Steve Lunsford

This paper discusses four writings that examine concept of competitive intelligence and how it applies to today’s business world. The first and second discusses how the world is changing to be more global and how competitive intelligence applies to that transition. The second writing deals with lessons that have been learned from successful competitive intelligence implementation. The final piece addresses how companies can improve the confidence with which they make decisions based on their work in competitive intelligence. Finally, all of these readings are with personal experience to determine the relevance of these theories to each other.

Introduction: The Role of Competitive Intelligence in a Changing World

It is truly undeniable that we live in a world that experiencing, no matter the actual location, a switch from a domestic economy to a global economy. As this change occurs, it is important for all companies to give consideration to how they remain competitive in not only their local economy, but in the worldwide marketplace. The only viable way to remain a viable competitor in the present day is to engage in the process of competitive intelligence. On a local level, this means finding the most effective ways to find out what your competition is doing. It involves planning your new business acquisition techniques around the types of tactics and product/service positioning that is being used by rivals.
Three different sources will be examined to best deal with the topic of “competitive intelligence” and how it impacts us, how it can be used, and how it can be attained. The first is a chapter from Competitive Intelligence and Global Business, which addresses the ramifications of business as it relates to the trend of globalization. A second chapter from the same author, titled, “Moving from a Domestic to a Global Competitive intelligence Perspective: Learning from World-Class Benchmark Firms” will also be examined. The third, is a chapter from Proven Strategies in Competitive Intelligence, will take a look at what can be learned specifically from real competitive intelligence situations and what can be learned from them. The final reading to be examined will be The New Competitive Intelligence: Raising the Confidence Quotient and deals with how strategies in competitive intelligence can make a real impact in how decisions are made and how competitive intelligence can make a difference in the level of confidence with which business decisions are made.

Competing Globally with Sound Competitive Intelligence

In Competitive Intelligence and Global Business, the challenge of globalization and competitive intelligence plays an integral role in the adjustment that must be made in businesses worldwide in order to transition to the worldwide marketplace. Challenges abound, and to not embrace this trend and address it directly, is an unsound way (to say the least), to handle the changes that a business that wishes to engage in the emerging and increasingly prevalant global marketplace. (Fleshier, 2005, pp. 45-46)

Five primary reasons that global competitive intelligence is important are addressed in this chapter of Fleshier’s book. The first, “Sensitivity,” addresses the fact that when dealing with the global marketplace, a business must be aware and cater to the various norms that might be faced in other cultures, such as economics, and various policy or law issues that may pose problems in various other questions. The second, “Frustration,” addresses the fact that many businesses will be immobilized by the sheer magnitude of the task of gathering the competitive intelligence. “Preparedness” deals with the level of readiness that businesses have to deal with the challenges that intelligence on a global scale presents. The fourth, “Unfamiliarity,” states that businesses have a hesitancy to deal with international business, particularly when they have lack of familiarity that exists in these situations. The final reason challenge that competitive intelligence presents in the global marketplace is “Resource Investment,” and this addresses the hesitation that companies have to put funds into securing the intelligence that they need to be competitive in that situation. Addressing these various hesitancies that businesses might face when dealing with globalization can make the difference between success and failure internationally. (Fleshier, 2005, p. 5)

Competing Globally Through Implementation of Competitive Intelligence

The next reading from Competitive Intelligence and the Global Marketplace, “Moving from a Domestic to a Global Competitive Intelligence Perspective,” outlines a progression that helps define an effective way of extending from a domestic competitive intelligence plan to one that is more effective on a global scale.
Focus -> Implement -> Institutionalize -> Change -> Hone (Fleshier, 2005, p. 53)
The model outlined above starts with the actual realization of a company that they must make a change, and progresses through the steps that it takes until they reach the point where they are fully adjusted to the global marketplace and only making minimal changes to their intelligence gathering to maintain the competitive edge. Ultimately, it takes a actual plan of attack along with a plan for integration in order to make the transition that is necessary to compete on the global scale. (Fleshier, 2005, pp. 44-47)

