CHAPTER 8

Competitive Intelligence
Pierrette Bergeron
Christine A. Hiller
Universite de Montreal

Introduction
The practice of competitive intelligence (CI) is not new. The current
shift from the industrial age toward an information- and networking-
based economy, however, has led to a strong, renewed interest in the
topic. In the digital economy (Brynjolfsson & Kahin, 2000), organiza-
tions’ and societies’frames of references are disrupted. Concepts such as
“globalization,” “glocalization,” “competition,” and “co-opetition”
(Brandenburger & Nalebuff, 1997; Salmon & de Linares, 1999) are daily
realities for citizens of many countries and for organizations of any size
in this “planetary civilization in the intelligence revolution” (Dedijer,
1999, p. 67). Organizations, even “mom and pop stores,” cannot limit the
boundaries of their worlds to their immediate neighborhoods or they run
the risk of being surprised (Cronin & Crawford, 1999a, 1999b). What
was true in Napoleon’s time still holds true: “to be defeated is excusable,
but to be surprised is unforgettable” (Rouach, 1996, p. 8).
The concept of competition itself is being redefined (Cronin &
Crawford, 1999a, 1999b; Shapiro & Varian, 1999; von Krogh, Ichijo &
Nonaka, 2000) with competitor-focused strategies becoming increasingly
viewed as essential for survival. A focus on only the competitive environ-
ment might be perceived as a straitjacket hampering an organization’s

353
354 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology

capacity to develop advanced strategies based on creativity and innova-

tion (von Krogh et al., 2000). This new context forces organizations to
revise their business paradigms and create new strategic models-what
von Krogh et al. (2000, p. 74) call advancement strategies-whereby
organizationally unique knowledge creation and exploitation turn orga-
nizational survival into organizational advancement. An organization
must therefore develop and sustain effective information and knowledge
management processes, such as CI, in order to foster interaction between
the various forces it must negotiate to achieve its strategic aims.
Sound CI practice is presented as a key element in providing organi-
zations with appropriate “corporate radar” (Pollard, 1999) and action-
able intelligence (Fuld, 1995). As this chapter will demonstrate, a
common thread running through the wide range of CI definitions is that
CI is the collection, transmission, analysis, and dissemination of pub-
licly available, ethically and legally obtained relevant information as a
means of producing actionable knowledge. Further, CI is the production
of actionable knowledge for the improvement of corporate decision mak-
ing and action.
The topic of CI is not new to ARIST readers, having been introduced
by Cronin and Davenport (1993) in their chapter on social intelligence.
Choo and Auster’s (1993) chapter on environmental scanning and
Bergeron’s (1996) chapter on information resources management were
also related to CI.
This chapter, the first devoted entirely to the topic of CI, reviews the
evolution of competitive intelligence since 1994. Online searches have
been conducted in ABI/Inform, Applied Science and Technology,
Canadian Business and Current Affairs, Computer Index, Current
Contents, Dissertation Abstracts, Dow Jones Interactive, EconLit,
Global Books in Print, Inspec, LISA, Library Literature, LexisNexis,
Repere, Ulrich‘s, and Web of Science; in addition to WorldCat and vari-
ous libraries’ OPACs; the Internet, using various search engines; and the
“snowball technique.” This review is limited to English-language docu-
mentation plus selected sources in French. Readers should be aware
that a substantive body of literature exists in non-English sources, and
that CI is discussed somewhat differently in American literature than in
the literature of other countries. For example, in Quebec and in France
there is much interest in small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and CI,
 Competitive Intelligence 355

economic intelligence and regional development, and government roles

in fostering CI in organizational practice-themes that are almost
absent from American reports.
This review first presents the terminology in use and defines CI. It
then discusses the evolution of CI, describes the CI process, examines
common analytical techniques, and explores how information technolo-
gies support the CI process. Key players in its implementation and prac-
tice are also discussed, with an emphasis on information specialists and
the organizational aspects of a CI unit. It then delineates the various
milieux where CI has been implemented and addresses the issue of
ethics. Finally, the chapter presents CI education and training activities
and concludes with suggestions for further explorations of the topic.

