Why should I care about CI? I’m in Sales!

Calls, pipelines, meetings, and more calls. This is what sales people do: make calls, make contacts, and build relationships. It seems simple, doesn’t it? So, when a marketing person comes in with charts and diagnostics, what happens? The eyes roll, the hands go back behind the head, and you can almost hear the brain turning off.

Why do you think salespeople don’t care about CI? What have you done to show them of their benefit? Salespeople work primarily in the business of relationships, and on the surface it doesn’t seem as if Competitive Intelligence matters. Therefore, they believe that what they need is to get themselves in front of the right people, and their sales abilities will finish the deal.

Therefore, when someone outside of sales approaches them with statistics and magic quadrants, they don’t see the correlation to their efforts at creating and maintaining their relationships with prospects.

Maybe a different tactic is needed. Maybe it’s time for the market research person to use a little salesmanship to promote CI to those who can use it most. Consider these questions before approaching the sales team:

1. What information can I share that matters in a sales scenario?
2. What can it tell them that impacts their ability to win more opportunities?
3. What can I leave out that isn’t critical to their specific needs?
4. How can I present this information in a way that gets their attention?

Whether we realize it or not, we are all salespeople. We need to position our product in a way that attracts the attention of those we wish to influence. Remember that when you try to sell to the biggest skeptic: your own sales force.

Competitive Intelligence Webinar – Key to Setting Up a Win Loss Program

Yesterday, Ralph Nielsen (Director of Research Operations) and I co-presented a webinar on how to set up a Win Loss program that works. We took the opportunity to talk about best practices, obstacles, unexpected value. If you are thinking about setting up an in-house effort or you work with a 3rd-party vendor for your Win Loss, we gave you a ton to consider.

Also, I have recently spent some time with our great clients talking about how they use Win Loss, to whom they distribute it and where it makes a difference in their companies. I turned the results of this work into a section in the webinar that I refer to as Seven Secrets of Making Your Win Loss Program More Effective. That’s kind of a long title, but it leaves little room for confusion.

If you would like to download the slides alone, you can find them HERE.

If you want to watch the entire webinar with audio and video, you can download that file right HERE.



Over the next few days, I’ll spend some time sharing the ideas from the webinar in the blog.

Also, we appreciate the many people that gave their time and attended. If you watch the presentation and have any questions or comment, let me know. Leave a comment on this blog, email me (cdalley@primary-intel.com) or give me a call (801.838.9600 x5050)

Podcast: Competitive Intelligence + Sales Team = Big Success

Recently, Dave Stein (CEO of ES Research Group) interviewed our CEO, Ken Allred on the affects of sales intelligence: competitive intelligence that can be brought to bear on all aspects of the sales process. His goal was to understand how Primary Intelligence uses intelligence to increase sales close rates.

As Mr. Stein’s company focuses on the evaluation of sales training and enhancement companies. His reports detail the performance of key players like Miller Heiman, The Complex Sale, The TAS Group and dozens of others. His goal is to help companies that want to sell more find the right resources to meet their needs.

To this end, Mr. Stein took time to understand how the right kinds of intelligence can be leveraged to provide:

Competitive advantages

Increased visibility into your company’s performance

Identification of your competitors’ movements

The audio program is 25 minutes long and can be downloaded here.

If your responsibilities include sales management, sales training, competitive intelligence or marketing, this podcast is well worth your time.

And, if you feel like you’re not sure where you stand in relation to the competition, you’ll find usable insights and take-aways you can use today.

Competitive Intelligence Tip #1 - Make Your CI Produce Revenue

In a post by Jan P. Herring titled “How Much is Your Competitive Intelligence Worth,” the distinction between information and intelligence is made in a way that speaks to me:

“In the final analysis you can evaluate your company’s CI effort if you properly define what and how you intend to measure. In my experience, senior level users of BI/CI are not as interested in financial or quantitative measures of your CI products & services as they are in having intelligence that visibly affects their decision-making or business actions in a positive fashion. They do, however, expect to see some form of related action. Those actions that result in grater sales, profits, or other measures of business success are the most valued.

An old friend and associate, Robert Steele, probably put it best, “Information costs money. Intelligence makes money!” Essentially, any competitive information that a business manager acts on becomes intelligence. And, intelligence used by a company that makes money is good intelligence!”

He also discusses various ways that Competitive Intelligence can produce ROI, but more importantly, can be measured to validate the ROI:

Time saving: Savings for both professional and support personnel

Cost savings: Elimination or reduction in expenses

Cost avoidance: Elimination of planned expenses

Revenue increases: Increases in the number of sales or size of sales

Value added: Benefits not easily related to specific dollar values, e.g., more effective strategies or better new products and services.

In so many places, we have tried to espouse the same message. Competitive intelligence professionals need to be looking for the ROI in their initiatives. Or, too often, you will be known as the producer of information, not intelligence. And, really? What value is there in that?

Links to other Primary Intelligence thoughts on CI/ROI
Webinar: CI with ROI
Another Endorsement for Win Loss Analysis
Competitive Intelligence – The Difference Between “Interesting” and “Effective”
What are the top challenges with regards to Competitive Intelligence?
Making Competitive Intelligence Effective with Cross-functional Teams (Part 2 of 4)
Increasing ROI from Competitive Intelligence Efforts
Analytics in Competitive Intelligence: Stated Importance vs. Derived Importance

Competitive Intelligence Newsletter – Before Battle, Know Your Competition

This week, the cover story by Thayne Johnson provides an insightful look into competitive intelligence methods that show competitor movements in real time.. You’ll also find information on how Sales Intelligence matters to your success. Finally, a report from ES Research Group will help your sales leadership make sense of sales effectiveness enhancement companies.

Cover Story
Sun Tzu Says Know Your Competition
By Thayne Johnson, Primary IntelligenceThe war of business may not be carried out with weapons of war, but battles over prospects, budgets and market share are fought every day. The casualties of war are growth, personal opportunity and in some cases, companies that fall by the wayside. Just like in an army, every member of a business has to take a part in the competitive nature of the business battleground...(For more, click here)

Announcing the 2008 Sales Training Vendor Guide
Corporations continue to spend a significant portion of their revenues on sales training. Unchanged from last year, enterprises spend between $4 billion and $7 billion per year training sales professionals. Of all the excellent sales training vendors out there, only a few are a fit for your organization. This ESR/InDepth™ Report is designed to help your organization increase the return on your sales training investment.
ES Research Group has compiled their findings into a 200 page report. This 3rd party evaluation is a “must read” for companies seeking sales performance enhancement.
For a free summary, CLICK HERE.