Lessons of Putting Competitive Intelligence to Work in your Organization

Proven Strategies in Competitive Intelligence deals with the role that competitive intelligence and how it can be attained and put to use effectively. Prescott outlines 4 different “lessons” that define how competitive information can be put to use inside an organization. The first lesson states that competitive information must be acknowledged as what it is: an important part of an organization that allows it to remain sustainable in our increasingly competitive marketplace. A plan must be put into place to directly impact the need for competitive information. The second lesson states that a CI program must be put into place and must be credible, providing credible information. The information brought in must be attained ethically and must provide information that is correct or else the program will be bound for failure. The third lesson states that essentially intelligence must be fostered through the use of the individual and needs to be facilitated through an organizational philosophy that values knowledge. What this means is that the gathering of intelligence is dependent upon everyone in an organization, not just one person dedicated to this purpose. The fourth and final lesson is the idea that competitive information is driven by the actual needs of the entity that is gathering it. This simply covers the idea that the need for the information is driven by the constantly changing marketplace (John Prescott, 2001, pp. 3-17).

The concept of competitive information must be implemented, and it’s not necessarily intuitive to put it to work and make a concerted effort to generate it. Initiatives must be put into place to target what information is needed and get that information in place, in order to make competitive information.
Using Competitive Information to Bolster Confidence

The final reading on competitive intelligence, “The New Competitive Intelligence: Raising the Confidence Quotient,” deals with both business intelligence and competitive intelligence and the confidence that both can provide. Britt states, “Competitive intelligence is all about making more confident, less risky decisions. It’s all about determining market trends, customer needs and how you are set up to meet those needs.” (Britt, 2006, p. 10)
This article compares and contrasts business intelligence (quantitative) and competitive (qualitative) intelligence. The difference between the two of them is that business intelligence deals with knowledge that actually resides within the company itself. While business intelligence is important, competitive intelligence is distinguished by its increasing importance in how things are done in today’s world. (Britt, 2006, pp. 10-11)

Conclusion: Competitive Intelligence in the Real World

My personal experience in competitive intelligence was in working for a Japanese company in a very competitive and technological field. I worked in the sales arena and found that it was always useful to gather any information that might be available on what competitors that I dealt with everyday were doing. This information was gathered in a number of ways. We were provided some tools from the corporation, such as a website that would allow us to access specifications on our competitor’s equipment, which was useful, but only in very niche situations where specifications were all that mattered to the customer. The most valuable information was attained from talking to customers, who would provide us with word of the tactics being used to gain the business, or in some situations promotional printouts or rival proposals. When this personally gained information was able to be secured, this was what proved to be most useful. From this knowledge, we were able to retool our approaches to counteract these competitive tactics so that they could be addressed and nullified before they ever surfaced as a problem. The use of this competitive intelligence was one of my most useful tools in securing business and allowed a lot of success in my experiences.

Overall, competitive information can make all the difference in gaining the business of potential clientele, on both a domestic basis and in the rapidly expanding global business market. By taking steps to secure and strategically use information about what competitors are doing, businesses who adopt these philosophies early on gain an early advantage in the business world.

Works Cited
Britt, P. (2006, Nov/Dec ). The New Competitive Intelligence: Raising the Confidence Quotient. KM World , pp. 10-11, 24.
Fleshier, D. L. (2005). Competitive Intelligence and Global Business. Conneticut: Praeger Publishers.
John Prescott, S. M. (2001). Proven Strategies in Competitive Intelligence. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Posted by Stephen Lunsford at 09:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Yahoo continues to fight the takeover offer of Microsoft from last week, and is getting creative with its options to accomplish this. Few other companies have the capital to buy Yahoo outright, but several have lined up to get the chance to potentially get a piece of the internet company, helping them fend off Microsoft. Among those offering various forms of deals are AOL(owned by Time Warner) and News Corp(FOX). (Kleinman, 2008)
AOL has offered few details in how they a deal would be structured, but anti-trust issues have cropped up as Google owns a small stake in AOL and has a number of advertising agreements in place with them. In the case of News Corp, Rupert Murdoch is offering an 10 Billion dollar asset swap that would give Murdoch a large stake in Yahoo, and provide Yahoo with a piece of News Corp’s MySpace.com site. (Kleinman, 2008)
In any case, Yahoo seems determined to retain its independence from Microsoft and the battle is likely to get increasingly ugly as time passes. (Hansel, 2008)

Sources:
Kleinman, Mark. AOL Clicks with Yahoo to Sideline Microsoft. The Telegraph. February 17, 2007. Retreived February 17 from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/02/17/cnaol117.xml.

