Alessandro Comai (2005) Discover Hidden Needs   brf frontiers - proceeding paper
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Alessandro Comai (2005) Discover Hidden Needs brf frontiers - proceeding paper






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



3 Embeds 51 27 22 2


Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Alessandro Comai (2005) Discover Hidden Needs   brf frontiers - proceeding paper Alessandro Comai (2005) Discover Hidden Needs brf frontiers - proceeding paper Document Transcript

  • FRONTIERS OF E-BUSINESS RESEARCH 2004Discover Hidden Corporate Intelligence Needs by Looking at Environmental and Organizational Contingencies Alessandro Comai Ph.D. Candidate, ESADE – University Ramon Llull, alessandro.comai@esade.eduAbstractThe purpose of this paper is to put forward a research framework capable of detecting thehidden needs of a firm in terms of type of formal competitive intelligence program (CIP). Themodel will focus on the internal and external determinants which compel an organization toestablish a formalized intelligence process. This study is concerned with measuring thecompetitive intelligence sensitivity of a particular organization in a particular context. Thefirst part introduces two different approaches to the examination of the corporate and decisionmaker’s needs which are generally used in the competitive intelligence field. Subsequently, itdiscusses the decision maker’s role and the potential failure to determine the CI needs as wellas the potential value of the CI program. The second part focuses on research questions. Thethird part discusses which types of external and internal factors prompt a firm to establish aformal CIP. The paper concentrates on putting forward the factors which are assumed to havethe most significant analytical influence and through which it is possible to pinpoint whichorganizations need to establish a CIP as well as the type of process required.Keywordscompetitive intelligence, intelligence needs, environmental scanning, managerial blind spots,contingency factors.IntroductionIt is generally agreed that firms require selected information, called intelligence, for thestrategic decision-making process and there are several differences in the way in whichdifferent companies use their information. Firms differ in the system they use for acquiringappropriate intelligence and in the degree of resources they devote to it. An increase inexternal uncertainties may be related to complexity and in order to cope with environmentalchanges, firms have strategic planning tools and information to help them formulate adequatepolicies. However, how do they know whether a firm is sufficiently equipped to sustainenvironmental information intensity without experiencing a competitive crisis? The objectiveof the paper is to identify a set of external and internal contingency factors which allowdecision makers to know when they need a CI program and what type of focuses should beincorporated into it.Understanding intelligence needsDecision maker’s needs have long been studied in the information science and intelligencefield (see for example Nicholas, 2000; Herring, 1996). Intelligence needs differ from 397
  • FRONTIERS OF E-BUSINESS RESEARCH 2004intelligence wants and requirements. Aguilar (1967, p.7) suggested that the optimal level ofinformation is the intersection of four specific, strategic information spaces: receivedinformation, wanted information, needed information and all information available fromoutside. Intelligence needs may be studied in an anticipatory way, which means that theintention is to detect them at an early stage. This method allows new information need to bedetected and prevents information gaps. A cursory review of literature suggests that there aretwo general approaches used to study corporate and decision maker’s needs. They are:ExtrapolationThe decision maker’s intelligence needs are established by asking direct questions or elicitingthem during interviews. For instance, the “key intelligence topics” (KITs) protocol, suggestedby Herring (1999), where decision makers are asked to specify the kind of strategic decisionthey will need to take within six months, the type of surprise they hope to anticipate or thekey players or factor they wish to follow, is applied in order to understand the nature of theinformation required. In addition to KITs, Herring observed that intelligence requirements canbe identified either in a proactive or responsive mode. Moreover, some decision maker’sneeds can also be detected from an anthropologist’s perspective, by observing managers andreviewing the documents they use (Fahey, 1999, p.494), for instance. This indirect techniquecan be applied to study either senior or middle management intelligence needs during theyear. Typically, the extrapolation approach employs primary sources.EndorsementRefers to a method which detects corporate and individual needs by studying corporate andbusiness strategy, objectives and purposes. For example, “key success factors” (KSF) studiedby Daniel (1961), Rockfort & Bullen (1981), Leidecker & Bruno (1984) establish which keymanagement activities require the attention of the company information system (Tyson 1998;Hussey and Jenster, 1999 p.79). KSF can be tailored to the decision-maker position and canbe defined by looking at managerial goals and priorities or applied to all firms in the samesector representing the prerequisite factors for those firms wishing to start a venture in thatspecific context. On the other hand, KSF can be applied at business or product level.Nevanlinna (1997, p.88-89) discussed the fact that the best method for understanding decisionmaker’s needs may be to study the firm’s core business. Prescott (2001, p.9) considers that CIneeds can be determined using market events. Hill (1993, p.59) introduced the concept of the“order-winners” and “qualifiers” whereby the marketing and production manager shouldmonitor the goods- or service-related factors which win contracts and qualify the company aspotential supplier to a client.Both approaches may detect the implicit needs of decision makers. Even if managers agree onthe value of good information, which allows them to take better decisions and so accomplishstrategic or tactical objectives, they do not have sufficient knowledge to recognize their needs.However, both approaches may fail to detect corporate CI needs at an early stage. McGonagleand Vella (2002, p.61) consider that “one of the major problems facing CI professionals isthat they often do not have a clear understanding of what their internal clients really need interms of delivered competitive intelligence”. The difficulty of evaluating managerial needsand the central role they play in this process allows the discussion to introduce the concept ofthe organization’s cognitive dissonance which is procured through manager assumption andcognitive limitation. 398
  • FRONTIERS OF E-BUSINESS RESEARCH 2004Understanding decision maker blind spotsA cursory review of the literature on competitive intelligence and organizational behaviour,shows that managers are not always aware of or do not pay sufficient attention to the externalbusiness environment. Organizations often suffer from information cognitive limitation,myopia or competitive blindness (Levitt, 1960; Zajac and Bazerman, 1991; Zahra andChaples, 1993, Gilad, Gordon and Sudit; 1993; Gilad, 1994; Wright et al. 2002; Fleisher &Bensoussan 2003). Watkins and Bazerman (2003), for instance, discussed the human“psychological vulnerabilities” as a cause of poor management decision and the study byWright et al.