The state of strategic intelligence: a benchmarking study

My concern (and observation) regarding strategic, competitive, and/or technological (technical?) intelligence, etc. is NOT whether it is important.  I think it is very important.  My observation is that when the information is needed, it is needed VERY quickly, and “very inexpensively” (read, free, except for a week, or so, of internal labor).  Perhaps I am mistaken, but there seems to be an assumption with the “strategic intelligence community” that there is the luxury of time in generating analyses (and meta-analyses) on emerging technologies for specific markets and strategic sectors, and that the objective of such analyses will be so well defined and so well focused that they can easily be addressed.  I have found this (unequivocally) to not be the case.  (e.g. “… tell me about the intersection of agri-food and nanotechnology in various key – and relevant – global regions, and tell me by week’s end the key research areas we should BEGIN to look at where we can have an impact, where the field is not crowded, and do so using freely available resources and references.”  Next week, we’ll ask a similar question, but the topic will be emerging/”very advanced” technologies that might be utilized in the “forestry industry”, with the same cost and time constraints, and conditions, as the previous analysis.).  At any rate, these are just the flavour of the inquiries I’ve seen over the past ten years, or so.  I’m not sure the strategic intelligence community is able to handle analyses where “deep knowledge” of the technologies in question is ALSO required.  The SI community seems to be much better suited to “more standard” and/or “commoditized” fields.

Simon, this is excellent feedback that everybody in the strategic intelligence community needs to deal with IMMEDIATELY. At Competitive Futures, we regularly hear from clients that the expectations from internal clients can be absurd. “Can you have a complete analysis of the potential market space in Asia Pacific by next Tuesday? We have a meeting and need something good.” This is followed by “can you provide scenarios for the strategic direction of the umbrella market in Thailand? We hear it’s going to rain.”

There needs to be a dialogue between executives and their colleagues in the information professions: is this stuff valuable enough that you need to really invest in it? If the answer is yes, then there needs to be investment of both money and time. This means that you allot a reasonable amount of time for internal or external staff to provide reliable information, and moreover that you think about your needs in advance. I submit that if you wake up on a random Thursday and need a quick – yet awfully complete – review of agri-bio-nanotech, it may not be all that essential to your future. If it truly is a “strategic” issue (a term that is abused on a regular basis) then that means by definition it is not a quick, operational emergency. Not only should you take time with it – you probably have the time. Six weeks, six months: if it’s truly a megatrend issue, it’s not going anywhere. The question is how fast you act on it in comparison to competitors.

As far as the intelligence community’s ability to deal with highly detailed requests, it is often a problem…depending on with whom you work.

All great input – thanks so much!

That the agro-nano questions arise only sporadically, repetitively and wastefully at the state of dreaming of CEOs and C-level executives is an indication of a lack of (but I will make it sound better by calling it a need for) collective wisdom and knowledge management within the company. 

The cause for such specificity in national security training is that the national security field and the intelligence field in particular, have become more complex. With the greater demand for intelligence workers and code enforcement and the addition of high level national security jobs, just any college that offers studies in intelligence or national security may not be sufficient.