BlogCentral
What is Sales Intelligence and Why Does it Matter?
If a business exists to make money (and really, what other purpose does the business entity have?) as efficiently as possible, and the role of sales is to create the revenue streams as effectively as possible, then isn’t sales intelligence...(For more, click here)

The A-List Archive
Brookhaven Memorial Hospital Selects Siemens. What Were the Key Value Factors?
Originally Published in December 2004.
Executives at Brookhaven Memorial Hospital wanted to enhance their medical information systems by upgrading and expanding their current technology. An evaluation of MEDITECH, Eclipsys, and Siemens resulted in the selection of a number of Siemens applications, including several from its Soarian product line. Although Siemens was the incumbent provider, this had very little to do with the decision...(For more, click here)

Using Win Loss to Win Back Business (After they have experienced the competition)

During our most recent webinar (hosted on 10/25/2007 and available for download here), Ron Sathoff and I talked about three of the biggest benefits of Win Loss. One of those points was the ability to win back business that was previously lost to a competitor.

At Primary Intelligence, we emphasize competitive intelligence that will help your sales, marketing and business development organizations create more revenue, strengthen competitive positioning and refine value propositions to be more effective than your competitors. Our goal is to provide your company with increased revenue through your sales and marketing efforts.

How do we do this? Primarily, we use Win Loss studies to measure competitive performance during some of the most valuable times; namely, when your company, product and sales performance are being compared with your direct competitors. We also take the opportunity to ask about the key loyalty drivers based on their current experience with their new vendor.

Using these data, combined with additional client satisfaction questions based on their current experience, Primary Intelligence provides a win-back index that helps prioritize sales and account management efforts with your lost deals long before their current vendor starts to worry about retention.

Imagine begin able to target your competitors’ defectors before the competitors can develop retention strategies.

One of our current health insurance clients said that using this system, they were able to win back 7 of 30 losses within 12 months of the initial loss. What would a 23% win back rate do for your company’s top line revenue?

If you have any questions, experiences or thoughts, let me know. I’d enjoy talking with you to understand how you achieve these same types of results. (cdalley@primary-intel.com, 801-838-9600 x5050)

Three Benefits of Win Loss You Can’t Ignore – Analytics & Strategy (1 of 3)

There are few revenue-generating competitive intelligence tools more valuable than Win Loss. If done correctly, a Win Loss exercise provides insight into competitive strengths/weaknesses, marketplace innovations, loyalty factors and steps to improving win rates. From a tactical standpoint, Win Loss derived intelligence can show steps to increase a company’s competitive positioning right now.

I know that today’s post will be a pretty strong commercial, but Primary Intelligence has developed sophisticated predictive analytics that crate an unparalleled strategic view. Let me show you what I’m talking about.

Below, you will see an example of a Strength/Weakness evaluation based on data from recent sales opportunities, taken from a win loss study of 50-60 opportunities. Half of the data come from new business that was won and the other 50% come from opportunities that were lost to competitors:


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?

Can you rely on today’s strength and weakness assessments to point your company to the strongest positioning tomorrow? Does a measurement of strengths and weaknesses provide the foresight to recommend company-changing shifts? Where is the crystal ball that will show the actual gains that might be made on performance changes in your company, product and sales efforts?

Primary Intelligence does this all the time. To show your company where the real opportunities exist, 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 the chart above (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.

Military Intelligence – A Template for Effective Competitive Intelligence

More than 95% of U.S. based businesses indicate that they have dedicated some amount of resources to the gathering of intelligence. This may include market, sales or competitive intelligence, but the goal is usually the same: be better at business than the next guy.

But, few companies would rate themselves as being very effective with the intelligence. And, the funny thing is the discrepancy of the perception between those that gather the intelligence and those that would use it. Executives usually rate themselves as “somewhat effective” or “very effective” as using intelligence while the intelligence professionals generally rate the executives as “not very effective.” Hmmmm. Why so many axes to grind?

Every organization should examine and reexamine its practices to create a continual improvement process. During this process, I would recommend that each organization take a little time to review other organizations that make intelligence a priority.

Now, it would be difficult to peek into other businesses and discover their secrets. You wouldn’t open your doors to this kind of review. Why would anyone else?

But, you can look at an institution that, overall, leads the world in the gathering, analysis and use of intelligence – The military. In fact, you can make the case that the military has the longest running and most successful intelligence system in history. (We won’t talk about policy makers and their use or misuse of intelligence. That’s another story for another day…

Where else are the stakes higher than on the battlefield? In a situation where lives and equipment are constantly at risk, we can learn some very critical things about how the military values its “competitive intelligence”, from gathering through strategic use.

“Most militaries maintain a military intelligence corps with specialized intelligence units for collecting information in specific ways. Militaries also typically have intelligence staff personnel at each echelon down to battalion level. Intelligence officers and enlisted soldiers assigned to military intelligence may be selected for their analytical abilities or scores on intelligence tests. They usually receive formal training in these disciplines.”

“Critical vulnerabilities are…indexed in a way that makes them easily available to advisors and line intelligence personnel who package this information for policy-makers and war-fighters. Vulnerabilities are usually indexed by the nation and military unit, with a list of possible attack methods.”

“Critical threats are usually maintained in a prioritized file, with important enemy capabilities analyzed on a schedule set by an estimate of the enemy's preparation time. For example, nuclear threats between the USSR and the US were analyzed in real time by continuously on-duty staffs. In contrast, analysis of tank or army deployments are usually triggered by accumulations of fuel and munitions, which are monitored on slower, every-few-days cycles. In some cases, automated analysis is performed in real time on automated data traffic.”

“Packaging threats and vulnerabilities for decision makers is a crucial part of military intelligence. A good intelligence officer will stay very close to the policy-maker or war fighter, to anticipate their information requirements, and tailor the information needed. A good intelligence officer will ask a fairly large number of questions in order to help anticipate needs, perhaps even to the point of annoying the principal. For an important policy-maker, the intelligence officer will have a staff to which research projects can be assigned.”

“Developing a plan of attack is not the responsibility of intelligence, though it helps an analyst to know the capabilities of common types of military units. Generally, policy-makers are presented with a list of threats, and opportunities. They approve some basic action, and then professional military personnel plan the detailed act and carry it out. Once hostilities begin, target selection often moves into the upper end of the military chain of command. Once ready stocks of weapons and fuel are depleted, logistic concerns are often exported to civilian policy-makers.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_intelligence)

The points that catch my attention are:

1. Intelligence professionals are present at each level of the military
2. They receive formal training in intelligence practices
3. Good intelligence officers stay very close to the policy-maker or war-fighter
4. Good intelligence officers ask lots of questions to make sure that the intelligence program is on the right track and can anticipate the leaders’ needs
5. Good intelligence officers package the intelligence in ways that the users can easily consume while still getting the intended “nutritional value”
6. While competitive intelligence personnel are not responsible for policy, direction or decisions, they should try to understand how these decisions are made. This will provide a deeper context to make future intelligence efforts more valuable.

