guest column

IDENTiFYiNG YOUR COMPANYS REAL INTELLiGENcE NEEDS

JAN P. HERRING, Herring & Associates
Like all successful products and services, competitive intelligence must satisfy a real need. Without a satisfied customer, the need for a product and those who provide it disappears! This is the basic tenet of all successful businesses, and competitive intelligence is no different. The most critical activity in the overall intelligence process is the cogent identification of an organizations real intelligence needs. When properly done, this needs identification process not only provides the competitive intelligence operation its most important tasks, it also allows it to continuously adapt to the organizations changing needs and its competitive environment. The competitive intelligence function becomes an organic part of the company and the management it serves, eventually becoming a part of the organizations culture.

1. SeNIOR MANAGeMeNT
Senior managers and those assigned leadership responsibilities are entrusted with running the company and making its critical business decisions. It is only common sense that the competitive intelligence needs of such decisionmakers and planners are important to the companys success and survival. Furthermore, these business decisions and plans become the objectives and priorities that middlelevel managers and individual business units must address in their areas of responsibility. Unless the companys management structure and operations are completely dysfunctional, both senior management and business unit and functional managers will be working on similar goals and priorities. Thus, effective competitive intelligence operations focused on senior managements KITs will produce intelligence that should benefit both levels. (The business-level managers will also need tactical or operational intelligence to support their roles as implementers of the companys overall strategic plans.)

EASIeR SAID THAN DONe

There are three basic sources of intelligence needs within most business organizations: 1. Senior management and other key decision-makers. 2. Existing management processes and procedures, such as program and budget reviews. 3. The competitive intelligence function itself. Each source has its own particular character and importance. In my experience, managements key intelligence topics (KITs) are perceived as the most important at least by the managers themselves.
32 SCIP 2006 www.scip.org

2. MANAGeMeNT PROCeSSeS AND PROCeDUReS

The second source of real intelligence needs is existing management processes and procedures. The most common of these is a companys program or business review process. Almost all companies periodically examine existing business performance or new product development programs. In most cases, the basic performance measure is a growth or revenue goal that reflects the organizations performance against

the competition (for example, relative market share or the number of head-tohead contract wins or losses). Similarly, companies that develop new technologies and products use some form of research and development (R&D) planning, such as stage-gate reviews or technology road maps, to evaluate progress. In either case, managers must know the relative position and performance of competitors technology development to make decisions about going forward with their own R&D programs. The quality and accuracy of competitive technology intelligence in such management processes is critical to the long-term success of the companys new products and future sales and marketing activities. Most companies are not proactive in using competitive intelligence as part of existing processes and procedures to identify and focus on their key intelligence needs. This is somewhat disappointing, since such KITs are real and, because they are a part of the companys ongoing management activities, the resulting intelligence is inherently actionable. Competitive intelligence can make a clearly identifiable difference. I recall the work Dr. Martha Eger did while she was at Hoffman-LaRoche, providing competitive technology intelligence on competitors pharmaceutical products so that her management could decide whether or not to continue R&D on comparable drugs. In order for the company to make the tough decision to pull the plug on projects on which it had already spent years and millions of dollars, Dr. Eger had to provide Hoffman-LaRoche with competitive technology intelligence that was both
Competitive Intelligence Magazine

guest column
accurate and credible. It was. As a result of competitive technology intelligence, the company avoided spending more on products that had little chance of reaching future markets in time to be successful. Such intelligence needs are real. They require the professional initiative of competitive intelligence managers who have the will and fortitude to lay the departments reputation and credibility on the line. Making the function perform as an accountable part of the companys management process is a high-visibility activity that too few competitive intelligence managers are willing to pursue.

ANTICIPATING FUTURe NeeDS

In the final analysis, it is only when the competitive intelligence function considers key intelligence topics from all three sources that the organization can be sure it is addressing all of its intelligence needs. When competitive intelligence is used proficiently, when the organization actually begins to anticipate its future intelligence needs, it becomes an intelligent organization.

3. THe COMPeTITIVe INTeLLIGeNCe FUNCTION

The third source of a companys intelligence needs is the competitive intelligence function itself, particularly the operations and activities that focus on new competitors and marketplace early warning indicators (which it should be monitoring continuously). Regardless of the activity involved whether a 5 Forces industry assessment, a competitive technology forecast, or the discovery of a totally new competitor at a trade show the integrity and credibility of the competitive intelligence unit is the critical element in this identification of real intelligence needs for the company. Considerable leadership and professionalism required to focus the attention of a companys senior management and other key decision makers on an intelligence-initiated issue or topic. Unfortunately, most competitive intelligence professionals who complain when their advice and suggested KITs are ignored do not have the credibility or professional reputation to earn their managements trust. Too few directors of competitive intelligence programs possess genuine leadership traits. Those who do are true leaders in the field and we can learn much from their examples.
Volume 9 Number 4 July-August 2006

Jan P. Herring developed and managed Motorolas highly acclaimed intelligence program, co-founded the Academy of Competitive Intelligence, and in his earlier career, set up the U.S. governments first business intelligence program. He is a charter member of SCIP, and has received SCIPs Fellow, Meritorious, and Faye Brill Service Awards for his many years of direct and extraordinary support. Jan now has his own consulting firm, Herring & Associates, which assists intelligence professionals to set up and manage their own business intelligence programs, as well as improve existing intelligence operations. He can be reached at 01.860.232.9080 or jpherring@snet. net.

SCIP 2006 www.scip.org 33