(2002) described the “immune attitude” towards CI from the external perspectiveof several UK firms.Corporate illness can occur for several reasons. Andrew (1971 p.60) considers that “thecorporate strategist is usually at least intuitively aware of the features of the currentenvironment about him”. Managerial blind spots or corporate myopia can have differentforms. Gilad (1994, p.19) identified three main causes of business blind spots: unchangedassumptions, corporate myths and corporate taboos, which refer to the idea that decisionmakers have wrong ideas regarding the external environment and even regarding the companyitself. Porter (1980, p.58-59) described two main assumptions which competitors can make:about the firm itself and about the industry and other firms. For instance, in a Swedishelectrical company “there was very little that inspired the members of the organization tomonitor the environment in a wider perspective. The coming deregulation of the energymarket was not a “reality” for most of them, even though they all could read about it in thenewspapers” (Hamrefors, 1998b). Management blind spots not only refer to the limiteddetection of intelligence needs but also to the failure to understand the benefit of CI (Wrightet al.2002).Understanding the paradoxAs has been discussed previously, the decision maker is one main component which interactswith the understanding of corporate needs. However, there are other elements which mayinfluence organizational needs. Figure 1 shows the possible factors and activities whichinteract within the firm and which characterize the type and nature of the business informationflow. For instance, Choo (2002, p.104) defined three key elements which affect the scanningbehaviour of the decision maker: “situation dimensions”, which refers to the perception ofmanagers, “managerial traits”, which refers to the position of the manager in the organizationand “organization strategy” which refers to the organization itself. This paragraph discussesthose factors which can help to reveal why decision makers can misperceive the value and theneed for a CI program. Three key issues will be described as follows:Issue 1 – CI and decision makersOne of the first issues to arise is which elements have the most important role in theinformation scanning process. The decision maker is the central element, playing the mainrole in the information process and is also responsible for the evaluation of the CI program. Itis alleged that the relationships between the decision makers, the organization and the externalenvironment affect the information acquisition process. The idea here is that managers filter, 399
  • FRONTIERS OF E-BUSINESS RESEARCH 2004process, and categorize the information coming from the environment. Figure 1 shows howmanagers play a central role by demanding intelligence and perceiving the benefits ofintelligence. As has been observed previously, intelligence needs are significantly influencedby personal judgments or beliefs.Issue 2 – CI and performanceThe second issue relates to the benefits of the CI function. Scientific literature states that thereis a positive relationship between CI and the performance of an organization (Miller andFriesen, 1977; Newgren, 1984; Dollinger, 1984; West, 1988; Daft, et al., 1988; Olsen,Murthy and Teare, 1994; Cappel and Boone, 1995; Elenkov, 1997; Ahituv, et al, 1998;Prescott, 2001, p.1; Wright et al., 2002; Suddaby; 2004 and Hughes, 2004). Studies show that 3. Firms with a formal CI CI is related to Studies show that a program small number of performance companies formally adopts CI 2. Organization 1. Decision Makers (DMs) Performance Needs, perceptions and Blind spots Performance helps DMs understand the DMs decide when to adopt a importance of the CIP formal CI program 4. Firms with NO formal CI programFigure 1. The circular interaction of the decision maker’s needs, perceptions and blind spots.Issue 3 – CI and the adoption rate in the firmsThe third issue deals with the fact that empirical investigations have shown that a smallnumber of companies have formalized CI (Ganesh, Miree and Prescott 2003, Tena andComai, 2004). The study by Tena and Comai (2004a), for instance, found that 50% of 164Catalan multinationals have no formalized system. A similar result was found by Preble, Rau,and Reichel (1988) who assessed that only 51 percent of multinational corporations had anyformal process where executives regularly monitored publications. Anecdotic observationconfirms these findings for North American and European companies (Fuld&Company,2003). Other studies show that companies are increasing their activities in the informationacquisition process or business intelligence activity (Hannula and Pirttimäki, 2002).Considering the positive relationship between CI and performance there is no reason why anorganisation should not apply CI. 400
  • FRONTIERS OF E-BUSINESS RESEARCH 2004Research questionsWhile there is a significant amount of literature on information needs (see Ashill and Jobber,2001), few studies have been devoted to the company itself, using a complete externalperspective to ascertain whether or not the firm needs a CI program (see Ryamond, Julien andRamangalby, 2001). In other words, the paper deals with the “why” part of implementing aformalized environmental scanning process rather than focusing on the “what” and “how”,normally dealt with by specialised literature (Prescott, 2001, p.2-3). This section focuses ontwo central questions and relative objectives concerning what contingency factors are relevantin the understanding of the tacit need for a CIP.Question 1: Should companies employ a formalized CI program?A review of literature shows that different perspectives are involved in the definition of aformalized CI program. Thomas (1980), for instance, defined the scanning practicecharacteristics as: 1) continuous over time, 2) applied in the annual planning cycle, and 3)used by the whole organization. Key words stemming from research carried out to date are:coordinated (Mark, 1997; APQC, 2000), ongoing or systematic process (APQC, 2000;Hannula and Pirttimäki, 2002) centralized (Cleland & King 1975) with a defined process inplace (Prescott and Gibbons, 1993; Hirshorn, 2004), have an analytical capability (Mark,1997) integrated to strategic planning process (Tena and Comai, 2003), the environmentshould be continuously scanned (Andrew, 1971, p.77), at least a full time equivalent specialistdedicated to do the activity (Tena and Comai, 2004b) any level should receive and benefitfrom intelligence (Andrew, 1971, p.193) level of resources dedicated (Tena and Comai,2001). Independently from the definition, a level or degree of this formalization can beperceived as a way of establishing the CI effort, which relates to two research objectives.Objective 1: Define which external environmental factors are positively related to the needfor a formal CI program.The paper assumes that the external environment is one of the contingency factors whichallows an understanding of the corporate CI needs. Beldona, Habib and Inkepen (1997, pp.72) argue that the degree of variety in an industry is directly related to competitiveintelligence needs. For example, Pacific Enterprises started up a CI unit in order to cope withthe rapid changes in its environment (APQC, 1997, pp.48). However, little work has beendevoted to understanding which set of contingency factors is related to the needs of a CIP.Objective 2: Define which organizational factors are positively related to the need for aformal CI program.Organizational characteristics are also key elements influencing the intelligence activity.However, there is no literature which discusses the following topic even though anecdoticobservation and other studies indicate a positive relationship between the organizationalcharacteristics and the degree of CI formalization. 401
  • FRONTIERS OF E-BUSINESS RESEARCH 2004Question 2: Which contingency factors are related to the CI function characteristic?Objective 3: Study the positive relationship between the degree of each factor and the type ofCI function characteristic.Contingency factors can have a significant influence on manager attention and, therefore, onscanning behaviour. For instance, Prescott (2001, p.3) considers that a CI program isdetermined by market and non-market forces. Nevanlinna (1997, p. 69, 113-120) concluded inhis company case study on Nokia, that competitive environment and company culture have aninfluence on strategic option with regard to the CI function characteristic. Moreover,McGonagle and Vella (2002, p.61), who linked several external traits to the CI function,consider that “not every company can afford to do all types” of competitive intelligence,which relates to the idea that there are several priorities depending on the type of organizationand/or the type of industry with or in which the firm is competing.The framework: external and internal contingencies and competitiveintelligence program characteristicsTraditionally, internal and external are the two main environments used when analysing thestrategic position of a firm in terms of its own resources and capabilities in comparison withthe rest of the sector. Several studies have adopted this perspective in order to develop atheory or prove a hypothesis. The recent empirical study developed by Peyrot, et al. (2002),suggested that (1) environmental complexity (competitors, clients, products, suppliers) and(2) organization marketing size are central elements influencing decision-maker attitudestowards the use of CI. This part of the paper defines a set of the external and internal factorsrelating to the CI function. The research adopts the framework described in figure 2 to discusstwo different contingency factor sources and their dependent variables:- external environment, which describes the general, competitive and commercial environment.- internal environment, which describes the organizational characteristics.- the CI program characteristic which defines the type of scanning process required for the particular organization in the specific context. 402