In the next post, we’ll look at the usual structure of intelligence in today’s business.

And, if you have any thoughts, leave me a comment. I dare you.

Webinar Wrap-up: Effective Competitive Intelligence

Last Thursday, Mike Brose and I hosted a webinar called, “The Sad Story of Intelligence that Didn’t Make a Difference.” That is a fairly lengthy title and I’ll work on being more concise in the future.

But I digress…

Over time, we have seen many organizations that spend money on intelligence initiatives. Those initiatives might be market, sales or competitive intelligence. Most every company conducts some form of intelligence gathering. Whether primary or secondary, the intelligence is deemed important enough to have an effect on the success of the business.

However, we have also observed that many companies spend resources on the gathering of intelligence but have very little commitment to the use of that information. Rarely will a business spend so much money with so little regard for the potential return on investment. I take that back. Advertising seems to often fall into that category. But, that’s not the topic…

The topic of the webinar was based on helping companies make more effective use of the intelligence at hand. We expressed that we were not so concerned with the source or topic of the intelligence. Instead, we suggested how any type of intelligence might display more potential simply by making sure that it would be acted upon.

If you would like to download a copy of the presentation, please click HERE


And, if you would like a summary, delivered in person, or would like to subscribe to our webinar notifications, send me an email and I’ll make sure to keep you in the loop. (cdalley@primary-intel.com, 801-838-9600 x5050)

Competitive Intelligence – The Difference Between “Interesting” and “Effective”

I always think that it is critical to make your competitive intelligence efforts as effective as possible. Over time, we at Primary Intelligence have seen so many initiatives, either in play or proposed, that seek to know just about anything you can imagine. Many requests have been merely puzzling while others have been, at best, illegal.

These questionable requests include things like: (Skip to the bottom of the list to resume the idea of the thread)

How is LaborFree’s sales organization structured (numbers; roles; management structure; span of control; by product)? Is there a sales organization chart that presents this structure? In a more general sense, is there a detailed, company wide org. chart? If so, please provide.

To whom does sales report, both regionally, and at the corporate level?

How are the sales offices geographically dispersed?

What is the role, and extent of, inside sales?

What is the typical, daily experience of a LaborFree sales associate (number of prospect/client contacts; “roll-calling” requirements; prospecting vs. account maintenance/growth; interaction with accountants and existing clients to acquire referrals; support from other LaborFree’s organizations and management, etc.)?

How extensively do LaborFree sales associate make use of product demos in the sales process? Describe the typical sales call.

Describe LaborFree’s discounting practices, at the time of initial sale.

How does LaborFree calculate its customer retention rate (by client, or by revenues)? What has that rate been over the last five years?

Does LaborFree use its LaborFree Agency commission revenue to support discounting to customers who use the pay-as-you-go insurance products? If so, to what extent?

Number of orders submitted / % errors

Number of payrolls setup / % perfect

Number of first payrolls processed /% perfect

Number of hot-start orders submitted / % actual starts

Average cycle times

How does LaborFree categorize its expenses? Provide specifics.

As compared to SOFTTIME-ES, are similarly-labeled expenses actually alike, or are there definition differences? What are these differences?

As compared to SOFTTIME-ES, does LaborFree match us expense-for-expense, or are there whole categories of expense not present in the LaborFree business model?

Where LaborFree and SOFTTIME-ES expenses are similarly defined, where are their expenses materially less or more (proportionately) than SOFTTIME’s expenses?
Per the above question, why are their expenses proportionately less or more than ours, for similar activities?

Of course, those RFPs always included the instructions, “No illegal methods may be undertaken to gather this information.”

When I see such requests, I have to ask the question, “How will this help a company sell more? I can see why the information is interesting. In fact, I have a definition of “interesting information.” Basically, anything that a company doesn’t know is easy to categorize as “interesting.”

But, “interesting” doesn’t often generate revenue. “Interesting” doesn’t make more sales happen. “Interesting” might not even make the company stronger. Interesting might only be interesting to one person; not to an entire company.

So, how does one sort out the difference between “interesting” and “effective”?

Start by defining those things that your company defines as effective. How do you make choices about services in other industries? How does your company define ROI? Certainly, healthy companies do not make a habit out of wasting dollars.

If you need some ideas, let me share some of ours. What makes intelligence effective? In order to be effective, the intelligence should:

1 Strengthens your company’s position

• How is our value proposition perceived?
• What is the competition doing?
• Which industry-wide best practices will truly apply?

2 Discovers new markets

• What is possible with new technologies?
• Where should we steer the company?

3 Develops new products/services/solutions

• What problems do our clients experience that we can address?

Apply this litmus test to your current efforts. Compare the day-to-day requests against these standards. If the comparison leaves you wanting, you have to figure out how to put changes and such in place to stop the cycle of “interesting, but worthless” information.

If you have a different set of “ effective” definitions that work for your company, let’s chat. I would appreciate your input. (cdalley@primary-intel.com, 801.838.9600 x5050)

New England Patriots Take Competitive Intelligence Too Far

Recent NFL headlines have been filled with the tactics employed by the New England Patriots. Apparently, the Patriots have been filming the opposing team’s defensive coordinator, recording their hand signals, analyzing them against actual field play to break the code and, subsequently, feeding their offense with the defense’s anticipated points of attack and weaknesses.

Some might wonder what the problem is. I have heard some say that “every team can do it,” and others have mentioned that the Patriots are certainly not the only team engaging in this activity.

And, the truth is that if the Patriots had employed a method of using binoculars, a pad of paper and a pencil to steal signals, they would not be in any trouble at all. Those methods are legal (if not ethical) in the NFL system. But, the NFL strictly prohibits the use of video capture of the opposing team’s signals.

What is the penalty for this “indiscretion?”

Head Coach, Bill Belichick was fined 10% of his salary this year ($500K), the Patriots were fined an additional $250K and the team loses a first round pick in next year’s draft. These are some of the heaviest fines handed down.

Is it possible that everyone else is engaging in this type of behavior? Football at the NFL level is hypercompetitive. While there is no evidence of anyone else doing this, there is no reason to believe that other teams haven’t engaged in this activity, assuming (just like the Patriots) that they won’t be caught or that the penalty would be outweighed by the positive benefit. In either case, the NFL has sent the message firmly that cheating will not be tolerated. I suspect that many teams had to examine their own operations this last week in light of the heavy judgment handed down to the Patriots.

For you in your company, take this lesson to heart. Know the law and stay away from the edge of the darkness. Grey areas still carry risk and the people that break or bend the laws suffer the consequences as much or more painfully than do the companies in which they are employed.

