The history of the field of competitive intelligence reveals tensions between the information collection side and the intelligence analysis side. The reason for the tension is that few if any CI professionals are equally good at collecting information and analyzing it. The skills required are different; the educational background is different; the personality is often different too. The result is the rise of the competitive intelligence analyst as the core element in a company’s competitive intelligence function and the clear distinction created between information professionals and competitive intelligence analysts.

Information professionals are good at identifying and searching information sources. They deliver their findings to users mostly unchanged. At most, information professionals repackage the information – classifying it, edit it, highlight portions, collate different sources, and verify reliability. Though their role is important in an information-rich environment and knowledge-based competition, none of the activities of information specialists produces real intelligence.

Information vs intelligence

Turning information into intelligence is done via interpretation – or what many call analysis - of the information. The correct definition of intelligence is therefore: a perspective on facts. A perspective means putting information in context. Instead of reporting "facts" – a rise in customers’ defection, a competitor coming out with a new service, or a high-end competitor striking an alliance with a Chinese firm – a competitive intelligence analyst will always place the event in some broader context: a step in the industry’s evolution, a move inconsistent with competitor’s strategic positioning, a change aimed at moving into a different strategic cluster, etc. A perspective does not have to be correct, or even accurate. Unlike facts, a perspective has no a priori "truth value" which can be verified quickly with other sources. It does have posteriori validation, though, as time passes and the broader implications are either borne out or not. The goal of any perspective can be determined differently by different organizations. Homeland Security analysts’ perspective, for example, is aimed at avoiding surprise attacks on US assets or people. In business context, we at the Academy advocate a perspective of early identification of emerging commercial risks and opportunities.

Is a competitor’s announcement about new product - "intelligence"?

No, it isn’t. It can be extremely actionable and important, but it is not intelligence by our definition (which you may or may not agree with). Let’s make this distinction between information and intelligence more concrete: A report describing a new product launch or a competitor’s announcement of a future product launch is information. It is based on collecting observations – those that have already happened or those that are clearly pointing to something that will happen (e.g., competitor’s announcement). This is valuable information, but not intelligence. It can be verified, classified, and glorified, but it is not intelligence. It maybe actionable, but it is still not intelligence.

The confusion between what is information and what becomes intelligence is largely due to how the term "intelligence" has been used colloquially across generations of spies and spy novels. In governmental spheres, due to the difficulty in observing enemy’s facts, every bit of secret information – interpreted or not - is called intelligence. When we think about an "intelligence report" by some spy agency about troop movements or some terrorist hideout, we think information that was obtained against the efforts of the enemy to keep it secretive, and accordingly has been given a label to distinguish itself from other types of information. Intelligence immediately adds a "hush-hush" connotation. In business, since information which is kept secretive is illegal to obtain, that can not be the meaning of intelligence. Instead, CI experts grappled with the need to define intelligence. Jan Herring, one of the pillars of the CI field, defined intelligence as analyzed information which is made actionable. This definition has been widely adopted by CI practitioners and scholars alike, but it is more a fig leaf than real. If CI practitioners were sending their bosses analyzed information which was actionable, they would have escaped the shortfalls of being stuck in information specialists’ roles. Instead, many CI professionals say "intelligence" but mean "information". They send in "facts" and numbers, but no unifying perspective.

The competitive intelligence analyst

Developing a perspective requires both training (skills) and innate talent. The skills are those of strategic intelligence analysis, and the talent is that of business sense. An MBA may have the former but completely lack the latter, as his studied kept him in a theoretical sphere. An entrepreneur may have the latter but not the former and miss out of systematic frameworks that can help her in sniffing out strategic opportunities and threats.

Developing a perspective may also require a different personality than information roles, as it is much more difficult and risky than sending in repackaged information or answers to management questions. Once a competitive intelligence analyst signed his or her name to a piece describing an event in the competitive environment within a larger (strategic) context, and drawing implications for opportunities or risks derived from the event-in-context, there is no way back. The competitive analysts name is out there, attached to a piece that is no longer just a rehashing of what others are saying or reporting of objective and publicly available statistics. Not everyone feels comfortable sticking their neck out that way. There are different comfort zones to librarians and analysts.

Career path

The different roles within the intelligence function have different career paths as well stemming from both internal competition and perceived added value. There is much bigger competition for a task of sending information to management, and the perceived added value by executive is not high. Competitive intelligence analysts face reduced competition (mostly from outside consultants) and when their insights about the industry are good, they can carve a career in strategy, business development, and line management. On the other hand, analysts face a higher hurdle in establishing credibility.

Based on the different career paths, the Academy places a premium on preparing our participants to become competitive analysts.