• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Volume 12 • Number 2 • March/April 2009 www.scip.org 41
intelligence solutions
I
ntellIgence
S
olutIonS
 
throughthe
u
Se
 
of
e
 xpert
t
oolS
 Avner BArneA,
the Ono Academic College, Israel 
Sic 2000, th ha bitsi ffots i Isal to xpadth us of xpt tools to suppot thobjctis of comptiti itlligc.I ha touchd upo this issu i twopious aticls ad i pstatios as wll (Baa 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008). As ths ffots i Isal hagow, I ha dcidd to look at thisissu though th ys of thos whoha mad us of ths tools by focusigo fims that ha puchasd thm ada utilizig thm i thi comptitiitlligc (CI) pogam. Motha o CI ddicatd tool has bdlopd ad offd to th Isalimakt, but most w ot succssfulo ha gi up th CI pactic admod to mo pofitabl aas. I haspcifically lookd at th puchass of o cut tool, which I will f to asSpcific expt Tool (SeT).I ha to cofss that I’m a gatbli i th us of xpt tools tosuppot CI actiity ad, as such, I hab pomotig it i Isal ad aboadas much as possibl. I caot imagithat CI will lag bhid whil th wold mos fowad by utilizig thstyps of tools fo all kids of busissactiitis.
 ABOUT THE RESEARCH SET
Th Spcific expt Tool puchasdby th psos itiwd i my study  was dlopd i Isal at th d of th 1990s to asw th ds of thlocal CI makt. Th dlops didot coduct thoough sach bfostatig to dlop th SeT, ad may lmts w addd lat to match thquimts st by thi clits.Th mai fatus of th SeT wth capabilitis to:
•Gatherinformationfromtheweb,
both automatically ad maually.
•Receiveinformationfromprimary
soucs maily though th italtwok.
•Indexalltheinformationreceived
fom both ital ad xtalsoucs with sophisticatd sachad tial optios.
•Analyzeprimarilybyadapting
lik aalysis discipli to CIquimts ad catig dyamicmappig of ifomatio aboutth chags i th comptitithats, comptitos, supplisad oth iflutial factos ith comptitio. Txt aalysiscapabilitis w also suppotd.
•Preparereportsfromthe
ifomatio gathd ad aalyzd,ad dissmiat th ifomatio toital uss though th Outlook systm.
•Integratewithotherinternal
ifomatio tchology systms(maily busiss itlligc) tocat a btt “big pictu.”
•SupportCIprofessionalsto
btt maag th oall pocss,moito KITs sposs ad othlatd tasks.
BASIC INFORMATION
Th ll of succss slligth systm was much low thaaticipatd. I all, about 250 Isalilag ad mdium sizd compaisha acti CI fuctios. Most of thm, how, a ot usig ay CIxpt tool. Th SeT fim stimatsthat thy ha pstd thi systmto 100 pottial clits basd iIsal. Appoximatly 60% of thspstatios w iitiatd by th SeTfim whil oly 40% w qustd by pottial clits. (S Tabl 1 fo thumb of systms istalld.)SeT succssfully itoducd itslf to most of th lag idustis (s Tabl2). Although it was a lad i thisfild, th compay xpicd slow makt gowth ad was uabl to acha sigificat makt sha ad usi Isal.Th pla to mo to itatioalmakts was shld as a sult of isufficit soucs. As I potd i my 2006 papo CI i Isal, appoximatly 50% of th lag Isali xpots ha actiCI pogams. I th total SeT istalldbas of 21, 14 compais opatdpimaily i local makts ad 7 i
Year Number of firms2000 22001 32002 32003 42004 42005 22006 22007 1Total 21
TABlE 1: NUMBER OF SETSySTEMS INSTAllEd
 