Just to jog your memory, you might consult the actual text of the Economic Espionage Act of 1996:

(a) Whoever, with intent to convert a trade secret, that is related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce, to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof, and intending or knowing that the offense will, injure any owner of that trade secret, knowingly—
(1) steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains such information;
(2) without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys such information;
(3) receives, buys, or possesses such information, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization;
(4) attempts to commit any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3); or
(5) conspires with one or more other persons to commit any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3), and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy,
shall, except as provided in subsection (b), be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
(b) Any organization that commits any offense described in subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $5,000,000.

Competitive Intelligence, The Super Bowl and a Very Small Detail

In the book, Greatest Team Ever: The Dallas Cowboys Dynasty of the 1990s, (Norm Hitzges and Ron St. Angelo), Norm Hitzges tells the story of “competitive intelligence” incident that had a powerful effect on the outcome of Super Bowl XXVIII, played in 1994.

According to NFL.com,

“To win, the Cowboys had to rally from a 13-6 halftime deficit. Buffalo had forged its lead on Thurman Thomas's 4-yard touchdown run and a pair of field goals by Steve Christie, including a 54-yard kick, the longest in Super Bowl history.

But just 55 seconds into the second half, Thomas was stripped of the ball by Dallas defensive tackle Leon Lett. Safety James Washington recovered and weaved his way 46 yards for a touchdown to tie the game at 13-13.”

This recap doesn’t tell the whole story of this fumble and recovery for a touchdown. The fumble was no accident and the impact it had on the game was extremely important. The Cowboys’ accidental discovery of a bit of intelligence ended up turning the entire game around. I’ll relate the story as I have heard it from Norm Hitzges.

As you know, there is an incredible amount of hype and press coverage leading up to the Super Bowl. Reporters are everywhere and no story is too small to receive significant coverage.

It just so happens that the day before the game, Buffalo Bills coach Norm Levy was being interviewed for television. He was down on the field with his team, but talking to reporters as his players walked through some drills. Coach Levy didn’t know that the camera was catching some of his players in the background. He probably thought that the camera was tight on him. Had he known that his team was on display, he certainly would have changed his angle.

Turns out that the Bills’ offense was adding a new wrinkle especially for the Super Bowl game. In the background, almost off camera, the offense was walking through a new play from shotgun formation. The idea was that the Bills’ running back, Thurman Thomas would take a direct snap from the center rather than the ball going through the quarterback’s hands. This type of play is meant to confuse a defense and create a quick strike opportunity. This play might be most effective in a passing situation, where the quarterback can fake the reception of the snap and distract the defense while the running back gets up to speed with the ball. This is a play that Buffalo had not used all year, and they figured that the element of surprise would work in their favor in the biggest game of the year.

In their hotel rooms, the Dallas Cowboys’ defense was watching Coach Levy’s interview. The Defensive Coordinator happened to pick up on the trick play being practiced in the background. It was almost sheer luck (or very thorough attention to all things related to the next day’s game) that he noticed at all, but the play caught his attention and he made note of the Bills’ formation.

He immediately called a meeting of the Cowboys’ defensive players. He explained what he had observed happening behind the coach during the interview. The defenders created a code word that would be called out if they observed the formation on the field during the game.

On Sunday, at the halftime break, the Bills lead 13-6 and were playing very tough football against the Cowboys. Just after halftime, the Bills had the ball again and in less than a minute, they had moved the ball to midfield. With only 55 seconds played in the second half, the Bills decided it was time to do something unexpected and break the game open. As they lined up in shotgun formation, the Cowboys began to yell their code word, indicating the trick play. Sure enough, the ball was snapped, the quarterback faked backwards as though he had received the snap while Thomas attempted to grab the ball out of the air and start around the left side of the line.

Completely prepared, Leon Lett of the Cowboys’ defense raced around the left side of the line and hit Thomas before the ball was secured. Thomas went one way and the ball went the other. Dallas’ safety, James Washington, scooped up the ball and returned it 46 yards for the tying touchdown.

This dramatic turn of events apparently demoralized the Bills while pumping up the Cowboys. The Bills did not score again all game and the Cowboys went on to win the game, 30-13.

So, what are the takeaways (pardon the fumble reference) of this Competitive Intelligence story?

1. Keep your eyes open and ear to the ground. Information is always in the air. You just have to know where the most likely places are to intercept that intelligence. (Too many people try to get that one silver bullet that they completely miss the dozens of little arrows that go by constantly)
2. Make sure that you can interpret what is happening. Any regular fan sitting at home watching the interview would certainly have missed the significance of the play being practiced. Find people that know how to interpret data and trust their opinion.
3. Everyone on the team needs to know how to assimilate and react to the intelligence. If not, there will be no coordinated action based on the information and the value will be compromised, at best.
4. Counterintelligence – Make sure that your secrets stay safe. Who knows where the camera is pointed, even at seemingly insignificant times?
5. Do something with the intelligence. Information that doesn’t result in improvement is interesting but completely worthless. And, there really isn’t any glory in telling someone you knew something was going to happen if you didn’t take action on the information. Hindsight may be 20/20, but for CI purposes, it may be very low on the value scale.

I might recommend a very fertile area of intelligence that should be mined often and consistently. Your current client list is full of people or companies that have shopped the competition, listened to their pitches or even have been previous clients of your competitors. If you want to stake out a very promising bit of territory and set up listening ears, I would make sure to include the current client base.

If you need some help incorporating these ideas, give me a call. I’d be happy to talk you through. (cdalley@primary-intel.com, 801-838-9600 x5050)

Using Data to Make Decisions in Marketing

Marketing. An Art? A Science? An amalgam of both. Historically, marketing has been a craft owned by the creative rather than the methodical. And, it is likely that the creative will never leave. But, technology continues to push the envelope on what can be tracked and measured. Each day, demand increases for marketers that can measure their results.

“There is such tremendous change in the marketplace that marketing techniques that used to work may not work anymore,” says Roland Rust, chairman of the marketing department at the University of Maryland’s Robert H. Smith School of Business at College Park, Md., and author of numerous books on marketing. “Companies are trying a lot of new things and don’t know whether they work. The companies that are getting ahead these days are those that use data to make decisions,”

Prof. Rust adds. Conquering highly profitable markets, or having the right market focus and position, is one of the key building blocks of a high-performance business, says Mr. Merrihue of Accenture. And a high-performance business today demands cost-effective, results-driven marketing” (http://online.wsj.com/ad/accenture/)

The source of this information comes from an advertisement -, but the message, while a touch bombastic, remains the same. Understanding your marketing position and tracking progress against goals has become one of the most important topics in marketing. That is no secret at all. Determining what to measure and how to improve is a large challenge.

