Which approach to CI fits your experience?

Part-I

Note: This is a rather long and atypically serious post for me. If you are not in the CI space, feel free to skip.

Two different approaches to competitive intelligence have come to dominate the way this field is perceived, and it affects the way it is taught and practiced as well as its future trajectory.

For simplicity sake, I’ll call the approaches the academic/scientific/societal approach (ASS for short) vs the practical/intuitive/survive-the-day approach (STD for short).

Both approaches are valid. Both approaches share a common theme of seeing intelligence as the core capability behind competing effectively. The following exposition in no way endorses just one approach (such as the one associated with all-I-care-about-is-the-career-of-my-CIPs? Gilad.)

Ok, maybe just a little.

But I do it while paying tribute to the tremendous (no hype) work of the leader of the other approach- Prof. Klaus Solberg S?ilen – who leads the field of intelligence studies.

One fine morning I got a LinkedIn message…

from Prof. Klaus S?ilen, attaching a PDF of his most recent work, Intelligence Studies in Business. Klaus, for those who don’t know him, is a Professor of Business Administration at Halmstad University in Sweden. Sweden is the country next on the list for Trump after he buys Greenland.

Klaus sent me the copy for review. I told him he may regret it. My directness on one hand, and Swedish polite, reserved, utterly nice nature on the other, are incompatible. I make fun of everything, and I mean everything. Klaus just chuckles and says, “keep going.”

But he insisted, and added “Your collected experience in this field is difficult to match by anyone alive today.”

Now, seriously, how could I say No to THAT????

Overall, and most useful, comparison of perspectives, and then a short conversation

The ASS approach, and the empirical studies behind it (many of which found their way into the Journal of Intelligence Studies in Business which Klaus edited and shaped for years), posit a broad role for intelligence as a critical resource for societal survival and evolution. Further, it regards the intelligence analyst as a modern-day Renaissance person- a wise, seasoned, curious, open to new knowledge person who travels, knows different cultures, and is rigorously trained in the discipline of intelligence studies. It envisions the ideal intelligence system as an ecosystem inside organizations composed of “interdisciplinary teams where each member is an expert in their field. These fields include sociology, economics, political science, and computer science. This diversity will enable comprehensive analysis and varied perspectives.”?

I’d be a total ass if I didn’t subscribe to that. I do, I swear. I am just too old to believe this is how things are. Or how organizations function. Even with AI.

But Prof. S?ilen’s book is a must read, and I mean it, to anyone who loves or practices true CI in the US.

All 3 of us.

?

A dialogue between two people who love intelligence

It’s hard to argue with an approach you absolutely agree with but absolutely don’t believe is what’s out there or where CI is going. But Klaus and I exchanged perspectives. If Obama can chat and laugh with Trump during a funeral, of course Klaus and I can talk to each other, even without a dead President 6 feet from us.

Let’s start with a definition, my favorite subject. There are 27 different definitions of competitive intelligence identified by my bright alumnus, Luis Madureira, as part of his recent doctoral dissertation at the Portuguese university of Nova. What that university did to poor Luis should be brought to the ICC as part of crimes against humanity, but Klaus, in his wisdom, avoids the debate. Instead, he defines intelligence in the broadest possible way as the means by which organisms and organizations adapt to their environment. That broad definition encompasses all forms of intelligence in all aspects of business and government and societal context.

Me: Klaus, it is clear you, like Steven Dedijer, the “father” of intelligence studies, spring from the same root- social view of the role and value of intelligence to society, humanity, etc.

Klaus: Yes, this is the continuation of the tradition of Stevan Dedijer, as the topic has been taught in Sweden since the 60’s, but it also encompasses more of a European perspective with “intelligence studies” and I also try to show what is American and Asian’s views.

Me: I always refrained from such an encompassing view since I work with enterprise practitioners. I refused for over 40 years to work with governments. I do not see competitive intelligence as the same “animal” as state intelligence.

Klaus: No, you are right. They are quite different on many levels, and in the book, we are specific about how they are different, but on regional and local levels, the political sector gets more competitive, has to keep budgets and care about how they compete with other regions, for example, in how to attract new business.

Cynical Me, post discussion: Tell it to the LA mayor.

Relevance

Me: Your book is beyond comprehensive- the biggest compliment I can give it. It is the equivalent of what Porters’ Competitive Strategy + Competitive Advantage did for strategy. You do the same for intelligence. But while Porter became a millionaire from selling his 1980 book, I don’t see intelligence becoming as popular.

Klaus: I have tried to cover the topic in such great detail and depth that it exceeds the usual expectations of thoroughness. …like Porter sought to bridge the gap between academic theory and business practice, emphasizing practical, actionable insights. I believe that "Intelligence Studies" as a discipline holds a similar potential to Porter's "strategy," offering valuable insights into decision-making and organizational effectiveness. However, we are still in the early stages of realizing this potential… With time, I am confident that Intelligence Studies can evolve into a discipline with the same practical relevance and influence as strategic management.

Cynical Me, post discussion: Amen, Brother. But—- even though Porter became popular it doesn’t mean management became more strategic.

