How to Evolve Intelligence Organizations for Maximum Success

The Intelligence Collaborative
http://IntelCollab.com #IntelCollab
Powered by
How to Evolve Intelligence
Organizations for Maximum Success
A Complimentary Webinar from Aurora WDC
12:00 Noon Eastern /// Wednesday 6 January 2016
~ featuring ~
Melanie Prudom Derek Johnson

Powered by
Melanie Prudom
Melanie Prudom joined DuPont in 2011 as Intelligence Practice Leader after a
decade in pharma/biotech. She was initially responsible for establishing a
global Intelligence Center of Excellence (COE) within Corporate Marketing &
Sales. The COE’s goal was to establish and advocate use of best practices,
methodologies, processes and tools for the generation and communication of
market, customer and competitive insight generation by internal, external,
direct and networked market research professionals and their vendor partners.
For the past 18 months Melanie provided global B2B intelligence support to
DuPont’s Advanced Materials Pillar strategy initiatives and Electronics &
Communications (E&C) business unit and business segments for existing
brands/products, new product / growth R&D initiatives and M&A. She is
currently seeking a new opportunity due to the impending DuPont/Dow
merger.
Email: melprudom@verizon.net
The Intelligence Collaborative is the online learning and networking
community powered by Aurora WDC, our clients, partners and other friends
and dedicated to exploring how to apply intelligence methods to solve real-
world business problems.
Apply for a free 30-day trial membership at http://IntelCollab.com or learn
more about Aurora at http://AuroraWDC.com – see you next time!

Powered by
α Use the Questions pane on your
GoToWebinar control panel and all questions
will be answered in the second half of the
hour.
α You are welcome to tweet any comments on
Twitter where we are monitoring the
hashtag #IntelCollab or eavesdrop via
http://tweetchat.com/room/IntelCollab
α Slides will be available after the webinar for
embedding and sharing via
http://slideshare.net/IntelCollab
α To view the recording and download the PPT
file, please register for a trial membership at
http://IntelCollab.com.
Questions, Commentary & Content

Powered by

Powered by
• Objectives:
o Key drivers, issues, considerations for structuring Intelligence organizations for
evolutionary success
o Alternative organizational structures with pros/cons
o Group discussion including sharing of personal experiences
• Why should you care how your company’s Intelligence function is structured?
o You’re hired (or looking to be) into it
o You’re functioning in it (or despite of it)
o You’re in (or aspiring to) a position to change it
o It’s affecting your career path
Organizing for Intelligence Evolutionary Success

Powered by
Primary
Stakeholders
Primary
Focus of
Objective
Approach and
Methodology
Metrics
WHO WHERE WHAT
HOW HOW
Key Drivers/Issues for Evolutionary
Intelligence Success

Powered by
• Primary Stakeholders
• Who will define/prioritize the KITs/KIQs and Own the Resulting Action?
• Corporate senior leadership
• Business unit leadership
• Existing product / brand owners
• R&D and/or new product developers
• Global, regional or country level colleagues
• Others?
• This factor most likely to influence intelligence unit resource levels and geographical location
(Where)

Powered by
• Primary Focus or Objective
• What business needs will drive the Key Intelligence Topics/Questions?
• Corporate, business unit or brand level strategy
• M&A
• Innovation / R&D / New Product Development
• Marketing / Product Line / Brand
• Sales, Manufacturing or other Tactical Support
• Others?

Powered by
• Approach and Methodology
• How will the Intelligence unit address Key Intelligence Topics/Questions?
• Systematic, process and mind set
• Clearly defined deliverables and outputs (can be ad-hoc, one time or on-going
monitoring/tracking)
• Resources (time, effort, people, data/info, budget)
• Interaction with other people and processes
• In-source vs. out-source

Powered by
• Metrics
• How will Intelligence unit create value and measure success?
• Recommended and taken actions with measurable strategic or operational impact
relevant to primary focus
• Feedback from primary stakeholders
• Quality and timeliness of data collection
• Quality and timeliness of key deliverables and output
• Must be resourced sufficiently (people, data, vendors, etc.)
• Internal metrics & Key Process Indicators (KPI)
• ROI

