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.

One of the laments of the competitive intelligence community is how others erroneously define competitive intelligence. Left alone, others view CI as everything from spying to something that is indistinguishable from <file in the blank> (e.g., market intelligence, business intelligence, marketing, just good thinking). It is no wonder that many of us encounter skepticism, ignorance and doubt when we talk about competitive intelligence to potential clients or customers.

I would be pretty happy if I could say that all of my problems were due to those that garble the definition of competitive intelligence.  If customers would just understand what I do better, then my business would boom, my clients would prosper and the long awaited vacation home in the Colorado mountains would be a reality!

Fairness compels me to admit, however, that poor definitions are only the beginning of the issues faced by me and, perhaps, by others that practice competitive intelligence.

Another significant problem has to do with marketing competitive intelligence. (I have previously written about “The Failure of Competitive Intelligence Marketing.”) Undoubtedly, there are exceptions but my sense is that it is common for CI professionals to face difficulties in marketing their services. Why? One reason might be that previous successes are problematic to share. If I deliver outstanding insight to a client, it is reasonable for them to want exclusive access to that insight. Thus, I cannot ethically share this story to help me get my next client. Another reason might be that it is often hard to capture discrete, numerical benefits directly attributed to competitive intelligence. Testimonials help, of course, but the holy grail of benefiting a company’s bottom line is often elusive.

Finally, there is the issue of increasing personal value over time. How does a competitive intelligence professional get better at his or her job? Admittedly, there is no substitute for numerous client engagements to support on-the-job learning. Still, the absence of a well-established competency framework (though some are in work) to guide or certify professional development in the industry is a clear community weakness. In absence of a framework that has a commercial meaning (i.e., customers value the framework and use it to make buying decisions), how does a CI professional manage their own skill development? There is no lack of opportunities but how do you decide what to do. And, after taking advantage of some of those opportunities, how do you translate the improved skills into increased value for customers?

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?