Within the past month, two clients have asked me to help them develop training in competitive intelligence for non-CI professionals. Neither of these companies manages a full-time, centralized CI function. Instead, each company's strategic marketing function wants to instill product, brand, and sales managers with core CI skills to enhance their job performance. These companies may, or may not, develop a dedicated CI team; for now, building CI-related skills and competencies among a broader community is more important.
They envision rolling out a series of short, "bite-sized" training modules on various aspects of competitive intelligence (competitor hypothesis generation, human-source network building, intelligence analysis), in some cases as part of a larger, internal training operation. The training would be delivered on-line, via WebEx or Live Meeting or some similar platform, and would include "homework" assignments that will require attendees to apply course material to their specific functions and needs.
The CI training needs of these two companies is emblematic of a broader trend: the decentralization and deprofessionalization of competitive intelligence. For many organizations, especially decentralized, multi-business-line companies, there is more value to be derived from embedding CI skills in other, more well established corporate functions, than from building a dedicated, professional CI program.
Is this wise? Does it further the promotion of CI, or limit it? For me, this deprofessionalization of CI may be a good thing. For one, it brings CI to the masses; there's no reason why professionals in functions related to competitive intelligence can't or shouldn't selectively apply core CI competencies to what they do, especially if doing so enhances decision-making at a variety of levels. It also engages more and more professionals in the conduct of competitive intelligence, potentially bolstering membership in the Society of Competitive Intelligence Professionals (SCIP) and enhancing the profession by opening it to new ways of doing business. One downside for SCIP, however, is that this new corporate approach to CI may make its proposed certification program meaningless.
To be sure, these decentralized approaches to CI will require stronger coordination and management of intelligence practices, the development of strong communities of practice, and other structural elements, to make it work. But, if more and more people are practicing the craft of intelligence, I see more upside than downside.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
A New Paradigm for Competitive Intelligence Training?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Agree with you, Ken, that the more people who know about and practice proper CI, the better for all - business in general as well as CI practitioners.
On the other side, CI practiced by many can only be limited compared to what a good CI professional can offer. It's beneficial for everyone in the company to be aware of and have a basic knowledge of company costs but this doesn't diminish the need for a CFO.
Further, when many are trained to do some level of CI, the CI dept. can focus on CI that's complex, sophisticated, and difficult to uncover. In this way, the CI dept will be valued more as they will provide what the rest cannot.
Ken, I can remember sitting in a SCIP meetings back in 03 or 04 and they were debating about whether they should focus on core CI professionals or professionals of all stripes who practice some CI. It was an ongoing debate that involved how SCIP's deliverables should be targeted. I also remember sitting in several CI 101 courses and when attendees were asked if they spent all their time on CI or just a percentage, the vast majority replied that they were spending a minority of their time on CI. I think that was a big reason that CI 101 was always a successful event for SCIP. Of course they also got lots of complaints on conference programming that it was geared too much to the newbies. That's a tough balance to strike, but in the long run I think the focus on generalized training for the masses will be healthier for the organization and can subsidize more specialized deliverables for the hardcore CI practitioners.
Ken, you are right when you applaud the practice of many in the field of CI, it is beneficial to the company, but to a certain degree, limited by their knowledge and time they could spare for CI, and I agree with Seena on that account. Only a CI professional can guide them, coach them, make a real sense of their findings and see a whole picture.
The same situation is noticed in other fields (library and information science, for instance) : the fact that the C-suite managers like to use Internet and search on their own for the info cf. Forbes report The Rise of Digital C-suite; does not take the job of the info-pros, on the contrary! There is still the question of the most efficient use of time for everyone as well as the fact that one does not become professional in one fieldinstantly or by willing it. There is still a hard learning involved for each profession. To put it differently: as the professional writers did not become obsolete by the apparition of the ordinary bloggers, the CI professional won’t disappear of diminish by the widening of the number of CI practitioners.
Post a Comment