Hansel, Saul. A Guide to Yahoo’s Unlikely Alternatives to Microsoft. NewYork Times February 13, 2008. pD2.

Posted by Stephen Lunsford at 11:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Democrats of the House of Representatives agreed to meet in the first closed session in 25 years over the issues presented by the Foreign Surveilance Intelligence Act (FISA) bill. The request for the closed session was based on the democratic revision of the bill. The significance of this session is that closed sessions of the regularly transparent House of Represenatives are extremely rare and have only occurred 5 times since 1825. (Crabtee)

The reason for the session, is that FISA would not grant immunity retroactively to telecommunications firms that complied with the warrantless wiretapping program. The equivalent Senate bill does grant that immunity to the telecommunications companies. The new bill as proposed in the House would certainly be vetoed by President Bush. (Crabtree)

President Bush also cited a very cumbersome process of obtaining permission to obtain telecom participation in intelligence gathering, which Bush believes would leave substantial gaps and unacceptable time lapses in intelligence gathering. (Bush)
Sources:
Bush, G. W. (2008, March 13). President Bush Discusses FISA. Washington D.C.
Crabtee, S. (2008, March 13). Hoyer Agrees to Closed House Session. Retrieved 17 2007, March, from The Hill: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-gop-seeks-closed-session-on-fisa-2008-03-13.html

Posted by Stephen Lunsford at 01:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This paper discusses three writings that examine the impact of a healthy group culture. It discusses what organizational culture is and defines the problem that we face and the challenges that we deal with when presented with group dynamics. The second essay deals with the leaders and how they create an “outstanding” culture. The final piece deals with knowledge management and how it can be applied to the culture of groups. Finally, all of these readings are pulled together and coupled with personal experience to determine the relevance of these theories to each other.

Introduction: Culture is the Key

The culture of an organization is often not given much consideration by the everyday person due to the fact that it seems to be a very vague concept to most. Despite this vagueness, the culture of the groups in which one is involved has a daily and very important effect on day-to-day life. Three ideas from three other authors are considered in this essay, all in some way relating to organizational culture.

Group Culture: Defining the Problem

The first reading that is to be examined is “Defining Organizational Culture,” which defines culture and further defines the leader as it relates to the creation of a healthy, robust, business culture. By defining culture and examining the inner workings of dysfunctional cultures, Schein discusses the role that leaders have in defining the culture of a workplace and the impact that this can have on the overall effectiveness of an organization. (Scheen, 1995)
Scheen begins by writing on organizational cultures that were studied and evaluated with the hope of identifying the elements that make up a good culture. The objective was to evaluate these cultures in order to determine how organizational culture played a role in the success or stagnation of a business. Sheen was able to outline the following trends from his studies of a company:

1. “high levels of interrupting, confrontation and debate”
2. “excessive emotionalism about proposed courses or action”
3. “great frustration over the difficulty of getting a point across”
4. “a sense that every member of the group wanted to win all the time” (Scheen, 1995, p. 273)

Basic suggestions to directly address these issues were offered but did not seem to address problems with the underlying cultural issues that existed. (Scheen, 1995, pp. 273-275)

Sheen observed these 4 items; the first observation made was how difficult, when asked directly, the actual word “culture” was difficult for those inside the company to define. How does one foster the growth of something which cannot be defined? Sheen continues to formally define what “culture” is as it relates to a group or organization, identifying three main elements of culture:

“A pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved the problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid, and therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think and, feel in relation to those problems.” (Scheen, 1995, p. 279)
The first of these elements is the “problem of socialization,” which deals with new members who might enter a “group” and how they are taught. New members as they entered the group are taught norms in various ways, but are only allowed to understand why it is the way it is, once they are let into the inner circle of a particular group.

The second is “the problem of behavior” which is how those in a group perceive and react to the culture. It is theorized that the way that those in a group respond to a situation or a person is “a result of shared learning and therefore a manifestation of deeper shared assumptions.” (Scheen, 1995, p. 280) The third aspect to define culture addresses the existence of multiple subcultures across the overall group and the impact that these cultures have.
Sheen’s conclusion from this analysis is that his work is most applicable when trying to understand the more irrational aspects and behaviors of groups or cultures. How do the dynamics of the organization impact how people communicate, and why is that important? Has the culture of the group flourished or stagnated with time? Leadership is the differentiating variable between leading and creating a healthy culture, and being brought in and being managed by an older, and potentially unhealthy or unproductive culture.