Terminology and Definitions

There is no generally agreed-upon terminology, with the most com-
mon terms found in English being competitive intelligence, business
intelligence, competitor intelligence, and environmental scanning. The
only effort geared toward standardization is the publication of an exper-
imental standard by the French standards association (Association
francaise de normalisation [AFNOR], 1998) defining the word “veille,”
which loosely corresponds to competitive intelligence. This standard
builds upon the work of the Groupe Intelligence Bconomique et stratkgie
des entreprises (1994), which brought specialists in the field of economic
intelligence together in an effort t o build consensus concerning the var-
ious concepts that came to be embedded within the standard.
The concept of competitive intelligence is multifaceted and fuzzy. CI is
variously presented as a process, a function, a product, or a mix of all
three (Gilad & Gilad, 1988).Adding to the confusion is the multitude of
terms and varying definitions of the same terms (for examples of defini-
tions see Fahey, 1999, p. 5; Fuld, 1995, p. 23; Fuld, 2000a; McGonagle &
Vella, 1998, p. 149; Pollard, 1999, p. 205; Society of Competitive
Intelligence Professionals [http://www.scip.org];and Westney & Ghoshal,
1994, p. 430).
The wide use of the term competitive intelligence as an operational
generic may be a result of The Society of Competitive Intelligence
Professionals’ (SCIP) aggressive promotion of the field. After a few years
356 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology

of using the term competitor intelligence, SCIP decided to foreground

competitive intelligence (Barndt, 2000). ABIIInform uses competitive
intelligence as a subject heading; including the term business intelli-
gence within the rubric of CI. The Library of Congress Subject Headings
uses business intelligence to index works ‘(on the systematic accumula-
tion of information regarding business competitors and their products,
including trade secrets” (Library of Congress, 1991; also noted in
Walker, 1994a, p. 150); thus suggesting a conflation of espionage with
CI. Online research using the phrase business intelligence retrieves
records that are essentially related to information systems and tech-
niques such as data mining, online analytical processing (OLAP), and
data warehousing (for more on data mining, see Benoit’s chapter in this
volume of ARIST)-likely influenced by IBMs use of the term business
intelligence to describe their various data warehousing and mining
mechanisms and tools (Whitehorn & Whitehorn, 1999).
While interesting and useful conceptually, the various distinctions
expressed in the definitions are difficult to maintain, with important
overlaps existing between the various concepts (Choo, 1998a). In prac-
tice, they are used indiscriminately to identify the same areas and prac-
tices. Choo (1998a, p.76) proposes a conceptual map of the various
concepts based on their scope of information gathering; placing them
along a continuum of “narrow t o broad” and “short-term t o long-term.”
From the narrower and more short-term to the broadest and longer-term
lie competitor intelligence, competitive intelligence, business intelligence,
environmental scanning, and social intelligence, with each concept being
embedded within the following one and with issues management cover-
ing business intelligence, environmental scanning, and social intelli-
gence. For Prescott (1995, p.77), these are “stages,” rather than the
entire scope of practice. He identifies four stages in the evolution of com-
petitive intelligence: (1) competitive data gathering (pre-1980); (2)
industry and competitor analysis (1980-1987); (3) competitive intelli-
gence (1988 to present); and (41, a final stage, called “competitive intel-
ligence as a core capability,” lying somewhere in the future.
Competitive intelligence covers numerous “sectors” of intelligence:
competitor, technology, product/service, environment (ecology),economy,
legislation/regulation, acquisitiordmerger, customer, supplier, market,
partner/collaborator, socialkistorical/political environment, and an
 Competitive Intelligence 357

organization’s internal environment (Baumard, 1991; Fahey, 1999;

Nolan, 1999; Vedder & Vanecek, 1998). Together, these sectors create
“total intelligence” (Pollard, 1999). This is illustrated by the L’Oreal
group’s CI process, which covers the following sectors: social, competi-
tion, geopolitics, technology, market, legislation, and geographical
(Salmon & de Linares, 1999, p. 110).
While all of these sectors contribute to “total intelligence,” the tech-
nology sector receives particular attention as a result of writings on com-
petitive technological intelligence, or CTI (e.g., Ashton & Klavans, 1997;
Coburn, 1999; Dou, 1997; see also the International Journal of
Technology Management, 10[11, 1995, which devotes an entire issue to
this sector). CTI focuses on scientific and technological developments by
identifying, analyzing, and tracking technical and scientific assets or
innovations by competitors in order to assess technological develop-
ments and enhancements, identify potential collaborative partnerships
between for-profit and not-for-profit organizations, and forecast future
technological threats and opportunities (Ashton & Klavans, 1997;
Coburn, 1999).
Sometimes CI applies to national-level activities related to security,
the development of intelligence (or economic intelligence) communities,
foresight studies, national competitiveness analysis, and information
warfare. Readers interested in these important, but peripheral topics as
they apply t o CI, should consult Davis’s chapter on intelligence, infor-
mation technology, and information warfare in this volume, as well as
authors such as Baumard (1991, 1998), Bonthous (1994), Clerc
(1997/1998),Cronin (ZOOO), Cronin and Crawford (1999a, 1999b),Denning
(1999), Evans (19941, Groupe Intelligence kconomique et stratkgie des
entreprises (1994), Hendrick (19961, Nolan (1999), Porter (19901, Steele-
Vivas (1996), and the U.S. House of Representatives 104th Congress
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (1996).
CI’s goal is to provide “actionable intelligence” (e.g., Fahey, 1999;
Fuld, 1995, 2000a; Nolan, 1999; Porter, cited in Rouach, 1996);
namely, information that has been synthesized, analyzed, evaluated,
and contextualized. It is part of the strategic information manage-
ment that is aligned with an organization’s strategy (Bergeron, 1996;
Davenport, 1997; Kennedy, 1996; Moon, 2000). CI should stimulate an
organization’s creativeness, innovativeness, and willingness t o
358 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology

change (Salmon & de Linares, 1999), in a continuing quest to create

an evolving and intelligent organization (Choo, 1998a, 1998b).

Evolution of Cornpet it ive IntelIigence

Interest in CI has been growing since 1994, as witnessed by various
indicators such as (1)the number of publications on the topic; (2) the
flurry of conferences, one-day seminars and workshops; (3) the rapid
growth in the number of consultants in the field; (4) government efforts
to foster CI practice, particularly in SMEs; and (5)the emergence of uni-
versity-level CI courses and programs, often offered at the graduate
level. Michael Porter’s work on strategic management is presented as
the catalyst that fostered renewed interest in CI as a concept and prac-
tice in the 1980s (Prescott, 1995; Sutton, 1988), leading to, for example,
the creation of the then-called Society of Competitor Intelligence
Professionals in 1986-now called The Society of Competitive
Intelligence Professionals-and the publication of competitive
Intelligence Review’s first issue in the summer of 1990.
For the period between January 1987 and June 1994, Walker
(1994b) reports that a search in ABI/Inform retrieved 212 records with
the subject term “competitive intelligence.” For comparison purposes,
the same term was searched for during the period between 1994 and
April 2000, retrieving 831 records in ABI/Inform. For the year 1999
alone, there are more records (249) than there were in the entire
seven-year period covered by Walker (199413).As was the case in 1994,
most of the CI literature is still published outside the field of library
and information science.
In the mid-1960s, Wilensky (1967, p. 7 ) noted that “[Tlhe obvious sig-
nificance of the intelligence function in government and industry has not
resulted in the long bibliographies of solid sociological studies typical of
other areas of organizational theory and practice.” This lack of a solid
body of theoretical knowledge does not appear to have been rectified as
Lesca (1994), Pinkerton (1996), and Prescott (1995) all note that schol-
arly and empirically based work in CI is rare. Existing empirical research
related to CI has concentrated on (1) decision makers’ environmental
scanning behaviors, the most-studied area, (2) typologies of CI practice,
(3) the CI process, (4) critical success factors, (5) the CI function, (6) the
 Competitive Intelligence 359

impact of CI on organizations, and (7) the role of governments in foster-

ing CI within organizations and society.
In a review of writings on CI and its use in marketing, Pinkerton
(1996) claims that researchers and scholars primarily published on this
topic during the 1959-1980 period, and that consultants’ books and
trade publications dominated the 1980-1993 period. Consultants’ books
and trade publications still prevail during the years 1994-2000. The
current literature is mostly conceptual, prescriptive, anecdotal, or “how-
to” in nature, with a lack of research to examine the validity of these pre-
scriptions. There is a great deal of redundant material, which has added
little of value over the years. New developments related to CI are mostly
practical. These include changes in information technologies, use of the
Internet, the wealth of secondary sources, and the application and fine
tuning of analytical techniques borrowed from the marketing, manage-
ment, economics, and library and information science disciplines.
CI is increasingly associating itself with knowledge management
(KM) (see Davenport and Hall’s chapter on organizational knowledge in
this volume). Barclay and Kaye (2000) claim that CI has a “symbiotic
relationship” with KM. For example, SCIP’s Competitive Intelligence
Review is subtitled The Journal of Knowledge Nanagement and Insight
(“Insight” having been added in 2000). SCIP also claims that it is “the
premier online community for knowledge professionals all around the
globe” (http://www.scip.org),signaling its desire to position itself within
this broader framework (Kalb, 1999).
This chapter posits that CI is a praxis, part of organizational strate-
gic information management. Its boundaries are somewhat indistinct
since there is overlap between CI and other information management
components of an organization. CI is neither an independent business
unit nor a process that can “live” in economic self-sufficiency removed
from other organizational information processes and functions. CI is a
micro-organizational learning process involving the transformation of
seemingly disparate morsels of data and information via sense-making,
knowledge-creating, and decision-making activities into an organiza-
tionally unique, ever-evolving view of the world (Choo, 1998b).
360 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology
~

