Trim (2004) states that the importance of competitive intelligence work involves “analysing and interpreting multi-faceted and complex business issues” and that competitive intelligence owners should work closely with Marketing, Planning and Research & Development to create Counter competitive intelligence (Prescott, 1995).
Stalk and Lachenauer (2004) identify six key elements, which could be employed to ensure that the information that goes out is limited:
Don’t over disclose: Some companies go overboard in providing too much information in their public disclosure documents. It is best to maintain minimum disclosure.
Contain the information flow: Only non-sensitive marketing communication should go through the normal communication channels. Any information that could give away your company’s intentions should be protected.
Sending False Signals: It is becoming more and more common to issue new products and/or release specific information to get a competitor to move in a certain direction or way. This strategy of sending signals can be an effective way of gauging competitors’ intentions.
Don’t be Predictable: A key to counter competitive intelligence is to adopt unpredictable strategies that could include sending false signals.
Recognise Intelligence Attacks: Unfortunately most companies do not realise that they have been intelligence attacked and only find to that their competitor is always one step ‘ahead of the game’ or beats your company to a product release. The competitor may be obtaining a competitive edge from leaks from your own staff.
Don’t be afraid to Counter Attack: Noting the well known military quote “…the best form of defence is to counter attack” and could be applied in the Counter competitive intelligence arena. (Stalk and Lachenauer, 2004)
The aim of the survey questionnaire was to assess and benchmark the maturity levels of competitive intelligence within New Zealand organisations. There is a perceived view that competitive intelligence is conducted on an ad hoc behaviour, resulting in the use of unstructured intelligence gathering practices.
To achieve the goal of understanding the development of competitive intelligence, the key findings from this survey were analysed against trends and key findings identified in Trengrove and Vryenhoek (1997) competitive intelligence study. A similar theme of questions in the 1997 competitive intelligence study was used to enable this comparison. To ascertain the link between knowledge management and competitive intelligence, new questions were developed that incorporated the competitive intelligence and knowledge management factors (i.e. the theory of competitive intelligence, competitive intelligence culture, Managing in an Information/Knowledge economy, Internal and External Business Drivers of competitive intelligence and Legal and Ethical Aspects of competitive intelligence) as identified in the Literature Review section with the aim of addressing the research report’s question.
Thirty-four companies were approached in person to complete this survey. A letter outlining the purpose of the study and a consent to participate form was also included. The target audience was people who held senior positions of their respective company (CEO’s, managing directors, divisional directors). Recipients were asked to complete the survey themselves or assign another person within their company who had an invested interest in this area. Recipients were also offered a copy of the research report once completed. A copy of the covering letter and survey can be found in Appendix A.
A semi-structured survey approach was used as an ‘open framework’ to enable a two-way communication administered using a ‘one-to-one’ interview process where the researcher took notes and recorded responses. This interview process was undertaken between 18 May, 2009 and 23 July, 2009.
Уважаемый посетитель!
Чтобы распечатать файл, скачайте его (в формате Word).
Ссылка на скачивание - внизу страницы.