Need a CI Consultant to Achieve Business Improvement? Think Primary Intelligence

Yeah. The subject line sounds like a commercial, but that is nearly unavoidable if I want to tell you about specific ways we’re providing high-value services to our clients. Some people over time have seen Primary Intelligence as a solid 3rd-party research group, capable of producing high-quality CI. We love our clients and appreciate their support.

The other group of our clients sees us as a full-service consultancy to effect positive revenue change within their organization. They have grown to appreciate our consultative, hand-on approach at multiple locations within their company. Starting with on-site kickoff meetings, personal consultations with stakeholders to explain and evangelize the endgame and training programs based on world-class competitive intelligence efforts and analytics, our clients are converting information into action plans that produce results. (Man. Even as a marketer, I nearly choked on my hyperbole. But, you have to know about these things. Remember, I’m only telling you these things because you need to know.)

The truth of the matter is that everyone needs some extra help sometime to produce the desired results. We specialize in providing that 3rd-party opinion. Combine our expertise in competitive intelligence with a consultative program that brings strategic changes to life and you have much more than a pretty report that gathers dust on executives' desks.

Deliverables for consulting solutions include:
1. One or two-day onsite workshops
2. Remote maintenance workshops
3. A block of time that can be used to consult with PI’s consultants
4. Identification and assessment of sales opportunities, competitive opportunities and customer opportunities (workshop content)
5. Work sessions on real-world opportunities
6. Mapping sales intelligence and competitive intelligence to sales processes and methodologies
7. Enhancements to current sales processes and methodologies
8. Sales and/or Management plan development
9. Sales plan/Management plan roll-out
10. Sales plan/Management plan monitoring

Customer Benefits
Primary Intelligence’s customers can expect the following benefits from PI’s consulting solutions:
1. Specific improvements to current sales processes and methodologies
2. Greater ROI on current research initiatives
3. Greater adoption of competitive intelligence and sales intelligence initiatives within organization
4. Enhance your organization’s competitive advantages in your target markets
5. Improve sales performance and effectiveness of sales channels
6. Ensure win ratio improvements and enhance revenue growth
7. Greater visibility of key competitive and sales intelligence initiatives

If you need a little extra information on the topic, give me a call. I’m not sales. I can tell it like it is. (801-838-9600 x5050, cdalley@primary-intel.com)

Increasing ROI from Competitive Intelligence Efforts

If you have a CI program, take a minute to measure the ROI of your efforts. Instead of simply building a large library of information, ask yourself the following questions:

• Top-line Revenue
– Will this intelligence create new revenue opportunities?
– Will we take away sales from the competition?
– Will our existing accounts stay longer and be more profitable?
• Bottom-line
– Can we be more efficient or learn best practices?
– Are there better ways to manage our processes?
• Application
– How easily will we be able to act on these data?

If you are able to identify areas where you are directly increase top or bottom-line revenue, you are one of the rare success stories in competitive intelligence. If you are like the majority, you may want to consider some of the following tips:

• Reactive CI does not constitute a program. Develop an intelligence program that helps sales, marketing and product development informed of the competition's movements in the most strategic areas. Ignore all of the other noise.
• Information becomes “must have” when executives depend on it to move forward. Understand the willingness of your executives to use intelligence to make decisions. Determine which types of intelligence are best received. Don't spend time developing programs that produce data that won't be used.
• Do not assume that “stacks of information” are better than smaller quantities of targeted intelligence. Busy work does not equal effectiveness.
• Determine WHAT to investigate before starting a search. If you don't have a goal in mind, you will end up on wild goose chases. Everything begins to look appealing if you don't know what you're after.

Use these tips to work with your manager and executives to create a program rather than a competitive intelligence library.

Analytics in Competitive Intelligence: Stated Importance vs. Derived Importance

If your company uses market information to make decisions, you are almost certain to be familiar with the “Of these items, how important was…” or “Which of these would you consider to be first, second and third most important?” These questions result in a measurement of stated importance, or those things that are easily identified and verbalized as important.

While these data are easy to generate and generally seem reasonable at face value, there is evidence to show that decisions based solely on stated importance are subject to important limitations. Those areas of your company’s performance that are identified as most important often do not correlate well, if at all, with purchase decisions. Which means that your company can act on those performance areas identified as most important and yet, no measurable improvement be made from those efforts. In most companies, that is defined as poor ROI or “a waste of money.”

For example, through your research, you may identify a performance area with a relatively low performance score and might initially trigger discussion regarding ways to improve the performance. However, you wouldn’t want to do much about it if it had a low correlation to overall increases in market share. For instance, let’s consider this principle in a Win Loss setting. Suppose we had created an interview and included the measurement of professionalism of a sales force against a prospect’s likelihood of choosing a vendor. Whether the performance rating against the competition was positive or negative, it would be difficult for an executive to understand the impact that professionalism actually has on the company’s sales win ratio. It would be impossible to know how much a change in performance would affect that win ratio. If it turns out that the correlation to the sales win rate is high, the decision to put emphasis on increasing professionalism would be very easy and relatively risk-free. If the correlation were low, resources could be assigned to improve other parts of the sales process.

