Where fragmentation in intelligence operations comes from

 

From Starting a Competitive Intelligence Function by the Competitive Intelligence Foundation you can read the entire chapter Harmonizing Competitive Intelligence, by Jens Thieme - Head of Global Market & Competitive Intelligence - here at MarkIntell.com.
 

Fragmentation of intelligence activities does not necessarily mean that an organization is weak or flawed in any intelligence activity. Our company has produced some outstanding intelligence over the decades using great tools and resulting in solid business value.



With a company history of more than 250 years as one of the pioneers in synthetic dyestuffs and later many additional specialty chemicals and pharmaceuticals our company went through various M&A events and consolidation cycles. These adjustments, divestments and acquisitions of both organizational units and technologies resulted in operational and organizational fragmentations. Many of them make perfect sense regarding portfolio focus and business model priorities.

Current industries and markets served are as diverse as plastics, agriculture, construction, fibers, electronics, personal care products, lubricants and fuels to name a few. Core competences and market leadership include colors, optical brightening, UV-protection, antioxidants treatments and many others – all with practical overlap and synergies into many of the mentioned industries and end applications.

Separated product and market focus of the respective market centers and sales teams did not allow for mutual processes and centralized functions in the past though. Therefore intelligence efforts grew at varying rates and depths within the business units. Different tools and techniques created fragmented intelligence using similar sources. Multiple efforts and double spending were common across these business units and the service departments (e.g. Finance, R&D, M&A, Legal, Communications/Media Relations, etc.) due to a lack of cross referencing and synergizing in these tasks.



Finally staff reductions, capacity shifts and strategic re-focusing created an environment where many disciplines and tasks enjoyed superior attention versus intelligence activities that were conducted in job union by managers who needed to succeed in many other important goals simultaneously. As a result the company found itself challenged with issues like those below:

 

Challenge 1: Market studies and competitive analysis were used and disseminated within single business units or locations without sharing material, methods or results

One of the core complaints from marketers about intelligence was the lack of a unified and well managed source where all market studies and other information could be accessed.

Much capacity was invested in trying to find out who owned what study, what other material could be used and if certain information was available internally. At times marketing managers from one part of the world purchased material that was just delivered from the same vendor in another region for the same horrendous price.

Let alone the countless hours colleagues spent online, fees paid for newsletter subscriptions and external database access.

Challenge 2: Some managers retained a sole focus on basic disciplines like sales while neglecting some important marketing activities including market intelligence development.

Difficult business cycles call for drastic measures such as sole focus on most impacting activities. Whenever bottom line numbers needed major improvements our company, similar to many others, tended to focus on increased sales while reducing support functions such as intelligence work. Understandably the call for action leaves behind a trace of neglect for support disciplines that are not considered (right or wrong) battle-winning.

Challenge 3: Major intelligence resources were solely focused and concentrated on strategic projects or incidents.

Mergers & acquisitions, business plan creation or strategy planning received superior support in terms of intelligence capacity. Mostly marketers and other senior staff from business unites that were impacted by current developments contributed capacity and expertise. Oftentimes external resources were involved in very large projects as well. Only: intelligence work was conducted independently from any other similar effort within the company. Tools and techniques were not shared beyond the one single group that produced the intelligence for that particular project. After completion the expertise and capacity imploded again, without the possibility of further development and effort recycling.

Also: due to a lack of unified templates for business plans and projects that required intelligence content any intelligence activity was started from scratch using different methods every time. Sources kept being picked at random without mutual strategy in place or negotiation power achieved.

Chapter Navigation


Harmonizing Competitive Intelligence