  • FRONTIERS OF E-BUSINESS RESEARCH 2004 External Internal Environment Environment CI program CharacteristicFigure 2. The research frameworkExternal environment characteristicsIn the discussion so far, it has been observed that specialized and strategic managementliterature has paid a substantial amount of attention to management with regard toenvironmental traits and the scanning process (see, for example: Aguilar, 1967; Hambrick,1981, Sammon, et. al 1984, Porter, 1980, Daft et al., 1988; Sawyer, 1993; Lang et al., 1997;Elenkov 1997).Although there are significant studies on the independent variables and how these forcesshould be analysed, little attention was given to other traits which seem to be positive inrelation to the information gathering activity. Little work has been dedicated to ascertainingwhich variables have sufficient weight to stimulate the company into adopting a proactiveapproach regarding the scanning of the environment. A review of literature (Miree andPrescott, 2000, p.219; APQC, 2000, p.60-61; McGonagle and Vella, 2002, p.61-88) revealedthat there are some industry contingencies which affect the coordination of CI activities in thesales and marketing function, such as, for instance: regulation, information characteristics orlevels of competition which create barriers or simplify the work of the CI unit. McGonagleand Vella (2002, p.61-88), for instance, defined an exhaustive list of 19 contingency factorsdivided into 5 different competitive environment categories. Others, such as Ansoff andMcDonnell (1990, p.71) proposed 21 characteristics for estimating the profitability of astrategic business unit. Another significant contribution was provided by Ryamond, Julienand Ramangalaby (2001) who have identified the relative importance of certain external andinternal factors which determine “the nature and the level” of the technological scanningactivity of small Canadian firms. This work demonstrated which external and internalattributes positively affect the way in which firms gather, analyse and distribute informationand how it is positively related to an increase in scanning activity. However, the question as towhether an increase in scanning activity is related to an increase in needs has not so far beenanswered. The following characteristic describes the principal factors of this particularenvironment affecting competitive intelligence programs: 403
  • FRONTIERS OF E-BUSINESS RESEARCH 2004Industry growth intensity: Firms which are in growing markets are likely to need a CIfunction.Industry life cycle may have a positive relationship with the efforts dedicated to CI (Tena andComai, 2001). Markets which are in the growth stage of their life cycle tend to be morecomplex. New contenders can be attracted, new customer segments will be developed andachieved and products will change rapidly. At the same time, a growing market will attractnew players. In a recent survey of PricewaterhouseCoopers it was ascertained that “fast-growth CEOs report that business information on major competitors is more important todaythan it was a year ago.” (PWC, 2002). The assessment of markets as attractive and profitablesuggests that companies must reinforce their strategy and observe possible new competitors.However, other industrial stages may be related to different kinds of CI needs (Tena andComai, 2001).Industry Rivalry Intensity: Firms which are competing with high level of industry rivalry arelikely to need a CI function.Firms which are in concentrated markets, where players are well identifiable and have asubstantial market share, such as pharmaceutical, automotive, semiconductor, airline,telecommunications, investment banking, bulk chemical or petroleum (Saloner, et al., 2001;p.185), for example, may need a sophisticated CI system. Several studies (APQC; 1999; 2000,2001) show a higher presence of coordinated CI Units in these industries. Nevanlinna (1997,p.70-74) also observed the important connection between level of competition in thetelecommunications industry and competitor monitor system type. Du Toit, (1998) considersthat competitor intensity refers to the number and type of companies competing. Thiscategory may consider the number of direct substitutes or the degree of concentration ofcompetitors in the market as suggested by McGonagle and Vella (2002, p.66).Regulation Intensity: Firms which are in free (non-regulated) economies are likely to need aCI function.The more regulated the industry or the markets, the less formalized the CI needed. Oster(1999, p. 44-47) argues the key importance of governments in affecting industry profitability.The liberalization process developed from free economies which also have a significantimpact on globalisation. For example, energy or telecommunications have undergone atransition from protected to free market. No regulated market reduces the barrier to accessinginformation enormously and, simultaneously, the value of the information also increases. Thecase of Telecordia Technology, for instance, shows the regulation effects and CI activity(APQC, 2000, p.24). McGonagle and Vella (2002, p.63) consider that those companies whichface low levels of regulation will have a CI impact.Globalisation Intensity: Firms which are affected by a globalisation pressure are likely toneed a CI function.Globalisation may arise as a result of government action on trade barriers. As a result,globalisation will create new market availability and, simultaneously, new opportunities andthreats in the industry. Indeed, globalization seems to be one of the main reasons forestablishing a CI function (Kahaner, 1997, p.29-30; Coburn, 1999, p.3-4;). This determinanthas a propensity to increase the amount of information required in order to adopt a systematicintelligence process. 404
  • FRONTIERS OF E-BUSINESS RESEARCH 2004Industry barrier level: Firms which compete with low levels of industry barrier are likely toneed a CI functionThe competence or capabilities of a firm, such as tangible and intangible capital, economy ofscale, skills, and so on are required by markets. If markets do not require particular resources,it means that the entry barriers are weak. Indeed, if no special requirements were made bymarkets, firms acting in that particular market would be vulnerable. For instance, Coburn(1999) argued that technology can be a determining barrier and that a reduction of itintensifies the competitive arena. Firms which are not able to improve their competence andcapabilities, if required, may be threatened from other contenders outside the particularindustrial system. Entry barriers and potential and substitute firms were suggested by the fiveforces model (Porter, 1980). McGonagle and Vella (2002, p.64-66) consider that thosecompanies which are in markets with moderate entry or exit barriers will have the greatestbottom-line CI impact.Level of technical innovation: Firms which compete with high technology products are likelyto need a CI function.Technology intelligence as a response to technology intensity has been analysed by severalauthors (Ashton and Klavans, 1997; Coburn, 1999; Raymond, et al., 2001) and seems to bepositively related to the need for a CI program (Kahaner, 1997, p.31). The result of theresearch into the technology scanning process in small firms developed by Raymond, et al.