I’ll toss out my two cents on how Competitive Intelligence can improve a marketing department’s ability to compete.

If done properly, competitive intelligence should be able to tell you:

Crucial business needs that lead people to consider your product/service/solution

How the competition positions itself against you

The perception of the prospects in regard to your value proposition

The right message at the right time of the evaluation process

Your company’s image compared with that of the competition

What are the most important factors that cause a prospect to use you vs. anyone else.

Competitive Intelligence should feed your marketing department with these types of answers, allowing the most effective messages to be refined. Tracking this information over time will provide the ability to measure improvement and/or keep pace with a changing marketplace.

These ideas are some of the most basic possibilities. If you have other ideas or need suggestions, let’s chat. (cdalley@primary-intel.com, 801-838-9600 x5050)

Competitive Intelligence and Analysis Paralysis

The repository of all truth and knowledge, Wikipedia, defines Analysis Paralysis as “an informal phrase applied to when the opportunity cost of decision analysis exceeds the benefits. Analysis paralysis applies to any situation where analysis may be applied to help make a decision and may be a dysfunctional element of organizational behavior.”

For the past few posts, I have tried to make a strong case for using competitive, sales and market intelligence at the highest levels of a business to effect change and create a stronger market position. While intelligence is key to making the right moves, every decision-maker has to employ methods of evaluating intelligence and interpreting it based on the entire market picture.

Information is ubiquitous. Analysts tell you their opinion. 3rd-parties produce prodigious amounts of intelligence. Emails, RSS feeds, newsletters, web scrapers, financial reports, word of mouth, and dozens of other sources never stop producing “must-have” information. And, much of this information contradicts (partially or entirely) information from other sources.

So, how do you overcome Paralysis by Analysis? Let’s look at a few points that should help clear the logjam and get the business decision-making process back on track:

1. Define what success looks like for your company. Create initiatives that support the plan.


2. Concentrate on what you really want to know - Are you concerned with increasing market share or do you want to know the competition’s proprietary commission structure? How much will knowing the square footage of your prime competitor’s new warehouse in Des Moines help you attract new business and partners? Figure out what really matters.


3. Ignore intelligence that doesn’t support your initiatives that support success. The rest is distracting fluff at best. We all know that taking your eyes off the road to text-message is a recipe for disaster. Don’t take your eye off the ball, no matter how intriguing a data source may be.


4. Create a weighting system to deal with the intelligence that remains. Make sure that the critical intelligence supports or protects your success goal. If it doesn’t, categorize it as “interesting, but not essential” and move on.


5. Employ or contract with an analyst to help interpret the intelligence that is considered valuable.


6. Make a decision, move forward and refine your direction – Most of the time, moving in a direction is less harmful than staying put. And, if you are using the right kinds of intelligence, a bad decision will likely stub your toe before you crash into something dangerous.

For more information, I recommend an article by Michael Useem, Wharton School of Business. In his article, he comments, “A less than ideal action stands a chance of success, whereas no action stands no chance.”

Well said.

Good luck sifting and prioritizing. Intelligence is important and essential, but too much of a good thing can create big problems.

As always, if you have thoughts, leave me a post, call (801-838-9600 x5050) or email (cdalley@primary-intel.com)

Strategic Planning - Making the Most of Competitive Intelligence

The following article is part 1 of a 2 part series written by Paul Lemberg, Executive Director of Stratamax Research Institute

A step-by-step guide to creating a growth strategy based on your current situation and future possibilities.

I’ll bet you think you already have a strategy.

And well you may, but strategy as a concept is just like love: much used and little understood. Many businesses (and that includes small entrepreneurs, large corporations, non-profits, community organizations, governments, NGOs…the works) neither know what strategy really is, nor how to get one.

And even if you do, in fact, have a strategy—is it the right one? The best one? This is so important—marketing guru Jay Abraham says—and I agree—a superior strategy badly executed will beat a bad strategy well executed, any day.

It’s easy to say, “This is big company stuff. We know what we need—why should we do all the extra work.” While a “strategy-less” group of marketing tactics may work well and produce good results, is it taking your business in the best direction? You may be making money, but are you making the most money possible? Could another suite of tactics implementing a superior strategy produce far better results?

Which brings me to the point of this two-part article: how to formulate strategy.In the next 1500 words, I’m going to present the first half of a basic system for identifying high-impact strategies in your business. (Just the first half? Yes. While I strive to make this as simple as possible, it still takes a bit of explaining, and editors and readers alike detest long articles!) So Part 2 will finish the outline, and in future articles, I will discuss each system component in finer detail.

Let’s begin with a working definition of strategy.

Strategy is the guiding principle on which are based a series of interlinked decisions regarding the selection and deployment of resources and tactics, whose purpose is realizing a vision and achieving decisive objectives in a competitive and changing environment.

This definition tells us a few things:

The purpose of all strategic decisions is achieving your vision and “decisive” or critical-to-purpose objectives. Strategy is about selecting specific resources and tactics to get the desired result. Strategy is not static; it is decisions in a series, and evolves continuously over time.

Strategy is broad and all-encompassing. With that in mind, here are the 8 steps to formulating strategy: Set your vision Gather environmental and competitive intelligence Take stock of your organization’s strengths and weaknesses Select your “grand strategy” Establish decisive objectives Rate and rank your “SWOTs” Match your internal and external factors to identify strategic alternatives Select specific strategies for implementation Of course, there is one last step: turning your strategy into tactics and game plans, and execute. We won’t get into that in this article.

Step 1. Establish your vision.
People complicate the idea of vision. A vision is simply a story describing how you want things to be in the future. Some people can tell these stories easily—they know exactly where they want to be and what it will “look” like.

Others need help. The best approach is to answer a series of questions regarding what your organization does, who are it’s clients or beneficiaries, what its impact is, how big it is, where it is, how it operates, when all these things will occur, and so on. As a result of answering these questions, your vision will emerge. (For a detailed article on crafting a vision visit www.paullemberg.com/articles.html.)

Of course, you may already have a vision. If so, now is the time to insure that it is relevant and powerful.

The test of a good vision is if it inspires; not only you and your management team, but all of your stakeholders: your partners, employees, clients, investors, vendors, lenders, your community, your government—and perhaps the public at large. A great vision inspires, and it also provides direction. Every action you take should further your vision. If it doesn’t, don’t do it.

Step 2. Gather environmental and competitive intelligence.

To develop the best strategies you must understand the world outside your organization. Quantify and qualify, not just absolutes, but trends. And importantly—identify changes in the status quo. Key areas for focus include competitors, technology, market size and trends, your clients’ industry health, macroeconomic trends, availability of key resources (people and materials) government regulations and other political considerations, and changes in demographics and psychographics—like customer taste.

