Achieving Actionability: How to Get Decision-Makers to Pay Attention to Intelligence

One of the greatest frustrations that routinely plague competitive intelligence analysts and managers is to deliver world-class actionable intelligence -- with clear strategic and decision impact to the company -- only to have management ignore it. Where does the problem lie: with the quality of the intelligence, or with how managers perceive it? The truth is, both parties share in the responsibility of ensuring that credible intelligence is recognized and used.

First, let's revisit what is meant by the term "actionable intelligence." This term has become so axiomatic that we may have lost sight of its true meaning. In his book Good to Great, author Jim Collins notes that companies that consistently out-performed their peers did not necessarily have access to more, or better, information than their comparison companies. Instead, Collins notes, "not in better information, but in turning information into information that cannot be ignored." Now, Good to Great has come under some criticism of late as many of his "great" companies today are sucking wind. Still, the notion of "information that cannot be ignored" strikes me as a good benchmark against which to judge actionability. (Collins, Jim. Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap, and Others Don't. Collins, October 2001, p. 79)

Why, then, does intelligence regularly seem to miss the mark? I believe there are three forces at work.

First, decision-makers may have the wrong expectations for intelligence. For competitive intelligence to be useful in setting strategy, it needs to be anticipatory. That is, good intelligence should provide a reasoned judgment about future competitor, market, and/or industry behavior. Because predicting the future is impossible, managers have to take actions based on intelligence that is, by definition, speculative and subjective. For many managers, making decisions on anything less than hard facts is extremely difficult.

Second, I would contend that most intelligence deliverables that managers receive are heavy on facts and data, and light on insights and judgments. Despite their best intentions, competitive analysts have a hard time providing their opinions, assessments, and conclusions about the data they are examining. There are several reasons. Perhaps they have not been trained to do so, or the company does not value well-reasoned opinions, or they are unwilling to open themselves to criticism and disagreement. Whatever the explanation, intelligence that does not speculate about likely future conditions is bound to be ignored.

Last, even good intelligence is often communicated poorly. Business analysts have been conditioned to produce and present long, heavy reports that present fact after fact, and to deliver any conclusions or opinions only at the end of the report or presentation. Time-pressed managers simply do not have the luxury of plodding through page after page, or slide after slide, of graphs, figures, and quotes to reach a conclusion. If a piece of competitive analysis does not provide the chief conclusion and implications for the company right up front, chances are decision-makers will stop reading or listening before the analyst can get to the grand conclusion.

What, then, can CI analysts and company decision-makers do to increase the chances that intelligence will be taken into consideration and applied to corporate actions? First, senior executives and intelligence practitioners must together come to agreement on the pressing issues facing the company for which sound, forward-looking intelligence is necessary. This requires not only coming up with a list of key intelligence topics that reflect external business conditions, but also understanding the accountabilities, corporate culture, and personal objectives that influence how each senior executive makes decisions.

Second, intelligence analysts must address intelligence issues with a higher degree of rigor. This requires regularly using proven analytic methodologies to help move from summarizing facts and data to expressing judgments, opinions, and implications. Over time, this means that the portion of a competitive intelligence product devoted to facts and figures should diminish, while the share devoted to insights and judgments should increase.

Last, intelligence must be delivered more effectively. Analysts must be trained in expository writing techniques that clearly state conclusions up front, and support them with carefully selected facts and evidence that lend support to analytic reasoning. Intelligence reports and briefings must be short, to the point, and open to disagreement and debate. Taking the safe road and avoiding controversy in intelligence deliverables serves neither managers nor analysts well.

Achieving true actionability -- or providing managers with information that cannot be ignored -- is not far out of reach. If competitive intelligence practitioners identify or anticipate management's needs, present plausible judgments and assessments clearly, and offer decision options and alternatives, then I believe executives will listen, and will find it hard to ignore intelligence when setting competitive strategy.