November 29, 2017
As I have noted, in our experience, there are usually 7 major issues involved in creating or adding a new competitive intelligence unit:
- financial and personnel
- internal marketing
- customers and their needs, and
- products and feedback.
Several of the (masked) cases in Competitive Intelligence Rescue – Getting It Right, our newest book, deal with CI products and feedback as do several chapters in Bottom Line Competitive Intelligence. Here are a couple of the key high-level issues you should consider:
- What products are you providing now? Who uses which products? Why don’t others use them?
- Are you providing a newsletter? Is it really providing value to the readers or is it just a convenience for those readers?
- Your product mix should change as your targets – and customers – change. And you should be changing your targets. They are not going to stay static just for your convenience.
- Feedback from your customers is critical. Get it on a project by project basis, if possible, and, in any case, quarterly. And get it from ALL customers. If they are too busy to talk about your work, how much time do they have to absorb and use it?
- Feedback should include reviewing what products to add as well as which ones to stop providing.
Also check out this past blog. among others: Answers and Questions.
Sometimes a CI project does not go well is the eyes of the end-user (the only eyes that matter). Why is that? Let’s look at three common negative feedback comments. Each may mean more (or less) than what it seems to say.
“We did not learn anything that we did not already know.”
- The assignment, as given by the end-user, may not have been focused as it should and could be. If it included phrases like “Tell me about…”, “Is anything new…”, focus is certainly lacking. It should have included a description of what decision/action depends on the results to give focus.
- If the focus is there, then the end-user should consider that a confirmation that he/she is correct is valuable. It means that his/her decisions will be based on current, not dated, information, which is too often the case. It also serves to reduce risk – just how certain was the end-user of the “facts” before the assignment was given?
“We did not get value from the assignment.”
- Was the cost (in terms of time and/or disbursements) excessive? Why? Was everyone aware of the range of likely costs that at the beginning? If not, why not?
- Did both the end-user and researcher agree on what was needed, when, and how it was to be actionable?
- What was the end-user expecting? Was that expectation reasonable? Was it clearly communicated to the researcher at the start?
- Did the researcher evaluate the likelihood of success on each element and share that estimate before starting?
“We still have questions.”
- Were those questions a part of the original brief? If not, why not? This can indicate a failure in tasking the initial assignment. That is quite often a problem when the assignment comes from A through B to C, where C does not have the opportunity to “push back” directly with A. Intermediaries rarely add clarity to the process.
- If these questions were a part of the brief, why did the researcher not answer them? Common reasons are that they cannot be answered by CI (i.e., they are trade secrets), or that the target has not yet made an expected decision or taken any action. The researcher should never gloss over missing elements. If a question could not be answered, just say so and explain why.