Devise relevant measures for each of these key external areas. For instance, examine your competitors for revenue, profit and market share growth (or decline), product and service changes, shifts in marketing and sales strategy, changes in geographic distribution, strategic alliances, and major customer announcements.

Macroeconomic factors include the obvious such as interest and employment rates and trends, production and consumption statistics, along with finer grained-industry issues such as new home buying—which impacts a wide variety of businesses, or defense spending—which impacts a completely different set of sectors.

Step 3. Take stock of your organization’s strengths and weaknesses
Now it is time to shine the light on your organization. Examine each functional area looking for strengths and weaknesses. Identify strengths that will help the company realize its vision, and weaknesses that will impede its goals.

The following is a starter list of focus areas:

Ability to get new prospects (Marketing) Ability to get new clients (Sales) Products and services, both existing and those in R&D. Finance or Money, including cash flow, access to capital, revenues, profits, ROI Leadership, including values and vision alignment, decisive objectives People, including skills inventory, staffing levels, employee loyalty, compensation Other areas to examine include:

Client satisfaction Client services Logistics Competitive positioning Unique Client Proposition Management team Administration

Step 4: Select your Grand Strategies.
This “grand strategy” approach is based upon industry/product revenue growth rates. It is specific to a business unit with one major industry and/or product focus. If your business is more complex, you may repeat the process for each focus sector.

First, consider your industry and product sector growth rate. Is it growing or declining?

Second, consider your competitive strength within that sector. For this analysis Competitive Strength has two components, the size and trend of your market share, and your organization’s
financial strength; specifically either cash flow from operations, or access to capital.

To simplify: strong market share + strong finances = strong competitive position. Either strong market share or strong finances = average competitive position. Neither strong market share nor strong finances = weak competitive position.

This defines a two-by-three matrix of strategic choices from which to select your grand strategy. (Click for illustration. www.paullemberg.com/grand-strategy-matrix.html).

The exact choice you make will be dictated by the specifics of your situation: sector strength and competitive strength, along with your stated vision and purpose. Choose from the list which best describes your business:

Strong sector, strong competitive position.

This means that you are in a growing market, hold a commanding market position, and have cash with which to maneuver. Your strategic choices include:

Market strategy to increase demand and sales for existing products and services, in existing and new markets Marketing strategy to increase market penetration for existing products and services and capture greater share. Enhance or extend existing products and services; add-ons, backends, strategic joint ventures. Gain control over distribution – bring external sales inside. Take sales from distributors. Gain control over suppliers Acquisition, merger, or joint-ventures with competitors Develop strategic partnerships to increase distribution, or gain new products. Develop related products and services for existing customer base – backend strategies.

Strong sector, average competitive position

Here you are in a growing market, but have either a commanding
position, but limited cash—or vice versa. The exact choice available to you depend on your situation. You can:

Seek underserved niches: move into small, defined and profitable markets.
Marketing strategy to increase market penetration for existing products and services and capture greater share.
Enhance or extend existing products and services; add-ons, backends, strategic joint ventures Strategic partnerships – seek products/services for existing customers Exploit assets via joint ventures and host-beneficiary relationships Develop related products and services for existing customer base – backend strategies.
Increased marketing penetration via distributors and 3rd parties
Get more money: raise capital via debt or equity.

Strong sector, weak competitive position

You are in a strong sector, but have relatively small market share, and limited or no cash. Your choices include:

Seek underserved niches: move into small, defined and profitable markets. Marketing strategy to increase market penetration for existing products and services and capture greater share. Strategic partnerships – seek products/services for existing customers Develop products and services for existing customer base – backend strategies. Sell your client base to a competitor or cooperator; or reposition your existing products to appeal to new customer types. Sell the product line and use cash to reposition remaining assets Sell the company Weak sector, strong competitive position

In this case, you dominate a weak market and have cash to exploit your position. You should: Add related products and services for existing customer base – backend strategies. Add un-related products and services for existing customer base – backend strategies. Add new products and services for new customer base Create joint ventures in unrelated markets

Weak sector, average competitive position.

You are in a mediocre position in a weak market. Depending on your exact circumstances, you can retreat, use what’s left of your cash to buy your way out with new products, or try to enroll a strong partner. Choices include:

Reduce costs however you can.
Add related products and services for existing customer base – backend strategies.
Add new products and services for new customer base Seek to dominate the smallest definition of your market using low-cost / no-cost strategies.
Create strategic partnerships and joint ventures Weak sector, weak competitive position

Sorry to say, you are in a bad place. In a word—retreat! You can do this by:
Reduce costs however you can.
Sell product line Sell company If you don’t want to liquidate, seek to expand your marketing using low-cost / no-cost marketing strategies – but this may be a losing proposition.
Also, as above, attempt to create strategic partnerships and joint ventures, but it may be difficult to attract partners to a market with poor fundamentals.

At this point you might say, “…sell the customers? Sell the company? No way. I’m holding on.” That just isn’t a strategic point of view.

Strategy says you can make more money doing something else—so you best start thinking about it.

In general, these choices are listed from most attractive to least. Your organization’s best choices will be based on your particular circumstances.
By now you have formulated a vision, gathered analyzed your external environment and organization, identified relevant strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, and begun to zero in on a grand strategy. That should keep you busy for a while.
In The Secrets of Strategy, Part II, we’ll complete the process.
Remember—you don’t need a strategy. But having one increases your chances of generating the greatest profits from your resources. After all, that is the whole point of strategy.

Paul Lemberg is the executive director or Stratamax Research Institute, a business coaching and consulting firm specializing in helping entrepreneurial companies quickly increase short term profits for sustainable long term growth. Of course, he is available for keynote speeches and workshops and can be reached via http://businessknowledgesource.com/blog/archives/www.lemberg.com

Competitive Intelligence - Working Data for Sales Teams

Some say that knowledge is power. We at Primary Intelligence believe that the right kind of knowledge is exponentially powerful.

An example of our intelligence and feedback we provide is listed below. In this example, our client is Tenscon, a software solutions provider. Now, we have changed the names to maintain confidentiality, but our customer list includes companies such as Microsoft, Avaya, Symantec and EDS are the kinds that tend to do very good work with us.

The table below shows "Tenscon's" competitive advantage against 4 competitors (Names have been changed to maintain confidentiality, but the results are real).

The results show some competitive advantages in the company and sales, but the product has some significant weaknesses against Sistemic and Howein Partners:

Overall, Tenscon had generally higher performance ratings than the competition, especially in the company and service drivers. However, several ratings for the sales team were lower than those of the competition as a whole, indicating that some improvement in these areas may be needed.

