CI is a necessary, ethical business discipline for decision making based on understanding the competitive environment.
The pace of technological development and the growth of global trade mean that today's business environment changes more quickly than ever before. Executives can no longer afford to rely on instinct or intuition when making strategic business decisions. In many industries, the consequence of making one wrong decision may be to see the company go out of business. Research shows that competitive intelligence increases management's strategic planning "comfort level."
Yes. Research shows that companies with well-established CI programs enjoy greater earnings per share than companies in the same industry without CI programs. Moreover, "In a recession, competitive intelligence can pay off big," reported Business Week magazine in its Nov 26, 2001 issue. Among the examples cited: At Texas Instruments, the CI team uncovered the need to pursue an acquisition before a rival could do so "and safeguard what is now a $100 million business with enormous growth potential at a time when bright spots on the tech horizon are few."
Among the findings in a March 2002 Trendsetter Barometer survey from PricewaterhouseCoopers: Fast-growth CEOs who rated competitor information as being either "very" or "critically" important grew revenues by 14.2 %, versus 11.8% for all others -- a 20% faster rate. Significantly, those placing a premium on competitor information are outperforming their peers on sustained revenue growth, gross margins, and a number of other key performance measures.
Consider a 2001 marketing case study presented by Clifford Kalb, former SCIP president, and vice president of strategic business analysis at the pharmaceutical firm Merck & Co., Inc. According to Mr. Kalb (and as reported in CI Magazine, Jan./Feb 2002), Merck's CI group was responsible for developing a counterstrategy to a competitor's forthcoming product rollout that, over a period of 30 months has enabled Merck to "anticipate and outmaneuver the competition," and resulted in "saving approximately $200 million to the bottom line -- so far." And the estimated boost to the bottom line could go as high as $400 million.
Yes. In companies all over the world, SCIP members are enabling executives to make the informed decisions that keep companies responsive, well-positioned, and profitable. The March 25, 2002 online edition of Time magazine looked at how, post-9/11, executives are demanding better information not only about security risks, but about threats to their competitive edge as well.
Robert Flynn, the former CEO and chairman of NutraSweet, said in a keynote address to the Society's ninth annual conference that CI was worth up to $50 million each year to his company. The demand for CI professionals suggests that other CEOs agree: A recent study by SCIP finds that salaries for CI professionals have increased 21% in the last two years, from an average of $57,000 in 1995 to an average of $69,000 in 1997.
The market for business intelligence is worth about $2 billion a year worldwide, including services ranging from detailed investigations to clipping news articles, according to Kroll Inc. (as reported by Reuters on Sept. 2, 2001). In a survey of SCIP members, over 25% said their company's total CI spending in 2000 topped $100,000. Almost 14% said their company spent over $500,000.
According to a survey by researchers at The Futures Group, in 1997 a full 82% of companies with annual revenues over $10 billion had an organized system for collecting information on rivals, while 60% of all surveyed U.S. companies had an organized intelligence system (up from 58% two years earlier).
No. Clearly, executives at many global companies -- like Xerox, IBM, and Motorola -- have already realized the importance of CI and have developed their own operations. But small businesses, like large corporations, must compete in the marketplace. It's just as important for decision makers in small businesses to know what lies ahead as for CEOs at Fortune 500 companies.
Yes. Any employee who visits a trade show, reads a newspaper, or talks to friends in the same industry is doing research (one of the components of CI). But other CI components are often missing in businesses today. CI adds value to information gathering and strategic planning by introducing a disciplined system not only to gather information, but also to perform analysis and disseminate findings tailored to the needs of decision makers.
No. Espionage is the use of illegal means to gather information. It isn't necessary to use illegal or unethical methods in CI. In fact, doing so represents a failure of CI, since almost anything decision makers need to know about the competitive environment can be discovered using legal, ethical means. Most information that can't be found through open-source collection and ethical inquiry can be deduced by using a variety of analytical tools -- just one of the ways CI adds value to an organization. By joining SCIP, a member agrees to abide by the Society's Code of Ethics, which forbids breaching an employer's guidelines, breaking the law, or misrepresenting oneself.