There is much evidence to indicate that responses on importance scales can be affected by other factors that distort the accuracy of the response, for example the need to please, social demands, cognitive dissonance, and generic importance, among others. In the entertainment industry, for example, television viewers using such scales will continually rate the value of news and information above sex or escapism. However, would anyone wish to predict, based upon these data, whether the ratings of the program Seinfeld will be lower than those of The PBS News Hour? Thus, there is a much deeper level of insight to be gained from deriving the information from the respondents’ answers rather than taking them at face value.

The quadrant below shows how actual data from our win loss studies has plotted on stated importance and derived importance:

Legend
• Stated importance is plotted on the Y-axis; it represents the average importance rating given by respondents for each influencer’s characteristic or attribute.
• Derived importance is plotted on the X-axis; it is obtained by assessing the company’s performance in each influencer and determining (through proprietary modeling techniques) the impact that each influencer had on the sales outcome. The higher the derived importance, the more impact that influencer has on the overall sales win ratio.

• Upper left quadrant—“Declared important”: This quadrant consists of items that are stated to be important, but which ultimately have little correlation to a respondent’s decision-making process.
• Upper right quadrant—“Key influencers”: This quadrant reflects attributes that the respondent both states as being important and which prove to be highly influential at a derived level.
• Lower right quadrant—“Hidden opportunities”: This quadrant consists of attributes that the respondent cannot readily identify at a stated level, but which do impact overall satisfaction at a derived level.
• Lower left quadrant—“Limited impact”: Attributes in this quadrant have both low stated importance and little influence on overall satisfaction.

Now, one caveat is in order here. Some performance areas may be ranked high in stated importance, but will be low in derived importance. This doesn’t mean that a company can cut back efforts in the areas of stated importance. They still have an effect on the sales process. When an attribute has a high stated importance, the data are saying that this is a performance area that can’t be neglected without adversely altering the win loss ratio, but significant improvement may not provide actual gains in the win loss ratio.

In the end, using the most sophisticated analytics tools to determine the key influencers will eventually provide the greatest strategic decision-making ability for your company. In so many cases, this approach has improved company performance so much more than “gut feeling,” reactive competitive intelligence programs, and stated importance measurements.

This is where Primary Intelligence makes its living; providing powerful predictive analytics to our clients in order to grow their market share. Perhaps, we should discuss how this might work for you. (cdalley@primary-intel.com, 801-838-9600 x5050)

Forward-thinking Competitive Intelligence

I read a blog entry about “reactionary competitive intelligence” that you ought to read. It is simple, but makes a strong point.:

Follow The Leader
Have you worked at a company where a significant share of the business strategy is determined by what competitors are doing?

Have you worked on a product plan that includes features based not necessarily on what your customers have asked for, but based on what your competitors already have?

Have you bought ad space in a magazine because that's where your competitors are advertising as well?

Assuming that our competitors know what they're doing is a dangerous game. Assuming your company has the right ingredients and circumstances to match or exceed their success is an equally slippery slope.

Competitive intelligence is critical, and identifying elements of a competitor's business and marketing strategy for further review and testing is a great idea.

But do your own homework. Know your customers, your industry, and your business better than anyone else. Don't just follow the leader. (Matt Heinz, Matt on Marketing)

Does your company culture and leadership support a forward-thinking intelligence strategy? Are you encouraged to scout out a trail to new ground or is your time dominated by reactionary “what just happened” questions?

You can discern your company’s cultural bias easily by answering the following questions for yourself:

-Do competitive surprises throw us into a frenzy or do we hold the course on our own strategy?
-Does our CI strategy remain constant or does it change with the blowing winds of businsess?
-Do we study way to increase business and retain contracts or are we more concerned with knowing trivial facts about the competition?
-Does our company use cutting-edge analytics or do we still make decisions based on gut feeling alone?

If your organization is stable and includes the support of leadership, you are poised to do good work and your efforts will have to match expectations. If not (and if you want to be forward thinking), you are going to have to work very hard to change the current scenario. Otherwise, you risk becoming an order taker with no end in sight. And, those people who bring interesting, but non-impactful, information to the table usually don’t go very far.

And, if that assessment is too harsh, my apologies. But, I have a great deal of respect for those CI professionals that don’t settle for trivialities, but work to find the strategic areas of opportunity for their company. The highest rung on the ladder is reserved for those that have the experience, clout and voice to insist that the intelligence be used in the executive boardroom for decisions.