Producing Results through Organizational Leadership

The second of the three readings that I examined was Results Based Leadership by Dave Ulrich, which examines the role of the leader in shaping the organizational culture of an organization. The culture of an organization plays a crucial role in the success of an organization, and it is essential that the leadership takes measures to address this important portion. One of the key points that stand out in the chapter, “Organizational Leadership” is the idea that the ultimate gauge of success of a leader is fostering a culture that allows the individuals to perform as a group to produce results that exceed the sum of their parts. Ulrich examines four major capabilities that are important to organizational culture in an organization: Learning, Speed, Boundarylessness, and Accountability. (Ulrich, 1999, p. 82)

The first of the four capabilities, learning, focuses on the ability of an organization to generate new ideas and implement them across the whole of the organization effectively. Coca-Cola was the example used by the author. When describing the capability of learning, Ulrich states, “Knowledge transfer takes place through technology, forums, and best practice studies.” Leaders who wish to nourish the learning culture of their organizations are constantly on the lookout for new ideas in all areas of their organizations, always keeping an open ear for innovative ideas that they can use. The people must be rewarded for generating new knowledge that benefits the whole, creating new possibilities for improvement. (Ulrich, 1999, pp. 90-92)

Speed, the second capability, addresses the agility with which an organization can react to change. In most industries (technology likely being the culture most heavily impacted by this particular capability),changes in the environment around them require that constant adjustment be made in order to keep up with the always evolving demand for products, the need for change in products to meet that demand, the way that they are delivered. This is not easily achieved; even Microsoft’s Bill Gates has often “expressed a fear that at his company, compliance and arrogance will replace commitment and action.” In our quickly-evolving world, old processes can quickly become antiquated before new ones are put into action. (Ulrich, 1999, pp. 92-96)

Boundarylessness is the third capability and deals with allowing people from within an organization to achieve by applying their personal areas of talent, regardless of the position for which they were hired or the area in which they work. The way that this is often done is to allow employees direct access to the leaders or to implement horizontal workgroups across the various sections of an organization. Boundrarylessness allows individuals to be heard, does not confine them to their primary skill, and allows all to potentially have a more broad impact on the organization as a whole. Ulrich theorizes, “Results-based leaders who create boundaryless organization ensure the widespread sharing of information, the enhancement of individuals’ skill through the training and development, the delegation and sharing of authority, and clear rewards to encourage sharing across all boundaries.” (Ulrich, 1999, pp. 96-97)

The final capability, and most certainly the most important to the actual implementation of the other three capabilities, is accountability. Accountability is always important to the success of an organization people must be held to certain standards in order to ensure that the right things are being done. An important distinction points out that accountability does not necessarily need to come from the traditional hierarchical model (this is management, not leadership), but can come horizontally across an organization. Accountability does not require authority in order to be effective. (Ulrich, 1999, pp. 97-98)

Knowledge Management: Converting Phenomena to Wisdom

The third essay, “Information is Knowledge in Motion”: Practical Framework for Understanding Knowledge Mangement that is being examined is by Jay Gillette and deals with the topic of knowledge management which is most certainly applicable to the topic of organizational culture and leadership. This essay deals with the use of knowledge and how it is transferred and utilized. (Gillette, 1999)

Gillette goes into great detail on the topic of Knowledge Management, addressing the topic thoroughly, but the most useful part of this essay, in the context of culture, and leadership, is the model, “Information in a Scale of Knowledge” found in Table 2. This model describes a hierarchy of the stages of knowledge, how it comes to be starting from phenomena, and evolving through various stages on its way to wisdom. (Gillette, 1999, p. Table 2)

Gillette begins with phenomena, which is a representation of something that we see or “perceive”: essentially an observation of something that we may not have previously been aware of. Moving to the next level, facts, we take these phenomena and bring them to actual information in the form of an actual statement of the fact which we have observed. Facts are translated into data which essentially are the collecting and recording of the factual information related to the phenomena. Information is, in turn, the data transformed and understood, to form a useful idea. That information is then translated into understanding which basically means that one understands the information and is thereby able to apply this to a situation. Finally, the understanding can be transformed to wisdom; Gillette states, “Wisdom guides understanding. Understanding informs wisdom.” (Gillette, 1999, pp. 6-8)