(2001, p.134) found that the “technology characteristic significantly affects scanningactivity”. Firms must be able to develop technology in order to leapfrog competitive productsand so respond to customer needs. Certain “disruptive” technologies are considerablyeffective when it comes to outwitting the firm’s products (Christensen and Raynor, 2003).However, some technologies can be suitable for other markets or industries. Cantrell (1998)stressed this point whereby the technology of a firm can also represent a possible threat to oropportunity for those companies which have the same technology or where the technologycan satisfy the same customer need in a specific market. APQC (2001) shows that firms withproducts incorporating a high level of technology have been adopting competitive technicalintelligence programs.Industry Network Intensity: Firms which are in low Industry network intensity are likely toneed a CI function.The network may correspond to the nature and intensity of the relationships between theexternal environments. It has been commonly accepted that firms have little capacity forcontrolling the more remote environments such as economy and social behaviour and othereventualities. Allaire and Firsirotu (1989) defined that activities such as lobbying for andagainst the law and corporate social responsibilities and/or negotiation, are actions used byfirms against governments with stakeholders, in order to cope with external globaluncertainties. In contrast, there are other environments where firms have some degree ofcontrol over the players, in the form of the management of competitors and customerrelations. Fahey and King (1977) “characterized environmental scanning as the process ofseeking and collecting information about events and relationships in a companysenvironment”. The network wants to focus on the boundaries between players and theirparticular roles. Andrew (1971, p.70) considers that “the complexity of a company’senvironment begins to appear more manageable as its relationship to other organizations andindividuals is sorted out”. However, the intention here is not to analyse the implication of 405
  • FRONTIERS OF E-BUSINESS RESEARCH 2004networks but to indicate that the existence between players of a type of network willsignificantly affect information availability and accessibility. The number of businessnetworks, whatever type they may be, seems to have a positive relationship with informationavailability. Alliance and business networks provide the firm with a rich informationenvironment (Koka, Prescott; 2002). Fuld (1995) suggests that when capital is exchanged,information will also be exchanged.Organizational characteristicsThe following are the descriptions of several internal factors which interfere with the need fora CI program.Technology intensity in products or manufacturing process: Firms which produce goods witha high level of technology are likely to need a CI function.Technology intensity in the product or manufacturing process may be associated with a needfor intelligence. In a recent study developed by Hannula and Pirttimäki (2002), allinformation and communication technology (ICT) firms among the 50 largest Finnishcompanies were found to have reported having a systematic CI program. A survey ofCanadian R&D Companies made by Calof (1999) also found that the use of CompetitiveTechnical Intelligence was developed systematically in 59% of the companies surveyed.Level of Vertical Integration: Firms which are less integrated vertically are likely to need aCI function.Vertical integration represents the level of power in the entire value chain. Integratedcompanies tend to build a better manageable environment around them and therefore have abetter control not only with regard to the process but also with regard to information. Fuld(1995, p.32) considers that highly integrated firms will control contacts and sources ofinformation on supply and distribution.Level of diversification: Firms which operate in several Strategic Business Units (SBU) arelikely to need a CI function.As specified by Kotler (1997) or Walker, Boyd and Larréché (1995) a SBU will have adefined set of competitors, can be planned separately from the company and will haveindependent factors affecting profit. The more SBUs a company has, the more it will need acoordinated information system capable of coordinating its businesses portfolio. The type ofbusiness a firm may operate is also related to the type of CI function. For instance, the degreeto which a CI program is centralized will depend on the resources which can be shared acrossthe business (Prescott, 2001, p.6).Export Intensity: Firms which are heavy exporters are likely to need a CI functionFirms which are active in new markets need to understand those markets and a CI program istherefore needed. Exporting companies conduct competitive intelligence in a more systematicmanner (Viviers and Miller, 2004). Finnish export companies, for instance, with their smalldomestic market, have invested extensively in CI programs in order to gain an understandingof new profitable markets (Hirvensalo, 2004). 406
  • FRONTIERS OF E-BUSINESS RESEARCH 2004Organization size: Large firms are likely to need a CI function.The absence of an intelligence function, and therefore the cost of making mistakes, may havea greater impact on large firms and therefore on firms which have invested more resources inbusinesses. Studies showed that large companies usually have systematic CI in place (Pirttilä,1997; APQC, 1999; Prescott and Miller, 2001; Hannula and Pirttimäki, 2002; Tena andComai, 2004a and 2004b).CI function characteristicA large section of literature focuses on categorising the type of intelligence used in the firm(Fuld, 1995;Tyson, 1998; Marceau and Sawka, 1999, APQC,1999, 2000 and 2001; Prescottand Miller, 2001; McGonagle and Vella, 2002 and 2003; Hannula and Pirttimäki, 2004).McGonagle and Vella (2002, p.7) and Prescott (2001), for instance, suggested several areaswhere the type of intelligence function is different. The way that a CI program is organizedcan differ between firms. The following are six characteristics which define the CI function inthe organization and which represent the dependent variable in the research framework (seeFigure 2).Process (spot, project, systematic)This dimension describes the degree of formalization of the CI function in an organization.The more systematic the function the more formalized the function will be. The CI processrelates to the process of defining needs and collecting, analysing and distributing theintelligence to decision makers. Fahey and King (1977) defined 3 types of process: theirregular, which represents the ad hoc study, the regular process which is defined as aperiodically updated study and finally the continuous collection process. Other authorsdedicated significant resources to it (Aguilar, 1967). Generally speaking, CI activities can beperformed in three primary approaches. 1. Spot which means that intelligence is required onan irregular basis and no staff are dedicated to the CI function. 2. The project process, whichmeans that the activity is performed by specific corporate or decision-maker request and mustbe achieved within a definite period of time (see Prescott and Smith, 1987). In this particularcase the intelligence project is supervised by specialised staff. 3. Finally, the systematicprocess involves ongoing scanning of the environment, analysing the information anddistributing the intelligence throughout the organization. This kind of process includesdifferent intelligence products each of which can have a specific time frame (Prescott andWilliams, 2003).Position (centralized, decentralized, hybrid)There are several options for locating the CI function within the organization (Prescott andMiller, 2001). Empirical studies (APQC, 1999; 2000 and 2001) demonstrated that there canbe as many as seven different positions within the company. However, three centralclassifications for the CI function can be adopted: centralized (APQC, 2000, p.77;McGonagle and Vella, 2003, p.31-32; Cobb; 2003), decentralized (McGonagle and Vella,2003, p.31-32; Ngamkroeckjoti, and Johri, 2000) and diffused (Fuld, 1995, p.420-422). 407