Let me know what you think. I would like to hear from you (cdalley@primary-intel.com, 801.838.9600 x5050)

Competitive Intelligence in the 21st Century – Moving Past the SWOT with Predictive Analytics

In my last post, I said that a SWOT analysis leaves a strategic decision-maker with a problem. You may be able to identify some competitive weaknesses (compared with a specific competitor or in the marketplace in general), but you don’t have any way of gauging what would happen to your market share if the weaknesses were improved.

And, you can’t tell whether continuing to improve the strengths would provide a bigger competitive benefit to your company’s efforts.

So, if a competitive intelligence professional spends all of their time studying the market and the end results is a list of strengths and weaknesses (with no predictive analytics or direction), how much value does that person provide?

I guess that I should be clear that a SWOT analysis is not useless. There is tactical value in a SWOT. You can figure out what to say today with a SWOT, but you can’t make strategic decisions based on a SWOT. There is still too much guesswork.

So what? Replace the SWOT with Impact-based Competitive Intelligence. For instance, Primary Intelligence does this all the time. To determine competitive strengths and weaknesses, we:

1-Interview recent wins and losses where your company competed head-to-head with specific competitors.
2-Measure your competitive performance in 20-30 specific decision influencers
3-Determine strengths and weaknesses (Not the gap score in the table below. Positive gaps indicate weaknesses. Negative gaps indicate strengths)
4-Use predictive analytics to determine the influencers that, it improved, would result in the greatest increases in market share. (Impact column, explained below)

Impact identifies your expected improvement in market share. For instance, in this example (a real-world example taken from one of our clients), if you were to improve your company’s performance in Product Knowledge by one point (In other words, if you improved the 7.7 rating to an 8.7), you would expect your win rate and market share to increase by the impact score of 5.7% (at the 90% confidence level).

And, Product Knowledge is already a competitive strength. Overall, you outperform the competition by 5% in this area. The key may be to make this competitive advantage more consistent throughout the company.

In other words, there are influencers that would provide 2x, 3x and 4x the results of others if improvement were made in those specific areas. This could result in gains of millions or billions of unexpected dollars, based on some potentially simple improvements in the right areas.

This approach takes a lot of the guesswork out of the equation. No espionage required. And, yet, the company makes the biggest gains in increasing its client base.

Now, this approach does not satisfy all Competitive Intelligence needs, but it sure does take the OPPORTUNITY column of the SWOT table to a completely different level.

I am happy to talk about this approach with you. Let me know what you think about how this would fit your organization. (cdalley@primary-intel.com, 801-838-9600 x5050)

Why the Competitive Intelligence SWOT is Stuck in the 20th Century

A very typical request we receive at Primary Intelligence is for a SWOT analysis. Our clients want to know the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats presented by a competitor or group of competitors in a marketplace.

Of course, this SWOT analysis has a place, but its value is more tactical than strategic. Sales guys should have access to a SWOT, but I don’t know that executives should make decisions based off of this kind of information.

The problem that I see with the SWOT analysis is the fact that a company will know where its current strengths and weaknesses may be, but doesn’t have any insight into the areas of change that will bring about the biggest improvement in win rates, market share and defeating the competition.

Below, you will see an example of a Strength/Weakness evaluation based on data from recent sales opportunities. Half of the data come from new business that was won and the other 50% come from opportunities that were lost to competitors: (click on the image to see a bigger version)

The data are sorted from biggest negative competitive gap (weakness) at the top to the biggest positive competitive gap (strength) at the bottom. The scores are based on a 1-10 scale where 1 is Poor and 10 is excellent.

If you were to make strategic changes in your company based on the data in this table, you would probably look at the weaknesses and evaluate the most effective ways to close the competitive gap.

But, would this make a difference? What would happen if you were to increase your performance in Overall Solution Cost or Understanding Needs by ten percent? (A 10% improvement would mean that you increase your score of 8.1 to 9.1) How much would your win rate increase? Would making improvements in your weaknesses correlate with a stronger competitive preference, or would you be pulling the wrong levers and pouring time and money down the drain?

Traditional intelligence looks at Strengths and Weaknesses
• Should you “fix” weaknesses or accentuate strengths?
• Strength/Weaknesses don’t always correlate with decision making.
• Where is your opportunity to increase win rates and market share?

In my experience, efforts to improve the biggest weaknesses rarely result in an overall improvement in market share and competitive sales wins. In other words, odds are good that most companies are wasting time and money by using SWOTs for strategic planning.

In my next post, I’ll show you a new way to prioritize your strategic plans, based on a more intelligent form of Competitive Intelligence and performance evaluation.

If you need more info on this topic, let me know (cdalley@primary-intel.com, 801.838.9600 x5050)

And, don't forget to register for my webinar on Thursday. Click here to register (all of the info is on the registration page).