A tale of two professions- the final round?

A LinkedIn post recently caught my eye. A “CI platform” from Canada received a financing round from a VC group. The financing package was small ($65 million compared to the $250 million of an Israeli sales intelligence platform, Gong) but signaled the rising interest in so-called “CI platforms”. Then one of my brightest CIP?s posted a piece on CI’s changing future and stated, “the chronicles of the CI death… seem overly exaggerated.”

Indeed. The spread of platforms turned out to be good news for CI but not for the reasons commonly mentioned in vendors’ PR posts. Platforms do not produce CI, nor make the CI functions better in any meaningful way. They do seem to make information collection and distribution easier, but here is the catch: Platforms enable mid-level users of tactical information (mostly marketers and product managers) to rid themselves of the need for a middle person. Contrary to the hype of using technology, when a company adopts a platform, it doesn’t need a whole cadre of information practitioners any longer.

When a company adopts a platform, it doesn’t need a whole cadre of information practitioners any longer.

But the market for CI is hot for competition analysts. The in-demand skill of competition analysts is their ability to add value beyond the flood of meaningless data. Their product is called insight. They are as removed from information jobs as financial analysts are from bookkeeping.

And their skill is in more demand than we’ve ever seen.

Competition Analysts are as removed from information jobs as financial analysts are from bookkeeping.

The opposite of noise is not platform…

In my latest book, The Opposite of Noise , I discuss the analytical and organizational process of arriving at competitive insight. It helps dispel the confusion between true CI and mere technology tools that collect more data.

I am not against technology. Platforms are beneficial to tactical users of information, procuring routine information for routine tasks quickly. But intelligence? Nope. Sorry. If you believe these platforms provide competitive intelligence you have no clue what intelligence means. Intelligence doesn’t require a lot of data. It requires patience and training.

Intelligence doesn't need a lot of data. ?It needs patience and training.

The beautiful (unintended?) side of platforms

At the Academy, we pride ourselves on training and certifying competition analysts. Every time a company buys into a so-called CI platform, my CIP? programs see a rise in applications for the training and certification. The reason is that managers pigeonholed into information roles are not stupid: They realize their tenure is being shortened by these platforms. 2021 has been our best year since the 90s, as managers with “CI” titles or duties try to upgrade their skills. The competition analysts' jobs are “hot.”

Every time a company buys into a so-called "CI" platform, my CIP? programs see a rise in applications to switch to analysts.

Career? What career? ?

Untrained information practitioners might be one of those roles, like typists, which disappear over time, replaced by automated information collection. Competition analysts have a totally different career track. In October, one of my CI directors in a Pharma company was made a VP of Investor Relations. ?Another CIP? is set out to introduce our CI analysts’ tools into the military. Several CIP?s have been recruited to lead CI in companies at the forefront of tech. The skills may look different, but the essence is that a person with a definite perspective on competing is a talent to be harnessed.

Untrained information practitioners might be one of those roles, like typists, which disappear over time

Back to the Future?

Back in the days when I was deeply involved with SCIP (early Jurassic), I wrote a piece for SCIP Magazine about The Battle for the Soul of the Profession (poetic, I know). I think it was circa 2009 or maybe 3120 BC, I am not sure. In it, I described two schools of CI. One I called INFOPRO and one I called “Interpreters.” Here is a quote from that amazingly visionary piece (IMHO, of course):

“In the early days of SCIP, I was among the lone voices pushing away from the INFOPRO focus, joined by such luminaries as Liam Fahey, Jan Herring, and Kirk Tyson. Twenty years later, this “Intelligence as Interpretation” school of thought has acquired many more (and younger) advocates, among them Ken Sawka, Babette Bensoussan, Craig Fleisher, and others.” (The Battle of the Titans, SCIP Magazine, 2009? Maybe @Cam Mackey can find it in SCIP’s archives).

In 2009, we were “young voices”, though I was already old. Today, we are again at the juncture, thanks to technology, but this time I sense a difference. The profession is splintering between skilled INFOPRO administering platforms and analysts (interpreters) with strategic perspective and support for high-end users. Sadly, the platforms are making many untrained INFOPRO redundant. So, I believe, the final battle has been decided: Analysts are in high demand as competition intensifies; INFOPROs have to leap to survive.

Alternative perspective: You know this whole column is really about me sneaking in the news that we had the best year since Moses heard the bush talking. Viva Les Platforms, the more the better! Though, if they keep popping up and getting some VC change, I’ll have to start closing registration early.