Personal Experience: Living with the Good and the Bad

My personal experience with organizational culture deals with several companies over the years, but I will focus on my professional career. Both jobs were in the same profession, were for Fortune 500 companies, had fewer than 10 employees in the office where I was located, but were very different from one another. In the first job, I was brought in, and run through a barrage of training at a corporate office, most of which was to educate me in a brief period how as to be a good salesperson and how to present the product line. When the time came to actually do my job, my manager, a large and imposing person was very quickly established as the intimidating force in the office. Every detail of my day was to be recorded and submitted. He determined whether what I was doing was the right thing, whether it was being done right, and I always suspected was constantly evaluating whether or not you were “a rainmaker,” “a potentially salvageable case,” or a “bad hire on the way out.” The culture was, on the whole, unhealthy. When evaluating the “Four Capabilities,” as outlined by Ulrich, it seemed as though, accountability was the only element of this culture that was represented at this job, but even then, that aspect was corrupted by the oppression with which it was presented. I did not flourish in this environment, and I suspect that many cultures suffer from the same malady

The second company which I was employed by was the opposite in the area of accountability. The manager was much the opposite of the previous, he had minimal interest in what I were doing or if anything was being done during the work day, just so long as everything was being done. I personally excelled in this organization because I found the independence exactly what I needed to think clearly and be productive. I did notice that a number of other salesmen came and went after being given this independence, misused it, and the management, rather than approach the situation and try to help diagnose and address the problem of productivity, would let the employee flounder until he would finally give him a month to turn the problem around, which in most cases, was too late. While I found that this situation was not particularly strong in the area of accountability, I did find that input across the organization was happily welcomed; the speed of their adjusting to industry and local trends was acceptable. I think that what made this an outstanding work environment for me was the boundarylessness that was offered by the company. People were allowed to do their job in the ways that best fit their skills by allowing the freedom to apply their own judgment of the best way to do the job, their own work ethic and effectiveness in applying personal strengths being the worst enemy. Of the two, this workplace far better met the “Critical Capabilities” that make for a good culture.

Conclusion: Leadership is the Key to Organizational Soundness

All of these readings can be brought together in defining organizational culture and how leadership applies to culture. Sheen defines what it means to have a strong corporate culture. His ideas are the appropriate way to begin investigating how a positive impact can be made on the culture of an organization. They feed nicely into the four capabilities of Ulrich that define the elements that make up the strong corporate culture. Gillette’s theories of knowledge management then apply into many of the capabilities in the form of allowing the members of the group to have their voices heard. This can be done through the observation of phenomena, making the progression, applying it as they go, eventually providing wisdom to the organization. Personal experience further validates that these theories are valid and useful.

One of the most important differentiations that these essays make is that a leader is essential to a thriving group culture; those that flounder, become obsolete, and potentially unhealthy, are those that are simply managed. The goal of a manager is generally not to create an outstanding team environment, but to consistently produce results. This often fails to take into account human needs that must be met in order for an organization to thrive and be productive as a group.

Warren Bennis said, “Everyone feels that he or she makes a difference to the success of the organization. When that happens people feel centered, and that gives their work meaning.” (Bennis, 2008) Through a thorough understanding of what organizational culture means and how it is cultivated, leaders make a tangible difference to the people around them.

Works Cited

Bennis, W. (2008). About.com. Retrieved February 27, 2008, from Inspirational Quotes for Business and Work: Leadership: http://humanresources.about.com/od/workrelationships/a/quotes_leaders.htm

Gillette, J. (1999). Information is Knowlege in Motion: A Practical Framework for Understanding Knowlege Management. Muncie, IN.

Scheen, E. (1995). Defining Organizational Culture. In T. Wray, A Leadership Comanion (pp. 271-281). New York: The Free Press.

Ulrich, D. (1999). Organization Results. In D. Ulrich, Results Based Leadership (pp. 83-105). Boston : Harvard Business School Press.

Posted by Stephen Lunsford at 03:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)