  • FRONTIERS OF E-BUSINESS RESEARCH 2004Level (tactical, business, strategic, corporate)It is commonly accepted that that there are three main decision-making levels: the tactical oroperational, the business unit and the corporate planning level. For each category there is aspecific group of decision makers each with a specific type of CI need. - Tactical orientation consists of achieving CI bottom-line impact (McGonagle and Vella, 2002). British Telecom, for instance, has a strong tactical orientation in the CI group specializing in monitoring other players with lower rates (Prescott and Williams, 2003). Tactical CI is valuable for different kinds of managers such as brand managers, for instance, who can achieve a significant impact from it. - Business level refers to the intermediate management position in the company and the CI program will satisfy the intelligence needs of business managers. Procter & Gamble, for instance, which in the past had its business evaluated from just one perspective, has now been taking a more business-like approach and analysing its entire portfolio (APQC, 1999, p.22). - Finally, the strategic perspective of CI was widely argued by Sammon et al. (1984, p. 15) and Vella (1988, p. 19-28). For instance, Compaq Computer Corporation allocates CI resources primarily to the strategic decision-making process (APQC, 2000). Anecdotic observation shows that there are firms which apply strategic and corporate intelligence primarily. Baron (1995) and Fleisher (1999) discussed the importance of the non-market forces such as governments, interest groups, activists or the general public, as potential variables to be managed at the corporate level.Location (Marketing, Finance and Technology)Location relates to the area of CI specialization. It has been generally accepted that there are 3main areas of intelligence (APQC, 1999, 2000, 2001): - Marketing intelligence, introduced by Kelley (1968) will be one of the major sources of CI and will grow considerably within the firm. For instance, the last survey by Tena and Comai (2003) shows that for 53.3% of the Catalan multinationals surveyed, marketing is the most dominant location for the CI unit. - Technical intelligence refers to the dominant use of science and competitive technical intelligence (Ashton and Kalvans, 1997; Norling et al, 2000). Typically technology intelligence includes patent and other sources analysis which should suggest technological trends, opportunities and threats for R&D departments. - Financial intelligence is very common in those organizations which are financially business oriented. BP for instance is very financially oriented and thus differs from other companies even within the same sector (APQC, 2003 p.25).Time Span (short, medium or long term)The time span characteristic refers to the time factor associated with the information. Short-term and future oriented data needs were suggested by Herring (1999). Decision makers needto survey current and potential players in the competitive environment. By this Herring meansthat the intelligence function should build and maintain specific profiles according to theorganizational need. On the other hand, future oriented CI has also been discussed abundantlyin specialized and strategic management literature (Sammon, et al, 1984, p.114; Fahey andRandall, 1997; Herring, 1999; Gilad, 2003; Prescott and Williams, 2003). This type of 408
  • FRONTIERS OF E-BUSINESS RESEARCH 2004intelligence tends to be prospective and anticipate the environment using the weak signals itreceives.Object (competitors, consumer, general landscape and stakeholder)Finally, this dimension includes the research topic. A review of literature shows that there aretwo common terms associated with CI: competitor intelligence focusing primarily on thecompetition (Porter, 1980; Fahley, 1999, Sammon, et al. 1984; Fuld, 1995; Hussey andJenster, 1999) and, on the other hand, competitive intelligence focusing on the broaderenvironment (Prescott and Gibbons, 1993; Day et al., 1997, Oster, 1999; Prescott and Miller,2001; Fleisher and Bensoussan, 2003). However, CI can be used to study other particularissues such as the consumer (Aaker, 1998), for example, or the stakeholders, as suggested byFreeman (1984) who defined it as “any group or individual who can affect or is affected bythe achievement of the organization’s objectives”.ConclusionThe proposed research is to generate a set of critical questions to which the organizationshould give some thought and consideration before setting up the CIP. Indeed, theorganization should be able to pre-evaluate the CIP project by looking at a set of keycontingency factors using external and internal information. The research objective is todevelop an instrument to detect CI corporate hidden needs and to evaluate whether thecompany needs to formalize environmental scanning by adopting a CI program. Moreover,the firm will be able to detect which type of CIP is more suited to the context in which thecompany is currently operating.ReferencesAaker, D. A. (1998), Developing Business Strategy. John Wiley & Sons.Aguilar, F. J. (1967), Scanning the Business Environment. Toronto, Collier-Macmillan.Ahituv, N. Zif, J. and I. Machlin (1998). “ Environmental scanning and information systems in relation to success in introducing new products,” Information & Management 33(4): 201-211.Allaire, Y. and Firsirotu, M. E. (1989), “Coping with strategic uncertainty”. Sloan Management Review, Spring, pp. 7-16Andrew, K. R. (1971), The Concept of Corporate Strategy. Down Jones-Irwin, Homewood, IL.Ansoff, H.I. and McDonnell, E. (1990) Implanting Strategic Management, 2nd ed., New York: Prentice Hall.APQC (1997), Competitive and Business Intelligence Best-Practice Report. Consortium benchmarking study conducted by APQC in partnership with the Society of Competitive Intelligence Professionals (SCIP) ( (1999), Strategic and Tactical CI for Sales and Marketing. Huston, APQC.APQC (2000), Managing Developing a Successful Competitive Program. Huston, APQC.APQC (2001), Using Science and Technology. Huston, APQC.APQC (2003) User-Driven Competitive Intelligence: Crafting the Value Proposition. Huston, APQC.Ashill, N. J. and Jobber, D. (2001). “Defining the information needs of senior marketing executive: an exploratory study,” Qualitative Market Research 4(1): 52-60.Ashton W. B. and R. A. Kalvans, (1997) Keeping Abreast of Science and Technology. Columbus, Battelle. 409
  • FRONTIERS OF E-BUSINESS RESEARCH 2004Baron, D. P. (1995). “The Non Market Strategy System,” Sloan Management Review 37(1): 73-85.Beldona, S.; Chaganti, R.; Habib, M. M. and Inkpenpage , A. C. (1997). “Industry Variety, Life-Cycle Stages, and Performance: A Dynamic Perspective," Competitive Intelligence Review 8(4): 65- 74.Calof, J. L. (1999). Survey of Canadian R&D Companies: Awareness and Use of Competitive Technical Intelligence in Canadian Technology-Intensive Industry. NRC/CISTI.Cantrell, R. (1998), The Six Angles of Competition, Competitive Intelligence Review, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 51-57.Cappel, J.J. and J.P. Boone. (1995). “A Look at the Link between Competitive Intelligence and Performance,” Competitive Intelligence Review 6(2):15-23Choo, C. W. (2002), Information Management for the Intelligent Organization: The Art of Scanning the Environment. Medford, NJ: Information Today.Christensen, C.M. & Raynor, M.E. 2003. The Innovators Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth. Boston, HarvardCleland, D. I. and W. R. King (1975) “Competitive Business Intelligence System”. Business Horizons, 18(6): 19-28.Cobb, P. (2003) “Competitive Intelligence through Data Mining”. Journal of Competitive Intelligence and Management. Vol. 1 No. 3 , pp.80-89Coburn, M. M. (1999) Competitive technical intelligence: a guide to design, analysis and action. Oxford University Press.Daft, R. L., Sormunen, J. and Parks, D. (1988), “Chief executive scanning, environmental characteristics, and company performance: An empirical study.” Strategic Management Journal. 9(2):123-139Daniel, D. R. (1961), “Management Information Crisis”. Harward Business Review, September- October, pp. 111Darveau, L. (2001), “Forecasting an Acquisition: 5 Steps to Help You See It Coming”. Competitive Intelligence Magazine, Vol. 4, No. 1Day, G. S, Reibstein, D. J. and Gunter, R. E. (1997), Wharton on dynamic competitive strategy. John Wiley & Sons.Dollinger, M. J. (1984). “Environmental boundary spanning and information processing effects on organizational performance”. Academy of Management Journal 27 (2), 351-368.Du Toit, A. (1998). “Information Management in South African Manufacturing Enterprises,” International Journal of Information Management 18(3): 205-213.Elenkov, D. S. (1997). “Environmental scanning systems and performance: an empirical study of Russian companies”. The Journal of Management Development, 16(2): 111-124Fahey, L. & Randall, R. 1997. Learning from the Future: Competitive Foresight Scenarios. John Wiley and SonsFahey, L. & Randall, R. 1997. Learning from the Future: Competitive Foresight Scenarios. John Wiley and SonsFahey, L. (1999), Competitors: outwitting, outmanoeuvring, and outperforming. New York, John Wiley & SonsFahey, L. and King, W. R. (1977), “Environmental Scanning for Corporate Planning”. Business Horizons, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 61-71.Fleisher, C. S. (1999) “Public Policy Competitive Intelligence”. Competitive Intelligence Review, Vol. 10(2) 23–36Fleisher, C. S and Bensoussan, B. (2003), “Why is Analysis Performed so Poorly?”. Chapter nine in Fleisher, C. S. Blenkhorn, D. L. (ed.) Controversies in Competitive Intelligence. Westport, Praeger Pubblishers.Freeman, E.R. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston, MA.: Ballinger.Fuld&Company (2003) Intelligence technology: A Consumer Showcase. Presented at SCIP conference Anaheim.Fuld, L. M. (1995), The New Competitor Intelligence: The Complete Resource for Finding, Analyzing, and Using Information About Your Competitors. New York, John Wiley & Sons 410