An analysis of the responses from clients yields the following key findings concerning Tenscon’s performance:

-Tenscon was seen as a strong and solid company, but was not generally seen as an innovator. As a senior vice president from Dillent explained, “I don’t think they showed as much innovation in their solution. I think they took a much more conservative approach, a much more introverted approach rather than an innovative approach.” The CIO from ABC Aerolineas echoed this sentiment by saying, “We have some applications that we expected to be technologically advanced, but what they offered us was delayed during the delivery process. By this I mean that some applications were not as innovative as we expected them to be.”

-Some clients were concerned that Tenscon was not offering a unified solution, but rather a set of pre-packaged offerings. For instance, a respondent from ABC Aerolineas said that the initial Tenscon team did “have a real understanding of our model, and they just trying to sell us stand-alone systems. This was the idea. The idea was a cost-effective strategy, and people from Tenscon did not understand our model, our strategy, the market, or our needs. They just about systems and stand-alone processes.” A representative from Flentic Crendall explained, “One of
complexities of [Tenscon] is it is five separate businesses that have been swept into one company. It’s trying get them to work as one company with one approach. don’t think that there was a perfect solution.”

-While a majority (66 percent) of clients believed that Tenscon put the right people in front of them, there were some concerns that decision makers were not involved in the negotiation process. A vice president at JNPD expressed this sentiment, saying, “As some of these things escalate, or we run across impasses, there might be opportunities in the future that if we were
able to talk directly to the true decision makers, then it might expedite the process.” A senior vice president from Fiserv also said, “It took a while to get the right representatives from the healthcare side and from the financial side [of Tenscon] to be on our team.”

-Understanding the clients’ needs and business requirements was a theme throughout the interviews, and an area where respondents believed Tenscon could improve. Tenscon’s ratings in this area were slightly lower than the average for other bidding companies, indicating an area of advantage for Tenscon’s competitors. As the CIO of Coles Meyer explained, “Sometimes I was worried [that they gave] affirmative answers without really understanding what the issues were. At
times I felt they didn’t understand how big and complicated the work was going to be. ‘Let’s make the sale and then afterwards worry about how we are going to deliver it.’ There was a lack of business and delivery knowledge with the up front sales team. With other vendors we don’t experience that.”

If you have any ideas of how to make these data come to life in your organization, drop me a line. (801.838.9600 x5050, cdalley@primary-intel.com)

Why Doesn't Competitive Intelligence Flow to Sales?

It has been my observation that most companies perform some type of competitive intelligence. In fact, most have several, if not dozens, of programs. Each research initiative is built to produce information upon which decisions may be based.

It has also been my observation that the production of intelligence is almost always handled by the marketing department, which makes sense. Of course, I am painting in broad strokes, but if you can accept that most analysts, competitive intelligence specialists and market research groups fit under the marketing umbrella, we should all agree on this point.

In fact, in one of our Primary Intelligence internal studies, 89% of companies said that they have a formal competitive intelligence program in place. This is higher than the 78% that have a customer sat program and the 65% that conduct account retention analysis.

But, when we ask the sales reps about the availability and use of competitive intelligence in their jobs, only 56% of sales managers claim competitive intelligence as one of their tools. A higher percentage of sales reps (68%) say that they use competitive intelligence to sell. But, I don’t know the percentage of intelligence that comes from marketing vs. self-generated intelligence. Sales reps and account managers can be very resourceful when it comes to preparing to do their job.

All this seems to beg the question… why isn’t sales organizing competitive intelligence initiatives more often? Why don’t sales managers use competitive intelligence to position more effectively? Why doesn’t the sales department work more closely with marketing?

It is my experience that there is more than one obstacle. But, the most important fact is that the intelligence is delivered in chunks that sales doesn’t want to eat. This fact seems to outweigh the type of intelligence available or any other obstacles that might exist between sales and marketing.

Another important fact to consider is that the competitive intelligence is often commissioned by management and executives, which means that the intelligence is not designed from the outset to satisfy sales nor answer questions relevant to sales.

Both of these problems can be overcome through tighter communication between sales and marketing. Odds are that current intelligence initiatives can be reworked to include a few tidbits for the sales group. Furthermore, marketing can study the current information sources used by sales and mimic those sources to deliver bits and pieces (or full meals) straight to the sales reps.

If the intelligence can make a sales rep 10% more effective (and current evidence suggests that 10% is a conservative figure), how much revenue does your company stand to gain by improving the intelligence communication process? What opportunity is being lost today by not doing so?

Let’s talk about the possibilities and what they mean to you. (cdalley@primary-intel.com, 801-838-9600 x5050)

Competitive Intelligence before the Competition Arrives

Have you ever seen a grateful sales rep or account manager? Of course, they all smile if you buy something. They can't help it. It's just their nature.

But, what about sales teams from your own company? What can you give them that would put a smile on their face and a bounce in their step? Well, they'll appreciate anything you can do to help them sell more effectively. Give them a sale and you'll have a best friend for life. They might even take you to lunch, but don't count on it.

Unfortunately, you may not be on the front lines. You might not have a rolodex of potential clients. You may be busy with a ton of other stuff. And, if you really wanted to sell, you would have joined the sales or account management teams long ago.

(What to do, what to do, what to do…)

You might consider a Target Prospecting profile from Primary Intelligence. This new intelligence service, introduced this month, has the potential to increase your sales team’s effectiveness exponentially by providing a road map to a sale.

With Primary Intelligence’s Target Prospecting, our clients now have the information they need to understand the opportunity as they enter it, and can address prospects’ unique needs. Specifically, from the prospect interview profiles, our clients learn:

What features/functions are most important in the minds of their prospects

When their prospects will be looking to buy

The nuances of their prospects’ decision making processes

Which competitors their prospects have used, and which ones they are considering

The factors that might lead their prospects to change vendors

The products and services their prospects are looking to implement

Think of the benefits of being able to talk to the client about their needs in their language and understanding most of the necessary maneuvers before the first prospecting contact is made.

This isn’t lead generation. This is Prospect Needs Identification and the ROI has proven to be huge for our clients.

With this information, provided to your company only, your sales reps and account managers will know the lay of the land before the competition decides to engage. How surprised will the competition be when they arrive at the prospect’s doorstep, only to find that your company has set up camp in the living room? While they’re still trying to figure out who to talk to, you’ll be speaking the prospect’s language.

In the words of my 13 year old daughter, “It’s like, so totally rad.”

For more information, or a sample report, check out our website or give me a call. I’ll be happy to answer any questions. (cdalley@primary-intel.com, 801-838-9600 x5050)

What's in a Win?

Yesterday, I was working with Chad Sly, reviewing a proof of concept trial with a client that had purchased win loss analysis from Primary Intelligence.

