possibilities to near and dear value needed by key customers. The practical definitions are less formal but very powerful when they illustrate effectively what competitive intelligence can do. (Read more about this at “Competitive Intelligence: What Seems to Click.“)

This short video covers both types of definitions.

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.