  • FRONTIERS OF E-BUSINESS RESEARCH 2004Galvin, R. W. (1997). “Competitive Intelligence at Motorola,” Competitive Intelligence Review 8(1): 3-7.Ganesh, U.; Miree, C. E. and Prescott, J. (2003). “Competitive Intelligence Field Research: Moving the Field Forward by Setting a Research Agenda,” Journal of Competitive Intelligence and Management 1(1): 1-12.Gilad, B. (1994), Business Blindspots. Chicago, Probus Publishing CompanyGilad, B. (2003) Early Warning. New York, AMACOMGilad, B., Gordon, G and E. Sudit (1993). Identifying gaps and blind spots in competitive intelligence,” Long Range Planning 26(6): 107-113.Hambrick, D. C. (1981). “Specialization of environmental scanning activities among upper level executives,” Journal of Management Studies 18(3): 299-320.Hamrefors (1998a). “Spontaneous Environmental Scanning,” Competitive Intelligence Review 9(3): 68–75.Hamrefors (1998b). “Spontaneous Environmental Scanning, Part Two: Empirical Findings and Implications for the Organizing of Competitive Intelligence,” Competitive Intelligence Review 9(4): 73–83.Hannula, M and V. Pirttimäki. (2002). “Business Intelligence - Empirical Study on the top 50 Finnish Companies”. Frontiers of e-Business Research 2002, pp. 121-135Hannula, M and V. Pirttimäki. (2004). “A Cube of Business Information”. Presented at SCIP04 International Conference & Exhibit, March 22-25, Boston.Herring, J. P. (1996), Measuring Effective Intelligence: Meeting the Management Communication Challenge. Alexandria, SCIP.Herring, J. P. (1999), “Key Intelligence Topics: a Process to Identify and Define Intelligence Needs". Competitive Intelligence Review 10(2): 4-14.Hill, T. (1993), Manufacturing Strategy. Hampshire, McMillan Press.Hirshorn, B. (2004) “Building a CI Process that Drives Business Success”. General Session & Keynote Address at SCIP04 International Conference & Exhibit, March 22-25, Boston.Hirvensalo, I. (2004) “Competitive Intelligence in Finland”. Journal of Competitive Intelligence and Management. Vol. 2, No.2, pp.22-37Hughes, S. (2004), “The Link Between CI, Strategy and Performance”. Presented at SCIP04 International Conference & Exhibit, Boston.Hussey, D. and P. Jenster (1999) Competitor Intelligence: Turning Analysis into Success. Wiley.Kahaner, L. (1997). Competitive intelligence. New York: Simon & SchusterKelley, W. (1968) Marketing Intelligence. London, Staples Press.Koka, B. R. and Prescott, J. E. (2002), "Strategic alliance as social capital: a multidimensional view". Strategic Management Journal, .23(9): 795-816.Kotler, P. (1997) Marketing Management, Prentice Hall.Krizan, L. (1999). Intelligence Essentials for Everyone.Lang, J.R., Calatone, R.J. and Gudmundson, D. (1997), “Small firm information seeking as a response to environmental threats and opportunities”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 35, pp. 11-23.Leidecker, J. K. & Bruno, A. V. (1984), “Identifying and using critical success factors”. Long Range Planning, February, pp.23-32Levitt T. (1960) “Marketing myopia,” Harvard Business Review 38:45–56.Marceau, S. & Sawka, K. 1999. Developing a World-Class CI Program in Telecoms. Competitive Intelligence Review. Vol. 10. No. 4, 30-40Mark, D. (1997) “Competitive Intelligence and the Corporate Jewels,” Competitive Intelligence Review 8(3):62–70.McGonagle, J. J. y C. M. Vella (2003). The manager’s Guide to Competitive Intelligence . Westport, Quorum Books.McGonagle, J.J. and C.M. Vella (2002) Botton Line Competitive Intelligence. Westport, Quorum Book. 411
  • FRONTIERS OF E-BUSINESS RESEARCH 2004Miller, D. & Friesen, P. H. (1977). Strategy-making in context: ten empirical archetypes. Journal of Management Studies, 14 (3) 253-280.Miree, C. J. and J. E., Prescott (2001) “TAP-IN to Strategic and Tactical Intelligence in the Sales and Marketing Function” . Capter in Miller and Prescott….Nevanlinna, J. (1997). Competitor Intelligence System in an Industrial Company. Master thesis, Institute of Strategy and International Business, Helsinki University of Technology.Newgren, Kenneth E., Rasher, Arthur A. & LaRoe, Margaret E. (1984). An empirical investigation of the relationship between environmental assessment and corporate performance. Paper read at Proceedings of the 44th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, August 12-15 1984, at Washington, DC.Ngamkroeckjoti, C. and L.M. Johri (2000). “Management of environmental scanning processes in large companies in Thailand”. Business Process Management Journal, 6 (4): 331-341.Nicholas, D. (2000). Assessing Information Needs: tools, techniques and concepts for the internet age. London, Aslib and IMINorling, P.M., Herring, J.P., Rosenkrans, W.A.Jr., Stellpflug, M. and S.B. Kaufman (2000). “Putting Competitive Technology Intelligence to Work,” Research Technology Management 43(5): 23- 28.Olsen, M.D., Murthy, B. y R. Teare, (1994). “CEO Perspectives on Scanning the Global Hotel Business Environment”. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 6(4): 3-9.Oster, S. M, (1999), Modern Competitive Analysis. New York, Oxford University Press.Peyrot, M.; Childs, N.; Van Doren, D. and Allen, K. (2002), "An empirically based model of competitor intelligence use". Journal of Business Research Vol.55 pp. 747- 758Pirttilä, A. (1997), Competitor information and competitive knowledge management in large, industrial organization. Lappeenranta University of Technology, Tieteellisiä Julkaisu, Research paper Nº 63Porter, M. E. (1980), Competitive Strategy. New York, Free pressPreble, J. F., Rau, P. A. & Reichel, A. (1988). The environmental scanning practices of U.S. multinationals in the late 1980s. Management International Review, 28(4): 4-14.Prescott, J. E and Gibbons, P. T (1993), Global Perspective on Competitive Intelligence. Alexandria, Scip.Prescott, J. E. (2001) “Introduction: Competitive intelligence –Lesson from the Trenches”. in Prescott, J.E. and Miller, S. H. (editors), Proven Strategies in Competitive Intelligence: Lesson from the Trenches. John Wiley & SonsPrescott, J. E. and Bhardwaj, G. (1995), “Competitive Intelligence Practices: A Survey”. Competitive Intelligence Review, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp.4-14Prescott, J. E. and Williams, R. (2003), User-Driven CI: Driven CI: Crafting the Value Proposition Crafting the Value Proposition. Anaheim, SCIP annual meeting presentation.Prescott, J.E. and Miller, S. H. (2001), Proven Strategies in Competitive Intelligence: Lesson from the Trenches. John Wiley & SonsPrescott, J.E., & Smith, D.C. (1987). A Project-Based Approach to Competitive Analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 8(5), 411-423.PricewaterhouseCooper (2002) “One-Third of Fast-Growth CEOs Place Higher Importance on Competitor Information Than a Year Ago”. Trendsetter Barometer of March 27, 2002.Raymond, L.; Julien, P. and C. Ramangalaby (2001), “Technological Scanning by Small Canadian Manufacturers”. Journal of Small Business Management, 39(2), pp.123-138.Rockart, J. F. and Bullen C. V. (1981), A primer on Critical Success Factor. Working paper, MIT Sloan School of Management, CISR, No. 69, pp.5Saloner, G.; Shepard, A. and J. Podolny (2001), Strategic Management. John Wiley & Sons.Sammon, W. L.; Kurland, M. A. and R. Spitalnic, (1984), Business Competitor Intelligence: Methods for Collecting, Organizing, and Using Information. John Wiley & Sons 412