Powered by
Evolutionary Intelligence Success:
Resource and Budget Considerations
• Personnel and supervision
• Data/ information services, sources, subscriptions, etc.
• Data/information management system and IT support
• External collection, networks and vendors
• Analytical support
• Intelligence advice and counsel
• Travel and administrative costs
• Professional development and training
• Special operations or projects

Powered by
Generalized View on Structure
• Centralized
o Presume strategic needs dominate
o Report to senior corporate officer who defines/refines intelligence
priorities, requirements and provides resources
o Rely on input from across company
o Deliver forward-looking analyses
• Decentralized
o Uses multiple staff across the company
o Serves operational requirements, rarely senior management
o May or may not have corporate staff to coordinate activities and
provide strategic products derived from operational findings

Powered by
• Hybrid
o Uses aspects of both centralized and decentralized
o Multiple intelligence units where needed
o Executive needs dominate yet ad hoc, operational needs also met
o Uses consistent methods for collection and analysis
• Networked
o Utilizes internal Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) on project and on-going
basis
o Benefit from on-going communication via intelligence software
solutions
o Hub is usually intelligence analyst or manager
o Nodes include intelligence champions on priority issues
Generalized View on Structure

Powered by
Formal, Disciplined:
Intelligence Department Model
Pros Cons
• Designed primarily for mid to
large size companies with
multi-divisional, multi-
national scope
• As demand grows, must
manage user expectations
• Highly visible, full service
capability
• In and out of scope tasks
must be clearly defined
• Provides permanence,
stability and formality to
function with senior
management endorsement
• If staff / budget grow, may be
perceived as over-funded
• Creates central knowledge
base
• Questions of value add may
arise
• Creates several position
levels for staff development
and growth
• High visibility can cultivate
an arrogant attitude among
staff
• All elements of operation housed within single
department
• Most likely self-funded with budget for internal
and external resources and support
Source: Based on seminar work done by Clifford Kalb and Jan Herring, “Selecting the Right Competitive Intelligence Model,” SCIP Competitive Intelligence
magazine, Vol. 15, No. 1. Jan/Mar 2012, p22-36.

Powered by
Hub and Spoke Model
Pros Cons
• Supports centrally purchased
services
• Difficult to coordinate
priorities
• Leverage collection networks
across company
• Demand can exceed supply
• Allows for localized staff and
budgets who can benefit from
global purchasing power
• KITs may become a moving
target due to changing client
goals and reassignment/
reorganization
• Provides good early warning
capability
• Appears most commonly in major global firms
with mature CI functions, many operational
divisions and broad geography
• Facilitates cooperation but can’t require it

Powered by
Intelligence Community Model
Pros Cons
• Central unit can focus on
corporate needs, info
services/systems
• Creates a highly visible, large
budget
• Business units still have local
collection and analysis capability
for own needs
• Unless provides value to
businesses, central unit can
be subject to budget cuts.
Value add bar is high.
• Combine to create a community
that shares best practices
• Corporate group can closely
identify with management
and develop elitist attitude
• Creates a strong intelligence
culture
• Provides for a training /
development role
• Full service structure : corporate + business
units + functional departments
Source: Based on seminar work done by Clifford Kalb and Jan Herring, “Selecting the Right
Competitive Intelligence Model,” SCIP Competitive Intelligence magazine, Vol. 15, No. 1. Jan/Mar
2012, p22-36.

Powered by
Cost Conscious, Conservative:
Business Intelligence Center Model
Pros Cons
• Can serve needs of executive
and BU management,
resulting in best offense and
defense
• Requires 3-5 people in
collection and analytic roles +
director
• Best model for early warning • Multiple simultaneous
projects makes director’s job
more complex
• More functional for larger,
more complex companies
• Juggling strategic / tactical
demands from different units
can decrease client
satisfaction
• Because CI professionals are
supported by SMEs in units,
more effective and efficient
• Develops pool of candidates
for future openings
• Employs clearinghouse with multiple sources of
intelligence
• Secondary source support from library or info
pro dedicated to Center
Source: Based on seminar work done by Clifford Kalb and Jan Herring,
“Selecting the Right Competitive Intelligence Model,” SCIP Competitive
Intelligence magazine, Vol. 15, No. 1. Jan/Mar 2012, p22-36.