42 www.scip.org Competitive Intelligence Magazine
global makts. Th abo sults claly idicat that most Isali compaisthat ha CI fuctios a ot usigay CI xpt tool.I Isal, a compay with $30-50 Millio i us is cosiddmdium sizd, ad high usmaks it a lag compay. I th SeTistalld bas, fi fims with $30-50millio i sals, 16 with mo tha$50 millio. SeT is cosidd usfulmaily fo lag fims i th localmakt, although w s th is also admad amog small fims.CI uits i Isal gally cosistof a staff of o opatig udcosidabl pssu to dli sults whil wokig with a limitd allocatioof soucs. I th SeT istalldbas, 16 of th fims had oly o CIpofssioal, ad oly fi had motha o. Th small siz of ths CIuits ga aso to bli that fistclass xpt tools might b wlcomdad would play a sigificat ol iimpoig thi pfomac. As w cas, how, th xpctatios w otmt.
THE SCOPE OF THE RESEARCH
 As show abo i Tabl 1, 21 SeTsystms w sold i Isal btw2000 ad 2007. eight of th popli th compais who puchasd thsystm took a acti pat i thissach. Thos who optd out of thissach did so fo asos that a otlat to th study.This sach was coductdpimaily though psoal itiws.Duig 2008, I mt ach of th CIpofssioals i th 18 compais addiscussd with thm th qustioaioutlid blow. Sio xcutisiold i th CI pocss w otdictly itiwd, but I lad of thi iws though th CI pofssioals who paticipatd i th suy. Ialso spok with CI pofssioals of compais that did ot puchas SeTto ha thi iws.
Question 1. Who initiate acquiring the SET?
Results (18):
CI pofssioal (15)Sio xcuti (2)Oth (1)Th pupos of this qustio wasto fid out who iitiatd th pocss of xploig th oppotuity of acquiigth SeT i ach fim. Th sults show that it was usually puchasd at thiitiati of th CI uit. A follow-upqustio ald that sio xcutis w gally ot iold util thfial stag of th acquisitio dspitth ffots of thi CI staff to iolthm ali. How, my impssio was that th CI staff mad isufficitffots to cuit th xcutis fomth outst fo fa that thy would otsuppot th puchas pocss.
Question 2. What were the mainreasons for purchasing the SET?
Results (18):
GeneraldesiretoimproveCI
capabilitis (4)CI pofssioals flt thy ddbtt tools (10)Usatisfactoy sults fom CI tomt xcutis ds (4)This qustio attmptd todtmi th mai motis bhid thdcisio to acqui th SeT. A follow-up qustio foud that it took quita log tim, i som cass up to sixmoths, to acqui ital appoalfo th puchas. Th sposs suggstthat th aso fo puchasig th SeTpoduct cam pimaily fom th CIstaff, who flt that thy could pfombtt by usig hacd tools.
Question 3. What was the overasatisfaction with CI “proucts” in the firm before instaing SET?
Results(18)
(1=lowest, 5=highest):
ratig 3 (10)ratig 4 (8)This qustio was focusd odiscoig th ll of satisfactio withth CI fom th poit of iw of thxcutis as obsd by th CI staff.It appas that th CI dictos wssiti to th d to supply bttd poducts ad flt that utilizig axpt tool would allow thm to dlihigh alu pots to thi italcustoms.
Question 4. What was the overasatisfaction of CI users 6 to 12months after SET was instae?
Results(18)
(1=lowest, 5=highest):
ratig 3 (8)ratig 4 (9)ratig 5 (1)
Industry Number of firmsTelecom 4Food 2Defense 2Pharma 2Finance 12Energy 2Advertising 2Medicaldevices2Hi-Tech 2Total 21
TABlE 2: SET SySTEMSINSTAllEd By INdUSTRIES
intelligence solutions
 
Volume 12 • Number 2 • March/April 2009 www.scip.org 43
This qustio sought to disco whth th istallatio ad us of thSeT xpt tools chagd th llof CI spos to th ds of thixcutis. Compaig th sultsof qustios umb 3 ad 4, it isappat that th ll of satisfactioattibutd to th CI poducts aftactiatig th SeT is high, but thchag is ot damatic. Ths sults acosistt with my cottio that SeTad pogams simila to it a mly tools ad CI has oth issus to addssfo btt pfomac, which w otcod i this suy.
Question No. 5. In our best jugment, how much i SETcontribute to our CI performance?
This qustio attmptd toidtify how SeT has cotibutdto CI fom th poit of iw of thCI pofssioals. Th sults idicatthat th fomost impomt wasachid i th aalysis pocss, butth satisfactio ll with spct to thgathig pfomac of th SeT waslow. Usig th SeT, th CI staff bcammo ffcti whil thi pcptio was that thi pofssioal putatiohad impod. A futh qustioald that all th spodts xcpto idicatd that its lack of a aly  waig systm was sigificat. It mustb mphasizd that th high sco foimpoig KIT maagmt showsthat CI uits d tools that will hlpthm to fulfill may missios thy usimultaously.Th dlops of th SeT haadmittd that th stogst capability of th systm was i th aalysis, whilgathig was cosidd lss ffcti.Thy flt that th pimay challgof CI lis i th aalysis ad this is wh CI is xpctd to gi maigfuladdd alu. Thy took th ifomatiogathd i this study ad itdto impo th systm’s gathigcapabilitis.
Question 6. Has the SET fufie our initia expectations?
Results (18):
 Ys (16)Modatly (2)no (0)This qustio attmptd to fidout th bottom-li pspcti of how satisfid th CI staff was withth SeT. Th sults show that thCI staff faod th SeT, though with som satios, as idicatdi th sposs to Qustio 5. Thxpctatio that th SeT would dlopito a mo adacd tool was oly patially mt.
Question 7. What was the reason for eciing not to purchase SET?
Results (12):
Lack of soucs/ too xpsi (5)not impotat ough (5)Did ot mt ou ds (1)Ha aoth solutio (1)This fial qustio was askd of th twl CI dictos of compaisthat ultimatly dcidd ot to buy thSeT. Thy had all s pstatiosof th SeT ad had gi siouscosidatio to bcomig quippd with this systm.It appas to m that th is adict colatio btw th “lack of soucs” ad “ot impotat ough”sposs. My pspcti is that if thtool was foud to b impotat ough,thy would ha foud th soucs tobuy th systm.
Total
5
(Highest)
4 3 2 1
(Lowest)
18 - - 3 5 10
Improved gathering process
18 - 528%844%528%-
Improved analysis and final CIproducts
18 - 3 15 - -
Improved CI dissemination
18 8 10 - - -
Improved KIT management
18 - 9 9 - -
Improved CI efficiency
18 2 8 8 - -
Improved CI reputation
TABlE 3: SET CONTRIBUTION TO CI WORk
intelligence solutions
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...