This theme is also highlighted with only 12% of companies (with a turn-over of $51 million and spend $100K & above on competitive intelligence operations) believing in this value.
As highlighted by Rouach and Santi (2001), most of the SME European companies operated a reactive and active style of competitive intelligence operation, which is similar to the New Zealand environment. The surveyed companies confirmed that they operated Reactive (44%) and Active (35%) competitive intelligence operations. However, the responsibility for maintaining these operations was assigned to the sales and marketing teams and not the CEO or General Manager. This reporting structure could lead to the lack of senior management ‘buy-in’ and promote conflict with other business priorities, resulting in the misalignment of company strategy and missed market opportunities.
After applying Rothberg and Erickson(2005) “Strategic Protection Framework” to assist with measuring knowledge management and competitive intelligence risks, there appears to be discrepancies between Rothberg and Erickson category definitions (i.e. industries with a low KM risk and low CI risk) and the respondents answers, for example companies/organisations who indicated that they were SPF Industry A companies had the high percentages in the understood and well managed for managing competitive intelligence and knowledge management, where SPF Industry D industries had high percentages in the neutral and not understood categories for the same elements.
As identified by Murphy (2005), all companies are subjected to internal and external business drivers and the associated risks, for example tangible (new technology) and intangible (existing and potential competitors) elements. This is reflected in that almost all of the surveyed companies (97%) believed that they are in competitive markets. A similar percentage (94%) believed that these markets would become more competitive over the next three years from new technology risk (94%) and existing or potential competitors risk (88%). As most new technology trends are established outside of New Zealand and/or new global competitors are formed, it is surprising, that the surveyed companies focus was only on the New Zealand marketplace rather than regional or international markets. This would suggest the need for companies to develop structured and comprehensive monitoring processes (like competitive intelligence). However, only 56% viewed integrated competitive intelligence systems as important (47%) or very important (9%).
While 56% believed competitive intelligence systems were seen as important to very important, only half of the respondents (47%) said they would implement integrated competitive intelligence systems in the future. The use of rumours and personal contacts still remains the highest valued communication channel used to understand their competitive markets.
This current mindset is the fundamental challenge for New Zealand companies if future competitive (intelligence) opportunities, in a coordinated, integrated and structured manner are to be gained. If this challenge is overcome, New Zealand companies can then start investigating other opportunities and compete equally in the global market.
Also following Murphy (2005) theme of internal and external business drivers, the current economic and environmental drivers are also identified when asked if Government assisted programmes and support were made available to facilitate the growth of New Zealand companies in the global marketplace (i.e. using similar programmes which have been established by Japanese and Chinese Governments). Seventy six per cent of the respondents believed this was neutral (21%), not very important (26%) and not at all important (29%). This result indicates that companies do not see the New Zealand Government as an enabler. This would also reflect the limited focus/emphasis on the global market place.
Уважаемый посетитель!
Чтобы распечатать файл, скачайте его (в формате Word).
Ссылка на скачивание - внизу страницы.