It should not be.

Selling strategy and strategic thinking to a trial-and-error management team can make perfect sense. In fact, it not only makes perfect sense but it is a complementary antidote to inevitable blind spots of the most intuitive of people. Properly executed, a thorough strategy process balances perspectives to reduce the possibility of missing something important. Indeed, systematically eliminating unknowns (or, better, converting assumptions to facts) is an important cornerstone to discovery driven growth.

Eskimos, as the saying implies, are not the best customers for snow makers. Obviously, given where they live, snow and ice exist in abundance. Producing something that is already free seems unlikely to induce someone to make an incremental investment. Yet, an Eskimo depends on the ice and snow for traditional igloos and, perhaps more importantly, for maintaining an environment that supports their lifestyle. It is a hedge, maybe, to pay for something that often appears unneeded. However, the moment the temperatures rise, that hedge is all that stands between disaster and survival.

Strategy is similar. Most management teams get by on undirected intuition. They already “own” this and everyone has an opinion to assert. Sometimes, it works spectacularly well. After all, business owners and senior managers tend to be smart, experienced people. Other times, increased competition or environmental changes expose a lack of strategic problem solving. When that happens, business results suffer.

Recently, with Don Springer of the The Colton Group, I completed a survey of 22 business leaders of small-to-medium size businesses. Most of these businesses involve technology products and services. The demographics from the survey are shown in the following graphics.

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?