To be more accurate, they purchased loss analysis. In other words, they weren’t interested in measuring won opportunities; only lost deals.

I can understand that. I can respect that. Your instinct tells you that you are going to learn more from your losses than your wins. You might think that you are in a better position to talk to your wins later and find out the story of what happened. These are true statements.

But, I’d like to toss out a couple of reasons that you ought to apply your same, rigorous study of sales opportunities to your wins, too:

1-Knowing why you lose is interesting. Knowing why you win is just as valuable. If you don’t thoroughly understand your winning value proposition, how can you make the necessary changes in the less certain opportunities?

2-Benchmarking of successful data. If you want to make improvement, you have to understand where you are starting. Get a benchmark of your performance across the board (and not just in losses) or you will have a skewed benchmark that doesn’t really reflect current performance. (BTW, Primary Intelligence believes that measurements in 20-30 individual performance areas make the best sales
reviews)

3-Interpretation of comparative data. If you see that your sales team is weak in certain skills during losses, how will you know if they were strong in those same areas during wins? Or, did they win despite the an across-the-board weakness? You’ll never know unless you discover their performance in both wins and losses.

4-Goodwill with your new customers. Your new clients worked very hard to make the best decision for their company. They appreciate the opportunity to tell you
what went right or wrong and how you can be more effective in like situations.

5-Competitive intelligence from a friendly source. Your new clients are the most likely to provide you with the best actionable competitive intelligence, based on the tactics and messages presented during the recent transaction. You shared time with your competitors. Find out what your prospect/new customer found out during
that time.

I understand that losses look more important. I understand that having the inside scoop on a recent loss is nearly a status symbol. But, don’t forget the wins. They’re what keep you in business.

Let me know what you think. (cdalley@primary-intel.com, 801.838.9600 x5050)

Effectiveness to Greatness – Making the Leap

I just read an article titled, “Dr. Stephen R. Covey Interview, Going from Effectiveness to Greatness, Featuring Jay Abraham.” This conversation seemed to offer a lot of nuggets in a few pages.

The article is not specifically written for competitive intelligence professionals. In fact, at times, it is geared toward the entrepreneur and small business owner, but I’ll share a couple of excerpts from the article in today’s blog. If you want to read the article in its entirety, click here.

In summary, Dr. Covey takes his principles of “7 Habits of Highly Effective People” and promotes a way of thinking and being that moves from effectiveness to greatness. For example:

JAY ABRAHAM: Define Greatness in the organization
DR. COVEY: Well, I would say that a great organization would be one that has sustainable impact on all of its stakeholders for good. That includes the whole supply chain, obviously the customers… And the culture would be extremely empowered to use a lot of initiative in making great things happen. And also, I think another characteristic would be that the people are constantly growing and improving their skills, their knowledge base, and their capacities to become even greater in the future. I think one of the biggest problems is sustainability -- that many people are like cotton candy. It tastes good, and then within a short period of time it just is worthless, essentially, and nothing happens. But to make it sustainable, to me, is one of the great keys.

JAY ABRAHAM: What changes or shifts would you recommend they make to convert their enterprise from tactical, reactive, episodic, to strategic, enduring, and basically a geometric growth machine?
DR. COVEY: I would say a couple of things. One would be I would make sure that I surround myself with people who are different than me -- who think differently, who challenge -- so that you can get the spirit of synergy in producing a strategic plan that everyone gets emotionally connected to. And I would try to get them very involved in this development of this strategic plan so that they really have a clear sense of what the most important goals are, and also what the values are. Because if you have commonality on the values which never change, then you apply those values in getting synergy and developing strategic goals and plans to achieve those goals. Then you’ve tapped into as much wisdom as possible.

JAY ABRAHAM: you talk a lot about the difference between proactivity and reactivity. Can you share…proactive things that great leaders do continuously, predictably, that average, ordinary business owners don’t seem to understand?
DR. COVEY: Well, I would say one proactive thing is that they decide what their mission is, and what their values are in the context of a larger vision. And I think that most reactive people tend to just kind of live out old programs that have been given to them by other people and by other models that they’ve had. I think another thing is that they start investing in people and in the building of high-trust relationships, where the reactive people kind of hope that trust will result. They don’t proactively nourish the relationship.

Another one is they really get invested in the growth and development of people – for instance, the very thing we’re doing here. If they’re learning things from this, they would want to immediately share this with the people around them that might have an interest so that they create a kind of a learning ethic -- not just a hard work ethic, but a learning ethic-- so that people say, “Boy, he’s really interested in my growth and development, and in my career.

I think another one is they set up empowerment agreements with people so that they don’t have to hover over, check up, follow through, and kind of micro-manage people according to the way they normally would clone someone. But they realize that every personality is different, will often take a different tack. But as long as there is a common agreement on the overall strategic purpose and goals, that’s the important thing. And therefore, you allow other people to express themselves.

Reactive people tend to be firefighters that are impulsively running to and fro and trying to solve problems. They almost get addicted to urgency, rather than being addicted to focusing on that which is important, the Pareto Principle, where 80% of the results come from the 20% of the key activities that produce those results. And I think that what I call “Quadrant Two” -- that which is important but not urgent -- is the basic thrust of proactive people…

Most people are drowned by the urgent, and the important often gets neglected because the urgent acts on you. It’s right in front of you. It’s pressing. It’s like a ringing phone. And they get so addicted to it they almost feel guilty if they focus on long term, strategic thinking and listening in depth to other people because they’re frantic. They’re just driven by action and by constantly wanting to make things happen. They don’t take time to reflect, and to gain a deeper understanding of what the real needs are, and to also deeply understand another person and to find out what their voice is... what is unique about that person…that they have certain talents and passion. They don’t do that. They talk more than they listen. They should realize they have two ears and one mouth, and use them accordingly.

(copyright 2006 All Rights Reserved, www.abraham.com)

I know that this post contains a large chunk of information that might not seem applicable at first, but take a look at your position.

-Are you providing information, services or solutions that will make your company more competitive from the strategic and tactical levels?
-Does your department (and those with whom you interact) position itself to be effective (at the least) and potentially great? Does your organization support this type of thinking and growth?
-Are you drowned by the urgent without having time to work on the important?
-Do you have balance in your life that allows you to be great in the most important things?

Print this document. Mark it up with your notes. And, if you are a self-improvement geek, date your notes. Then, next time you read it and mark it up some more, compare the parts that were important during the first read to those that impress you the second time around. You might learn something about the changing priorities and perspectives in your life.

Anyway, I’ll return to the Competitive Intelligence topic in the next post. Thanks for today’s indulgence.

And, if you find a nugget of info that means something to you, place a comment or contact me (cdalley@primary-intel.com, 801-838-9600 x5050)