No. The term counterintelligence describes the steps an organization takes to protect information sought by "hostile" intelligence gatherers. One of the most effective counterintelligence measures is to define "trade secret" information relevant to the company and control its dissemination.
WHAT IS KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT?
An emerging academic discipline and management process that addresses how people, workgroups, and organizations use knowledge principles, processes, technologies, and training to leverage intellectual capital by increasing knowledge flow, organizational learning, innovation, and performance
Knowledge management caters to the critical issues of organizational adaptation, survival, and competence in the face of increasingly discontinuous environmental change.
“Today’s KM processes are contingency planning for tomorrow’s decisions.”
- Alex Bennet, Chief Information Officer for Enterprise Integration for the Department of Navy
KM IN AN ORGANIZATION
KM in a organization is concerned with strategy, processes and technologies to acquire, store, share and secure organizational understanding, insights and core distinctions.
Knowledge management gives priority to the way in which people construct and use knowledge.
Managing knowledge consists of deciding with whom to share, what is to be shared, how it is to be shared, and ultimately sharing and using it.
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT vs. INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
We can quibble endlessly over what makes "information" different from "knowledge," but the important point is that we should always be trying to add value to what we have by turning data into information and information into knowledge
Managing knowledge is ultimately everyone's job. Virtually every industry today is becoming knowledge-intensive. What your organization knows is clearly one of its only sustainable competitive advantages.
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN KNOWLEDGE & INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
Working with objects (data or information) is Information Management and working with people is Knowledge Management.
SOME COMMON KM ISSUES:
THE BRAIN DRAIN - LOSS OF INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE
Do you remember this ?
NEWS FLASH! NASA LOSES PLANS TO SATURN 5 ROCKET
The knowledge drain from the boomer retirement wave already has had some far-reaching consequences. As author David DeLong reports in his book, Lost Knowledge: Confronting the Threat of an Aging Workforce (Oxford Univ. Press, 2004), NASA lost the plans for the Saturn 5 rocket, which was used to launch the lunar landing craft. No one knows where the plans are. DeLong writes:
In an era of cost-cutting and downsizing, the engineers who designed the huge Saturn 5 rocket ... were encouraged to take early retirement from the space program. With them went years of experience and expertise about the design trade-offs that had been made in building the Saturn rockets. Also lost were what appear to be the last set of critical blueprints for the Saturn booster, which was the only rocket ever built with enough thrust to launch a manned lunar payload.
BUSINESS RESPONSE TO THE BRAIN DRAIN
An article in Management Issues – September 2007 stated that research by online recruiter Monster suggests that a mere one in five American companies have a formal strategy in place to capture critical knowledge and experience from older employees approaching retirement and transfer this knowledge to newer employees. To make matters worse, only 12 percent of human resource managers said that knowledge retention was seen as high priority within their organizations - despite the fact that a third of them acknowledge that 20 per cent or more of their workforce will be eligible for retirement over the next few years.
The study suggests that while HR managers may recognize the looming issue of losing institutional knowledge due to retirement, many face barriers to establishing strategies and tactics that could help to pre-empt the problem. The article further stated that concrete steps organizations can take to help mitigate the affects of brain drain include appointing a Chief Knowledge Officer responsible for organizational knowledge.
DO SIMULAR ISSUES EXIST IN YOUR ORGANIZATION? IF SO, YOU SHOULD PUT THE "X-FACTOR" TO WORK FOR YOU. YOU MAY CONSIDER . . .
Implementing programs to identify knowledge assets, sources, and offering knowledge-sharing incentives for employees and incorporate standards in performance reviews. Employing other tactics including leveraging technology – using things like blogs and wikkis to enable employees to redistribute and access organizational knowledge. There are many remedies, and one size does not fit all.
Although the brain drain is a looming problem for employers, it also presents an excellent opportunity for innovative companies to position themselves for better competitive advantage.