The principal dividing line between the two approaches

Me: You are right that intelligence permeates every decision. As such we should expect it to be as popular as say any cost-benefit calculation (explicit or implicit in every business decision). But it is not perceived that way. It is impossible to measure its effectiveness, and all attempts I’ve seen turned out abstract or simply false. But I maintain (perhaps wrongly) that CI in all its various forms (for me it encompasses all other enterprise intel flows), is NOT a scientific discipline in the same way physics is, or even economics.plicit or implicit in every business decision). But it is not perceived that way. It is impossible to measure its effectiveness, and all attempts I’ve seen turned out abstract or simply false. But I maintain (perhaps wrongly) that CI in all its various forms (for me it encompasses all other enterprise intel flows), is NOT a scientific discipline in the same way physics is, or even economics.

Klaus: You are right, Intelligence Studies, or CI—whatever people choose to call it—is not yet a fully established science. However, it is a discipline, an applied field, and that’s where this book hopes to make a contribution. What is needed, and where this book aims to help, is to demonstrate how rigorous this field can and must become in order to be recognized as an academic discipline…If there’s one thing I believe we’ve been good at, it’s precisely this: few other business disciplines have such a close relationship and collaboration between practitioners and theorists as Intelligence Studies. A great example of this in the U.S. has been your own efforts, as well as those of SCIP. In Europe, there have been numerous conferences like ICI, ECIS, and SIIE, just to mention a few, that demonstrate this close connection.

Cynical Me, post discussion: SCIP? The name rings a bell. Are they still in business? The fact is, as an academic field, CI failed miserably to entrench itself in the US despite the pioneering works of John Prescott and Jonathan Calof (in Canada, before it became the 51st state).

Me: Unlike you, Klaus, I see CI as an art- understanding third parties and early signs of opportunities and threats to strategy in a given industry/segment/market (following Porter’s definition of business strategy, not portfolio strategy). The goal is to offer insights to decision makers on how to compete. Of course, it must rely on logical and empirical foundation since decision makers respond to facts and figures, but my experience suggests that’s not the same as using the scientific methods rigorously, at least not in how executives make decisions.

Klaus: Yes, if it is not a science—and in fact, no social science is truly a "science," even though we refer to them as "the social sciences"—then they must be considered a form of art. However, what distinguishes the social sciences is that they make a concerted effort to develop rigor and theoretical depth in order to strive as much as possible towards resembling a true science. That, in my opinion, is the key distinction. The aim is not only to understand human behavior and societal patterns but to do so in a way that brings more structure, coherence, and intellectual discipline to the field, allowing it to grow and evolve with more scientific rigor.

Cynical Me, post discussion: Klaus’ all-encompassing and enthusiastic pitch to see intelligence studies as a field striving to be a more rigorous scientific endeavor made me want to go on Prozac. Does Prozac cure a skeptical view?

Applications

Me: There is a reason why all Decision Support Systems failed miserably (at least here). Data-driven decisions are an illusion. And even having the absolutely “right” information – if one can even know what that is in advance- will not guarantee competitive advantage.

Klaus: I think you’re absolutely right. Many large companies that failed with their CI function did so because they placed too much faith in the "machine"—relying on technology and systems without fostering genuine curiosity. Instead of traveling, learning about other cultures, and understanding how to truly be competitive, they missed the broader perspective that countries like Japan embraced in the '70s and '80s, or that we see today in China and South Korea. Moreover, the Western world, especially the U.S., quickly became entrenched in a mindset of short-termism, which not only made large-scale investments difficult but also diminished both corporate and individual responsibility.

That said, data-driven decisions are undoubtedly the future, as we can see now with the rise of AI applications, a topic I explored in one of my recent articles published in Foresight and STI Governance—available for free at [https://foresight-journal.hse.ru/article/view/21900/18776]. However, as highlighted in the article, these systems require an "Information Quality Control Manager," or a similar role, to ensure that the data being used is reliable. This person must be well-versed not only in current events, history, and geography but also possess a scientific mindset—a critical, analytical mind that can assess and question the data’s validity. Finding such individuals is challenging, but that’s part of what we hope to address through books like this, helping to educate the next generation of professionals in this area whom you have done so much to advocate throughout your career.

Me: Can you repeat the last sentence, I missed it…

Alternative perspective

Skeptical or not, I truly believe anyone who is serious about CI should read Prof. S?ilen’s book. It is infused with the same passion about intelligence that is shared by anyone infected by its virus. You can choose and pick which chapters are more relevant to you, but you can’t miss the clear sense that the future of Western enterprise against the menace of the Chinese model depends on us learning to apply true competitive intelligence to competing. And while Klaus, as a Swede, is sympathetic to Thomas Piketty’s perspective about the decline of the West, a view I do not share at all (Piketty’s work has been debunked on both factual and theoretical levels), there is no doubt he is right in stating that the center of gravity in competition is moving to Asia.

If only we could have an advantage to freedom… oh, wait.

We do. In my perspective, there is an invisible clock going Tik Tok, Tik Tok until the Chinese central planning model fails, exactly because of what Klaus S?ilen himself describes as the flaws in the top-down approach to intelligence.

Do Read Intelligence Studies in Business

And do comment on this here. Both Klaus and I are curious about your perspectives. The best comment will win a $99.27 discount on one of my courses. That’s the price for the book on Amazon, which may suggest I “win” the argument that this is not going to be a widely recognized field of study. Porter’s Competitive Strategy is only $25. But then if you plug Michael Porter into Bing search you get a small forward for the Denver Nuggets (basketball team), not a guru of strategy.

Just saying.