Eliminate chaos-collaboration within the competitive intelligence process

Effective Collaboration in Market & Competitive Intelligence

There are plenty of collaborators and stakeholders involved in the competitive intelligence process. Every inquiry is special and different and includes varying actors.

Here is how to avoid misalignment and waste of resources through transparent interfacing.

 

Too many chefs in the kitchen

Most decision makers don’t have a detailed understanding of the machinery that is being activated as they inquire competitive analysis and market intelligence. And why should they?

That machinery however is rarely operated by a single person or a closely aligned team. Chances are that several elements or functions that are required to fulfill the competitive intelligence request do reside in different departments or even externally.

Those or similar functions might be at play:

  • The business: requestors, content-decision translators, protectors

  • The intelligence team: market researchers, analysts, strategists

  • The enablers: data builders, system builders, knowledge builders

With that many parties working on one or a series of similar requests you can imagine how demanding it might be to collaborate smoothly and work effectively to satisfy the decision makers information needs swiftly.

 

Three examples of double trouble

Starting with an inquiry that is communicated to the competitive intelligence group:

  • Sometimes the final decision maker asks directly

  • Sometimes the request comes in via a proxy

  • Sometimes several people ask for the same or similar insights as the competitive intelligence gap surfaced in a meeting and now everyone is eager to fill that gap, they might even ask different competitive intelligence managers at the same time

Result? 

Uncertainties, waste of resources, delays.

Why?

Because busy decision makers simply dump a question onto the desk of “the CI guys - they'll figure it out”.

 

When it comes to using data and information that is either built or sourced you might find any of these situations unfolding when decision makers push for quick answers:

  • People “google” for a response or use whatever info providers access they have

  • Data is taken raw without further analysis or alignment with existing data

  • Spreadsheets are being created that do not “talk to each other”

Result? 

Decisions might be based on false data and new gaps occur.

Why?

Competing data is being used that is neither automated nor double checked by the specialist who handle these data all the time and know where they have appeared in the past.

 

Not knowing the impact that the competitive intelligence deliverable will have, is a common and frustrating problem:

  • Decision makers don’t make the time for dialogue throughout which the intelligence deliverable takes shape but instead demand a complete response to a shallow, unspecific request

  • In the context with other decisions and discussions the evidence might support the decision making process more broadly and requires additional analysis and depth

  • The requestor wants to use the insights in a specific format such as a standard report or presentation that needs alignment with earlier versions or complimenting documentation

Result? 

Double work, massive time delays and corrections. In a worst case: data is presented to the board who then point out misalignments. This is never a good scenario for any executive.

Why?

Because the analyst doesn’t get her questions answered that amount while developing the insight and she will likely deliver something that does not match the requestors expectations.

 

Chicken run

While market analysis and competitive insights are crucial ingredients to expensive business decisions the above three examples (among potentially many more) of uncoordinated, reactive back-and-forth makes the entire organization look unprofessional and fails to deliver swift and impactful results.

Everybody tries hard but more often than not - especially when there is pressure from the top - people behave like headless chicken.

 

Show what is at play…

In order to orchestrate these situations with ease and enable all parties to focus on their own part in the process everybody needs a basic understanding of that machinery and which parts play which role. Moreover: how do the actors interface, where are the handshakes and stage gates?

Since the owner of the deliverables (the team of researchers and analysts) is most eager to operate efficiently and deliver effective insights they should also lead the alignment efforts.

Chicken run

While market analysis and competitive insights are crucial ingredients to expensive business decisions the above three examples (among potentially many more) of uncoordinated, reactive back-and-forth makes the entire organization look unprofessional and fails to deliver swift and impactful results.

Everybody tries hard but more often than not - especially when there is pressure from the top - people behave like headless chicken.

 

Show what is at play…

In order to orchestrate these situations with ease and enable all parties to focus on their own part in the process everybody needs a basic understanding of that machinery and which parts play which role. Moreover: how do the actors interface, where are the handshakes and stage gates?

Since the owner of the deliverables (the team of researchers and analysts) is most eager to operate efficiently and deliver effective insights they should also lead the alignment efforts.

…and demonstrate how to play as a team

When the value creation actors are known they need to be aligned along a value stream.

Since the acting functions in the graph above are different within any organization and they play different roles from one inquiry to another there are two major clarifications needed:

  1. Who acts how in general as a default modus operandi (automation)?

  2. Who takes specific roles and responsibilities for the case at hand?

 

...or in other words: 

 

1. Design and share a common understanding of general responsibilities clarifying these roles:

  • Who requests intelligence from whom?

  • Who owns the inquiry and leads a dialogue with the original requestor?

  • Who owns and manages the resources and/or outsourcing needs?

  • Which tools and processes are generally being used?

This should be featured at the competitive intelligence team’s SharePoint or Intranet page. Handouts with a simple flow chart (playbook) can be very helpful too.

 

2. Use a project charter defining these specific elements for every major inquiry:

  • Which decision will the insight support?

  • Who will be the target audience?

  • What format is requested, is it an update or does it compliment existing deliverables?

  • Which specific source is required if beyond standard (who pays)?

  • Is there a sparring partner or sponsor (integrator/protector) close to the decision maker/requestor who can help to put this deliverable into context with the overall business situation?

An agreement about who interfaces and at what frequency is crucial.

This approach should obviously be adjusted to the specific circumstances, setup and culture in the organization. Some organizations are more process oriented than others. This article gives enough room to be flexible and retain internal integrity. 

*Jens Thieme is a global B2B marketing professional, sharing his practical marketing experience, this marketing glossary and b2b marketing best practice examples.