  • FRONTIERS OF E-BUSINESS RESEARCH 2004Sawyer, O.O. (1993). “Environmental uncertainty and environmental scanning activities of Nigerian manufacturing executives: a comparative analysis’’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 287-99.Suddaby; R. (2004), Can Competitive Intelligence Cure Blind Spots?. Presented at SCIP04 International Conference & Exhibit, Boston.Tena, J. and A. Comai (2001). “Los propósitos de la inteligencia en la empresa: competidora, cooperativa, neutral e individual,” El profesional de la Información 10(5): 4-10.Tena, J. and A. Comai (2003). “La inteligencia competitiva en la planificación estratégica y financiera”. Harvard-Deusto Finanzas & Contabilidad, No. 56, pp.2-9.Tena, J. and A. Comai (2004a). La Inteligencia Competitiva en las Multinacionales Catalanas. Emecom, Barcelona.Tena, J. and A. Comai. (2004b). La Inteligencia Competitiva en las Mejores Prácticas Españolas. Emecom, Barcelona.Thomas, P.S. (1980). “Environmental scanning-the state of the art.” Long Range Planning, 13(1):20- 28.Tyson, K. (1998), The Complete Guide to Competitive Intelligence: gathering analyzing and using competitive intelligence. Chicago, Kirk Tyson International Ltd.Viviers, W. and M-L. Miller (2004) “The Evolution of Competitive Intelligence in South Africa: Early 1980s -2003”. Journal of Competitive Intelligence and Management. Vol. 2, No.2, pp.53-67Walker, O. C., Boyd, H. W. and J-C. Larréché (1995) Marketing Strategy. IrwinWest, J. J. (1988). Strategy, environmental scanning, and their effect upon firm performance: an exploratory study of the food service industry. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. (Ph.d. thesis)Wright, S., Pickton, D.W. & Callow, J. 2002. Competitive intelligence in UK firms: a typology. Marketing Intelligence & Planning. Vol. 20. No. 6, 349-360Zahra, S. A. and Chaples, S. S. (1993), “Blind spots in competitive analysis”. Academy of management Executive, Vol.7, No.3, pp.7-28Zajac, E. J. and Bazerman, M. H.. (1991), “Blind Spots in Industry and Competitor Analysis: Implications of Interfirm (Mis) Perceptions for Strategic Decisions” Academy of Management Review 16(1):37–56. 413
  • FRONTIERS OF E-BUSINESS RESEARCH 2004Table of ContentsVOLUME ITRACK 1 ELECTRONIZATION (DEVELOPMENT) OF BUSINESSSession 1MEASURING CUSTOMER PERCEIVED VALUE OF E-SERVICESKristina Heinonen, Tore Strandvik, Hanken - Swedish School of Economics and businessadministration ______________________________________________________________ 1WEB USERS’ OPTIMAL ON-LINE EXPERIENCE: A PROPOSED EXAMINATION OF AMATCHING HYPOTHESISFang Wan, University of Manitoba; Ning Nan, University of Michigan; Malcolm Smith,University of Manitoba _____________________________________________________ 13IMPULSE BUYING ON THE INTERNET: ENCOURAGING AND DISCOURAGINGFACTORSNina Koski, University of Tampere ____________________________________________ 23Session 2ATTRACTION OF COMPANY ONLINE COMMUNITIESMaria Mäntymäki, Tuula Mittilä, University of Tampere ___________________________ 36SOURCES OF VALUE-CREATION IN CONSUMER-ORIENTED ONLINECOMMUNITIES – RESULTS FROM A PILOT STUDYMiia Äkkinen, Virpi Kristiina Tuunainen, Helsinki School of Economics ______________ 52CRM IN THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY: AN ATTEMPT TO USE SURVIVALANALYSIS IN RETENTION AND CROSS SELLINGMaria T. Salazar, Tina Harrison, Jake Ansell, University of Edinburgh ________________ 68Session 3SERVICES, E-SERVICES AND E-SERVICE INNOVATIONS ─ COMBINATION OFTHEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGERaija Järvinen, Uolevi Lehtinen, University of Tampere ___________________________ 78THE EMERGENCE AND EVOLUTION OF E-BANKING IN SAUDI ARABIA: THECASE OF SAMBA FINANCIAL GROUPMohammed Ben-Jadeed, Alfonso Molina, University of Edinburgh __________________ 90GOING DIGITAL ─ EVOLVING DIMENSIONS OF eGOVERNMENTJyri Naarmala, University of Vaasa ___________________________________________ 107
  • FRONTIERS OF E-BUSINESS RESEARCH 2004Session 4THE RATIONALE OF FINANCIAL SHARED SERVICE CENTRES IN LOCALGOVERNMENTSTimo Hyvönen, University of Tampere; Janne Järvinen, University of Oulu; Lasse OulasvirtaUniversity of Tampere; Jukka Pellinen, University of Jyväskylä ____________________ 118DONEGAL INTEGRATED SERVICE DELIVERY PROJECT: DEVELOPING ASYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO SERVICE MODERNISATION AND THEMANAGEMENT OF CHANGETony Kieran, Donegal County Council ________________________________________ 131THE CHALLENGES OF RISK MANAGEMENT IN DIGITAL SUPPLY NETWORKSJukka Hallikas, Lappeenranta University of Technology; Iris Karvonen, VTT IndustrialSystems; Mika Ojala, Tampere University of Technology; Tony Rosqvist, VTT IndustrialSystems ________________________________________________________________ 142Session 5VIRTUAL TEAMS AS KNOWLEDGE SHARING VENUESMarja Eriksson, Satu-Marja Mäkinen, University of Tampere ______________________ 157Session 6CUSTOMER PERCEIVED QUALITY IN INNOVATIVE ELECTRONIC INSURANCESERVICES IN B2B CONTEXTAki Ahonen, University of Tampere __________________________________________ 171CONSUMER ATTITUDES AND REACTIONS TOWARDS THE USE OF PERSONALCUSTOMER INFORMATION IN MARKETINGMirella Lähteenmäki, Helsinki School of Economics _____________________________ 186A CONSTRUCTION KIT FOR THE APPLICATION OF WORKFLOW-MANAGEMENT-SYSTEMS IN PRODUCTION ENVIRONMENTSKlaus Heinz, Horst-Artur Crostack, Oliver Grimm, Reiner Sackermann, Wissem Ellouze,University of Dortmund ____________________________________________________ 200Session 7AN OUTSOURCING PARTNERSHIP MODELMarianne Kinnula, University of Oulu ________________________________________ 210THE POSSIBILITIES OF LIFE CYCLE COSTING IN OUTSOURCING DECISIONMAKINGAnni Lindholm, Petri Suomala, Tampere University of Technology _________________ 226
  • FRONTIERS OF E-BUSINESS RESEARCH 2004APPLYING THE VALUE RE-ENGINEERING FRAMEWORK TO SERVICES: ALONGITUDINAL IT OUTSOURCING CASEHeli Syväoja, IBM Finland; Kimmo Pekkola, Fujitsu Services Oy Finland ____________ 242TRACK 2 MANAGEMENT OF INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGESession 1COMPETITIVENESS OF KNOWLEDGE INTENSIVE SERVICESMarjo Haataja, Jussi Okkonen, Tampere University of Technology __________________ 255BUSINESS ECOSYSTEM AS THE NEW APPROACH TO COMPLEX ADAPTIVEBUSINESS ENVIRONMENTSMirva Peltoniemi, Elisa Vuori, Tampere University of Technology __________________ 267KNOWLEDGE-INTENSIVE BUSINESS SERVICES AND CO-PRODUCTION OFKNOWLEDGE – THE ROLE OF PUBLIC SECTOR?Jari Kuusisto, Anmari Viljamaa, SC-Research __________________________________ 282Session 2ELECTRONIC BUSINESS: DEPLOYMENT AND STRATEGIESA CASE STUDY: VACON PLC, A FINNISH MEDIUM SIZED ENTERPRISEHeidi Puurunen, Josu Takala, Vaasa University _________________________________ 299AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF THE ROLES OF INTERNET COMMUNICATION INBUSINESS RELATIONSHIPSNataša Golik Klanac, Hanken – Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration________________________________________________________________________ 315Session 3TRUST-RELATED TECHNOLOGIES FROM THE CONSUMERS POINT OF VIEW ─FEATURES SPECIFIC TO E-HEALTH SERVICESRiku Lemmetty, Kari Mäkelä, Telemedicine Laboratory, Digital Media Institute, TampereUniversity of Technology __________________________________________________ 325FRAMEWORK FOR CONSUMER RELATED TRUST ISSUES IN E-COMMERCEMinna-Kristiina Paakki, University of Tampere _________________________________ 332Session 4DEVELOPMENT OF A PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM IN AKNOWLEDGE-BASED PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONHannu Rantanen, Tuija Oikarinen, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lahti Unit __ 340
