While both results are very similar on competitive intelligence expenditure, Trengrove and Vryenhoek (1997) study focused on ‘Plans for improving competitive intelligence against Expenditure on competitive intelligence, where this study has focused on the respondent’s value of competitive intelligence against competitive intelligence expenditure. Trengrove and Vryenhoek (1997) study concluded that it was impossible to make any conclusive assumption, hence the reason for this study being focused on the respondent’s value of competitive intelligence against competitive intelligence expenditure.
The research indicates the following key findings:
The survey suggests that 79% of companies/organisations have established a financial commitment to competitive intelligence. However, in comparing both survey results (this survey and Trengrove and Vryenhoek (1997) survey), the financial commitment results are very similar with only minor movement. While it is expected that companies with a turn-over of $51 million and over would be expected to have a spend of above $100k on competitive intelligence, only 12% of this group responded that they believed in the value of competitive intelligence against the current competitive intelligence expenditure.
Using Rouach and Santi (2001) competitive intelligence attitude framework (Sleepers, Reactive, Active, Assault and Warrior) (2001), 44% of respondents categorised their approach as Reactive, followed by 35% as Active and 21% believed that they were operating an Assault and Warrior competitive intelligence operation. Of which, six out of seven Assault and Warrior competitive intelligence operation companies had a turn-over of $51 million and more, suggesting that only these companies are able or willing to provide resourcing (people and funding) to maintain this style of competitive intelligence environment.
The ICT and Technology industry had the highest response (15%) in the Reactive attitude, followed by 12% in the Active attitude by the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate industries.
The results from the research suggest that there is a greater awareness and value on competitive intelligence, with 79% of companies operating Reactive and Active competitive intelligence operations and they felt this element was very important (67%) or important (23%) to grow and develop their company.
Content Analysis:
Some companies confirmed that they are planning to use third party resources to develop better knowledge management processes in the hope of providing a greater understanding of the marketplace. Respondents acknowledged that without robust knowledge management processes, they will be unable to understand their competitive market.
Marketing departments were still confirmed as having the primary role for managing their competitive intelligence operations. In larger organisations, the responsibilities were assigned
to regional managers or strategy groups outside of New Zealand.
The objective of this analysis was to identify the surveyed companies’ and organisations’ perceived value of current and future competitive risk.
To assist with this objective, Question 20 asked: To what extent do you regard your company to be exposed to risks from?
• Existing or potential competitors
• New technology
• General economic trends
• Other
Across all three risks (Existing or potential competitors, New technology, General economic trends), the highest rating per risk was 47% of surveyed respondents believed that there was an increase of risk existing or potential competitors, 56% perceived that the risk of new technology was manageable, followed by 38% indicating that there was an increase of risk in the General economic trends category.
Уважаемый посетитель!
Чтобы распечатать файл, скачайте его (в формате Word).
Ссылка на скачивание - внизу страницы.