Powered by
Intelligence Matrix Model
Pros Cons
• Creates strong cross-company
networks and community
• May be too fragmented to
produce effective integrated
intelligence
• Supports both senior
management and functional
needs
• Early warning must be closely
managed by central unit or will
fall between cracks. Needs
formal structure and
organization to deliver regular
reports.
• Works well in de-centralized
companies
• Personnel in isolated units may
not get the big picture
• Separate groups link together
when project calls for both
strategic and tactical support
• Appears in large multinational corporations
where corporate design is matrixed
• Each group operates more independently

Powered by
Basic Intelligence System Model: 2 Intelligence Professionals + Library
Pros Cons
• Begins process for growing
intelligence expertise
• Likely to be personnel and budget
scarcity, limiting total number or
quantity of simultaneous projects
• Potential for institutionalizing
CI process
• Generally thin resources so
demand may exceed supply
• Good for small companies or
BUs in larger companies
• Employs 2 full time intelligence pros who depend
on a library
• Address KITs via secondary sources first then
human source collector expands the search.
• Results reported to client or given to analyst who
combines the findings and delivers a report to
senior management, other decision makers

Powered by
Lone Eagle:
Single Person Model
Pros Cons
Single person acts as director
through all steps of process with
internal / external assistance
Can only handle limited number of
projects
Weak on early warning
Does not institutionalize
intelligence knowledge well
Director may be viewed as a
developmental role, leading to
high turnover and lack of stability
• Only works if person reports to top management
to focus on highest priority KITS and operate
under their authority

Powered by
Ad-Hoc Team Model
Pros Cons
Usually produces good analytical
results and pragmatic
recommendations
Often lacks ability to produce
insights or early warning
Time effective use of resources May lose its intelligence focus
Works well in small organizations or
business units
No means to create institutional
memory
No central repository for
outcomes
• Simplest of all models
• May not believe need a full time intelligence
function but do occasionally need well prepared
intelligence for strategic planning or key decision
making
• Ad-hoc team assembled for studying specific
issue or proving value of intelligence function
• Skills reside in team members, not an individual

Powered by
Organizational Alternatives
• Formal and Disciplined Cultures
o Intelligence Department (Wyeth)
o Hub & Spoke Model (DuPont)
o Corporate Intelligence Community
• Cost Conscious and Conservative Management
o Intelligence Center (DuPont)
o Matrix Organization (Pfizer)
o Basics: Two Minds and a Library
• Intelligence Single Person (aka Lone Eagle or Jack of All
Trades) (DuPont)

Powered by
Lessons Learned from Organizational
Alternatives
• Wyeth
o Successful, long term intelligence efforts morph over time as organizational
structure changes but never lose sight of best practices
o Be flexible and willing to learn new skills and disciplines. You’ll be more
well rounded and more marketable.
• Pfizer
o Competitive intelligence developed within a function can be limited by that
function.
• DuPont
o Multiple structures can easily exist within one decentralized company.
o Culture can prevent centralization.

Powered by
• Key issues and drivers for organizational success include:
o Primary focus
o Primary stakeholders
o Intelligence methodology / approach
o Metrics
• Multiple models of organizing co-exist. No right or wrong only what fits
best at particular time.
• Effective organizations morph over time in order to survive.
• Bear issues/drivers in mind as you strive to achieve greater evolutionary
intelligence success within the structure of your companies. Or mature
and advance your career.
Summary and Key Takeaways

Powered by
Thank you!
Now how about a little Q&A?
Email:melprudom@verizon.net
The Intelligence Collaborative is the online learning and networking
community powered by Aurora WDC, our clients, partners and other friends
and dedicated to exploring how to apply intelligence methods to solve real-
world business problems.
Apply for a free 30-day trial membership at http://IntelCollab.com or learn
more about Aurora at http://AuroraWDC.com – see you next time!

How to Evolve Intelligence Organizations for Maximum Success

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (16)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to How to Evolve Intelligence Organizations for Maximum Success

Similar to How to Evolve Intelligence Organizations for Maximum Success (20)

More from Arik Johnson

More from Arik Johnson (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

How to Evolve Intelligence Organizations for Maximum Success