  • FRONTIERS OF E-BUSINESS RESEARCH 2004WEB-BASED BOUNDARY ELEMENTS IN THE MANAGEMENT OF INTERNAL ANDEXTERNAL COMPLEXITY IN AN INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONTHE CASE OF OUTOKUMPU COPPER PRODUCTS OCP EUROPE, EPC ELECTRICALPOWER & COMPONENTS BUSINESS LINEMarjatta Maula, Tampere University of Technology _____________________________ 347SUPPORT SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS FOR AN APPLIED COST-BENEFIT-SHARING-MODELIwo Riha, University of Dortmund; Stefan Weidt, Fraunhofer Institute of Material Flow andLogistics ________________________________________________________________ 364TRANSITIONS IN MASS CUSTOMIZATION STRATEGIES – REQUIREMENTS FORINFORMATION SYSTEMSJaakko Riihimaa, Seinäjoki Polytechnic; Mikko Ruohonen, Marko Mäkipää, University ofTampere ________________________________________________________________ 373AUTHOR INDEXVOLUME IISession 5THE ROLES OF INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL INFORMATION IN BUSINESSINTELLIGENCEVirpi Pirttimäki, Tampere University of Technology _____________________________ 385DISCOVER HIDDEN CORPORATE INTELLIGENCE NEEDS BY LOOKING ATENVIRONMENTAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL CONTINGENCIESAlessandro Comai, ESADE - University Ramon Llull ____________________________ 397THE ROLE AND TYPES OF BUSINESS INFORMATION IN DIFFERENT “SCHOOLSOF THOUGHT” OF STRATEGIC MANAGEMENTMarko Mäkipää, University of Tampere _______________________________________ 414Session 6LITERATURE RESEARCH APPROACH ON RESEARCH TOPIC: SCANNINGCOMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENTKatja Rajaniemi, ABB Oy __________________________________________________ 428Session 7ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY OF KNOWLEDGE INTENSIVE BUSINESS SERVICES: THECASE OF ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING SMESJan Waalkens, Rene Jorna, Theo Postma, University of Groningen __________________ 444
  • FRONTIERS OF E-BUSINESS RESEARCH 2004CHASING TIME IN ORGANIZATIONS – TEMPORAL STRUCTURING OF R&D WORKFROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF PRACTICESoja Ukkola, University of Lapland __________________________________________ 459MANAGEMENT OF COMMUNICATION NETWORKS IN KNOWLEDGE INTENSIVESERVICE ORGANIZATIONS – THE PERSPECTIVES OF CONDUIT AND LANGUAGEGAME MODELSMatti Koivuaho, Tampere University of Technology _____________________________ 470Session 8ARE YOU READY FOR THE RIGHT KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY:IDENTIFYING THE POTENTIAL RESTRAINS USING THE ACTION SPACEAPPROACHRoman Wong, Barry University; Tarja Tiainen, University of Tampere ______________ 480THE CONCEPT OF REGIONAL CATALYST IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DIGITALBUSINESS ECOSYSTEMEeva Salminen, eBRC; Andrea Nicolai, T6; Petri Räsänen, Technology Centre Hermia Ltd;Marko Seppä, eBRC ______________________________________________________ 491THE ROLE OF SCIENCE PARKS IN DEVELOPING COMPANY NETWORKSAnne-Mari Järvelin, Professia Ltd.; Hanna Koskela, University of Tampere ___________ 507TRACK 3 STRATEGIZING IN KNOWLEDGE SOCIETYSession 1STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT AS A PLAYKalle Pajunen, Juha Näsi, Tampere University of Technology ______________________ 520STRATEGISING IN MULTI-VOICED BUSINESS SETTINGSHanna Lehtimäki, Life Works Consulting Ltd.; Johanna Kujala, Tampere University ofTechnology ______________________________________________________________ 534EVOLVEMENT OF TRUST AND MUTUALITY IN EARLY STAGES OFINTERORGANISATIONAL COLLABORATIONJari Ylitalo, Eerikki Mäki, Kirsi Ziegler, Helsinki University of Technology __________ 546Session 2DEVELOPING MEASURES FOR MANAGERS STAKEHOLDER ORIENTATION: ABUSINESS ETHICS PERSPECTIVEJohanna Kujala, Tampere University of Technology _____________________________ 561CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN CSR REPORTSMeri Vehkaperä, University of Jyväskylä ______________________________________ 572
  • FRONTIERS OF E-BUSINESS RESEARCH 2004FOUR WAYS OF DEFINING A NARRATIVE IN BUSINESS ETHICS RESEARCHAnna-Maija Lämsä, Marianne Ekonen, University of Jyväskylä ____________________ 581Session 3BUSINESS MODELS IN THE EMERGING CONTEXT OF MOBILE ADVERTISINGHanna Komulainen, Tuija Mainela, Jaakko Sinisalo, Jaana Tähtinen, Pauliina Ulkuniemi,University of Oulu ________________________________________________________ 590BUSINESS DESIGN: THE CASE OF A DIGITAL ART STUDIOSébastien Caisse, Benoit Montreuil, CENTOR, Laval University ___________________ 606Session 4USING ONTOLOGIES FOR STRATEGIC EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS - APRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIALS AND DRAWBACKSStephan Cappallo, Sven Wiegand, University of Duisburg-Essen ___________________ 623EXECUTIVE USE OF STRATEGY TOOLS: BUILDING SHARED UNDERSTANDINGTHROUGH BOUNDARY OBJECTSSari Stenfors, Leena Tanner, Ilkka Haapalinna, Helsinki School of Economics _________ 635Session 5NETWORK CAPABILITY OF SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISESTiina Lemmetyinen, Lea Ahoniemi, Business Research and Education Centre, University ofTampere ________________________________________________________________ 646COMMUNICATION IN INTERORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION: A CASESTUDYKirsi Ziegler, Jari Ylitalo, Eerikki Mäki, Helsinki University of Technology __________ 656Session 6STRENGTHENING EMERGING INDUSTRIES IN THE LESS FAVOURED REGIONSTHROUGH “BRINGING KNOWLEDGE IN” MECHANISMKati-Jasmin Kosonen, SENTE, University of Tampere ___________________________ 670FROM CAPITAL INVESTORS TO KNOWLEDGE INVESTORS: THE RISE OFENTREPRENEURIAL VENTURE-TO-CAPITALRichard Harrison, University of Edinburgh Management School; Hannu Jungman, TampereUniversity of Technology; Marko Seppä, eBRC _________________________________ 685INSTITUTIONAL INVESTOR’S DECISION MAKING CRITERIA FOR INVESTING INVENTURE CAPITAL FUNDSHarri Kinnunen, University of Jyväskylä ______________________________________ 695
  • FRONTIERS OF E-BUSINESS RESEARCH 2004Session 7A REAL-TIME EVALUATION OF INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL, INTELLECTUALPROPERTY AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN EARLY-STAGE ON-LINEENTERPRISESGeoff Gregson, Richard Harrison, University of Edinburgh ________________________ 710TRUST OR CONTROL ─ GOVERNANCE CONCEPTS FOR VIRTUALORGANIZATIONSChristoph Lattemann, Thomas Köhler, University of Potsdam ______________________ 720KNOWLEDGE CREATION AND DISSEMINATION IN VIRTUAL ORGANIZATIONSAsta Savaneviciene, Kestutis Duoba, Kaunas University of Technology ______________ 734Session 8EXECUTION MATTERS? SEARCHING THE STRATEGY LOGIC FOR GROWTH OFYOUNG HIGH-TECHNOLOGY FIRMSJukka Ala-Mutka, Compass Management Partners Oy/Tampere University of Technology________________________________________________________________________ 744TOWARDS UNDERSTANDING SMALL FIRM INTERNATIONALISATION –TECHNOLOGY BASED SME FOCUSSanjay Bhowmick, University of Auckland ____________________________________ 758AUTHOR INDEX
  • FRONTIERS OF E-BUSINESS RESEARCH 2004Author indexAhonen, Aki 171 Lemmetyinen, Tiina 646Ahoniemi, Lea 646 Lindholm, Anni 226Ala-Mutka, Jukka 744 Lähteenmäki, Mirella 186Ansell, Jake 68 Lämsä, Anna-Maija 581Ben-Jadeed, Mohammed 90 Mainela, Tuija 590Bhowmick, Sanjay 758 Maula, Marjatta 347Caisse, Sébastien 606 Mittilä, Tuula 36Cappallo, Stephan 623 Molina, Alfonso 90Comai, Alessandro 397 Montreuil, Benoit 606Crostack, Horst-Artur 200 Mäkelä, Kari 325Duoba, Kestutis 734 Mäki, Eerikki 546, 656Ekonen, Marianne 581 Mäkinen, Satu-Marja 157Ellouze, Wissem 200 Mäkipää, Marko 373, 414Eriksson, Marja 157 Mäntymäki, Maria 36Golik Klanac, Nataša 315 Naarmala, Jyri 107Gregson, Geoff 710 Nan, Ning 13Grimm, Oliver 200 Nicolai, Andrea 491Haapalinna, Ilkka 635 Näsi, Juha 520Haataja, Marjo 255 Oikarinen, Tuija 340Hallikas, Jukka 142 Ojala, Mika 142Harrison, Richard 685, 710 Okkonen, Jussi 255Harrison, Tina 68 Oulasvirta, Lasse 118Heinonen, Kristina 1 Paakki, Minna-Kristiina 332Heinz, Klaus 200 Pajunen, Kalle 520Hyvönen, Timo 118 Pekkola, Kimmo 242Jorna, Rene 444 Pellinen, Jukka 118Jungman, Hannu 685 Peltoniemi, Mirva 267Järvelin, Anne-Mari 507 Pirttimäki, Virpi 385Järvinen, Janne 118 Postma, Theo 444Järvinen, Raija 78 Puurunen, Heidi 299Karvonen, Iris 142 Rajaniemi, Katja 428Kieran, Tony 131 Rantanen, Hannu 340Kinnula, Marianne 210 Riha, Iwo 364Kinnunen, Harri 695 Riihimaa, Jaakko 373Koivuaho, Matti 470 Rosqvist, Tony 142Komulainen, Hanna 590 Ruohonen, Mikko 373Koskela, Hanna 507 Räsänen, Petri 491Koski, Nina 23 Sackermann, Reiner 200Kosonen, Kati-Jasmin 670 Salazar, Maria T. 68Kujala, Johanna 534, 561 Salminen, Eeva 491Kuusisto, Jari 282 Savaneviciene, Asta 734Köhler, Thomas 720 Seppä, Marko 491, 685Lattemann, Christoph 720 Sinisalo, Jaakko 590Lehtimäki, Hanna 534 Smith, Malcolm 13Lehtinen, Uolevi 78 Stenfors, Sari 635Lemmetty, Riku 325 Strandvik, Tore 1
  • FRONTIERS OF E-BUSINESS RESEARCH 2004Suomala, Petri 226Syväoja, Heli 242Takala, Josu 299Tanner, Leena 635Tiainen, Tarja 480Tuunainen, Virpi Kristiina 52Tähtinen, Jaana 590Ukkola, Soja 459Ulkuniemi, Pauliina 590Waalkens, Jan 444Wan, Fang 13Vehkaperä, Meri 572Weidt, Stefan 364Wiegand, Sven 623Viljamaa, Anmari 282Wong, Roman 480Vuori, Elisa 267Ylitalo, Jari 546, 656Ziegler, Kirsi 546, 656Äkkinen, Miia 52