The Competitive Intelligence Process

CI is a value-adding information process (Taylor, 1986; Westney &
Ghoshal, 1994), which requires creating, implementing, and maintain-
ing formalized activities, products, and services, as well as nurturing,
incorporating, and utilizing informal processes in order t o be fully and
effectively exploited (Miller, 2000a; Prescott, 1995).
CI fulfills both short- and long-term needs, as it has a mixed orienta-
tion toward both tactical and strategic management: (1)in a continuing
mode, to identify weak signals from the environment and build sense out
of them in a strategic approach (akin to environmental scanning
[Aguilar, 1967; Choo, 1998aI and issues management [Lancaster &
Loescher, 19941);and (2) in an ad hoc, tactical, short-term approach to
answer immediate questions andor to help in solving a problem that has
arisen (Baumard, 1991; Fahey, 1999; Fuld, 1995; Gilad & Gilad, 1988;
Miller, 2000a; Moon, 2000; Pollard, 1999; Prescott, 1995; Villain, 1990;
Westney & Ghoshal, 1994). Thus, CI is readily adapted to the various
types, lifespans, and goals of organizations.
Cartwright, Boughton, and Miller (1995) classify CI practices into
four categories: ad hoc, continuous-comprehensive, continuous-focused,
and project-based. Their study of seventy-four American firms indicates
that all types of CI practices are used, but that ad hoc is the most com-
mon. The strategic orientation of the organization affects the perceived
usefulness and type of CI practiced (Cartwright et al., 1995; Julien,
Lachance, Raymond, Jacob, & Ramangalahy, 1995; Julien, Raymond,
Jacob, & Ramangalahy, 1997; Martinet & Marti, 1995).
The CI process can be represented by four broad phases: (1)plan-
ninghdentifying CI needs; (2) data collection; (3) organization and analy-
sis; and (4)dissemination. While specific authors may divide the process
into three phases (Westney & Ghoshal, 1994), or seven (The Society of
Management Accountants of Canada, 1996), all cover essentially the
same elements with more or less detail in the descriptions of the basic
components. Some authors (e.g., Fuld, 2000b; The Society of
Management Accountants of Canada, 1996) add “evaluation” to the
process as a feedback loop. Even if CI is presented as a series of phases
within the process, it is not straightforward and linear. Rather, it is a
series of loops both within and between each phase.
 Competitive Intelligence 361

Action

Decision processes:
matching goals
compromising
bargaining
choosing

Productive knowledge

Judgmental
processes..
presenting options
presenting advantages
presenting disadvantages

1 Informing Nowledge

t Analyzing processes.
separating
evaluating
validating
comparing
interpreting
synthesizing

processes:
grouping
classifying
relating
formatting
signaling
Analvst lnformation soecialist displaying

Figure 8.1 Roles of information specialists and analysts along Taylor’s (1986, p. 6)
value-added spectrum

From an empirical study of CI implementation, Westney and Ghoshal

(1994) identify four phases: data management (what do we know?),
analysis (what does it mean?), implication (how should we respond?),
and action. These phases are akin to Taylor’s value-added spectrum of
organizing, analyzing, judgmental, and decision processes (Figure 8.1)
(Taylor, 1986, p. 6). Westney and Ghoshal divide data management into
ten processes: acquisition, classification, storage, retrieval, editing, ver-
ification and quality control, presentation (choice of format), aggrega-
tion, distribution, and assessment. They separate the analysis phase
into three processes: (1)synthesis, (2) hypothesis, and (3) assumption
362 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology

building and testing (Westney & Ghoshal, 1994, p. 433). Their study
found that data management was the least preferred activity of the ana-
lysts, but it was the activity with which they spent most of their time,
often to the detriment of analysis and evaluation activities. Westney and
Ghoshal(l994) suggest that, to maximize the processes within the data
management phase, organizations should either use powerful and
appropriate information technologies or leave this phase t o secretaries.
These authors appear to downplay the complexity and importance of the
entire information management process, a basic underpinning of CI
(Romagni & Wild, 1998), upon which the quality of analysis and impli-
cations depend.
The CI process uses both primary and secondary, and internal and
external, sources (Choo, 1998a; Davenport & Cronin, 1994; Fuld, 1995;
Kassler & Sandman, 2000; Nolan, 1999; Westney & Ghoshal, 1994).
Primary data sources include human intelligence networks, observa-
tions, participation in trade shows, and reverse engineering. Human
intelligence networks can include a multitude of contacts such as clients,
employees, experts, competitors, market analysts, journalists, univer-
sity professors, government officials, shareholders, and suppliers. There
is a particular need to identify the organizational boundary spanners/
gatekeepers (Choo, 1998b; Klobas & McGill, 1995) whose collaboration
will be formally embedded within the organizational CI process. France
Tklkcom R&D’s strategic and technical intelligence network is an exam-
ple of a CI process formalizing the use of a human network (Boucher,
1998; Boucher & Henry, 2000). Examples of techniques for tapping the
primary data sources are provided by Fuld (1995), Klobas and McGill
(1995), Vezmar (1996), and Wheaton (2000). Secondary data sources
include online databases, Internet sources, journals, monographs, and
internal documents (Choo, 1998a; Davenport & Cronin, 1994; Fuld,
1995; Hall, 2000; Kassler, 2000).
Any of these sources may aim at disinformation, which is “the cre-
ation andlor diffusion of false information, with the intent to release the
false information for purposes of deception” (Dishman & Nitse, 1999, p.
23). Active disinformation techniques include releasing false informa-
tion or true information that misleads, while passive techniques encom-
pass concealment, nonreaction, or silence (Dishman & Nitse, 1999, p.
22). Baumard (1996) describes the Perrier affair, where disinformation
 Competitive Intelligence 363

was used as a tool for strategic destabilization within an information

warfare perspective. The data collection phase must therefore be sensi-
tive t o and able to detect disinformation.
CI is also concerned with protecting the organization against poten-
tial or perceived information threats. This is often referred to as coun-
terintelligence-aimed at protecting the organization against other
organizations’ CI (Gilad & Gilad, 1988; Nolan, 1999). To date, counter-
intelligence is not part of the mainstream definitions of CI.
Counterintelligence shares common ground with telecommunications
and computer security measures, records management applications, and
general corporate information policies related t o confidentiality and
security. In an “information warfare (IW) era” (Cronin & Crawford,
1999a, b), where IW is defined as “offensive and defensive operations
against information resources of a ‘win-lose’nature” (Denning, 1999, p.
2 l),counterintelligence and defensive intelligence strategies may well
become more mainstream. Readers interested in this issue may consult
Cronin (20001, Cronin and Crawford (1999a, 1999b), Gilad and Gilad
(1988), McGonagle and Vella (19981, Nolan (1999), Nolan and Quinn
(2000), Shaker and Gembicki (1999), and Winkler (1997).
This review has shown that there is a consensus as to what consti-
tutes a generic CI process, and that there is really no debate around this
well-covered theme. There is now a need to move forward in order to bet-
ter understand how to tailor this generic CI process to the specifics of
each organization-moving from the current one-size-fits-all model to
one that is both user- and organization-centered so as to increase the
likelihood of a strong fit between an organization and CI. The general
model of information use proposed by Choo (1998b) stands as a useful
starting point for further exploration.

Competitive Intelligence: Analytical

Technigues
The analysis phase is at the heart of the CI process. Analysis is the
value-adding process whereby information is transformed into action-
able intelligence (Fuld, 1995; Herring, 1998) or productive knowledge
(Figure 8.1). Competitive intelligence, which, to some extent, has its
roots in military strategy (Cronin, 2000; Nolan, 1999; Prescott, 1995),
364 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology

freely borrows techniques and insights from many other disciplines; par-
ticularly management, marketing, economics, and information studies-
notably Porter’s Five Forces Model (Porter, 1980); Volume, Value,
Growth ( W G ) (Davis, 1999); Competing Hypothesis Analysis (Sawka,
1999b); scenario planning (Fahey, 1999; fink & Schlake, 2000; Tessun,
1997);bibliometrics (Dou, 1995; Watts, Porter, & Newman, 1998; Zhu &
Porter, 1999);and patent analysis (Breitzman, 2000; Castells, Salvador,
& Bosch, 2000; Fernandez, Montes, Perez-Bustamante, & Vazquez,
1999; Kline, 2000; Mogee, 1994). Herring (1998) claims that few analyt-
ical techniques have been created by CI professionals to respond specif-
ically to competitive intelligence needs-the most notable example being
Gilad’s (1994) business blindspots, which challenges the competitive
assumptions hampering executives and their organizations. Fuld (1995)
and Fleischer and Bensoussan (2000) provide frameworks for selecting
appropriate analytical techniques for a variety of CI problems.
Newer techniques-often drawn from other disciplines-regularly
appear on the CI horizon. Two such examples are the military world‘s
war gaming model (Kurtz, 2000; Treat, Thibault, & Asin, 1996) and
Macroeconomic Uncertainty Strategy (MUST) analysis (Oxelheim,
1999). Business war gaming is an intense simulation activity that often
requires several days and incorporates scenario planning techniques
(Kurtz, 2000; Treat et al., 1996). MUST provides a model aimed at iden-
tifying the impact of macroeconomics and political risk on a business’s
competitive environment (Oxelheim, 1999).
While some analytical frameworks and techniques wax and wane in
terms of popularity, others have proven their long-term applicability in
a variety of CI situations. Over the last decade, a body of CI-oriented
analytical techniques literature has appeared. See, for example, the
Society of Competitive Intelligence Professionals’ Competitive
Intelligence Review and Competitiue Intelligence Magazine, both of
which regularly feature practical articles describing a wide variety of
analytical methods and models. The literature review reveals that some
of the most enduringly popular techniques and models include SWOT
analysis (Strength and Weaknesses of an organization in light of the
Opportunities and Threats in its environment), benchmarking, environ-
mental analysis (STEEP-Sociological, Technological, Economic,
Ecological, Political), and scenario planning.
 Competitive Intelligence 365

A SWOT analyst’s goal is to examine an organization’s competitive

environment identifying where it stands vis-a-vis its competitors (Fuld,
1995). Examples of SWOT analyses in competitive intelligence are pro-
vided by Elston (2000) and Fuld (1995).
Benchmarking is a best-practices measurement tool that permits an
organization to rate its performance against identified competitors or
best-in-class organizations to determine fruitful areas for improvement
(American Productivity & Quality Center, 1995). Finnigan (1996) dis-
cusses three types of benchmarking within the area of competitive intel-
ligence: internal, competitive, and functional (generic) benchmarking.
Vezmar (1996) describes its application at Xerox.
Scenario planning is a favored forecasting model that aims to match
a series of specific options with a range of potential, plausible situations,
outcomes, or scenarios (Georgantzas & Acar, 1995; Fink & Schlake,
2000). The series of methodologies and techniques used in scenario plan-
ning, such as W G (Volume Value Growth) Analysis (Davis, 1999) and
Competing Hypothesis Analysis (Sawka, 1999b), permits executives to
discuss and weight the relative importance of future possible events, cre-
ate what-if scenarios that may or may not occur at some future time
(Georgantzas & Arcar, 19951, and enhance managerial insight into
future possibilities (Tessun, 1997). Scenario planning-when combined
with early warning systems or weak signals identification (Fahey,
1999)-forms a part of a process of strategic foresight (Fink & Schlake,
2000). Tessun (1997) describes the application of scenario planning a t
Daimler-Benz Aerospace, and Fink and Schlake (2000) describe its use
within the German pump industry.
Patent analysis and bibliometrics are key to competitive technologi-
cal intelligence (CTI). Patent analysis is used to explore the complex
interrelationship between patents and markets in order t o discover, ana-
lyze, and capitalize on technological interdependencies and trends that
can be discerned, and the barriers t o imitation that are often deliber-
ately placed in the way of corporations tracking their competitors’tech-
nological advances (Castells et al., 2000; Fernandez et al., 1999; Kline,
2000; Mogee, 1994). Breitzman (2000) provides a streamlined methodol-
ogy for patent analysis. Davis and Livny (1994) and Hoetker (1999)focus
on the practical techniques of using commercial databases to monitor
scientific and technical information and in understanding the types of
366 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology

competitive intelligence to be gleaned from patents. Specialized analyt-

ical patent asset management tools such as Aurigin Systems’ IPAM
(Intellectual Property Asset Management) (Powell, 1999) and Manning
& Napier Information Services’MAPIT (http://www.mnis.net/mpt.html)
have appeared to aid in the effort of identifying patterns, in explaining
relationships in technology, and in visualizing these patterns and rela-
tionships. An example of the results of a patent analysis is provided by
Industry Canada (1998). Finally, bibliometrics and technology mapping
are used to manage the huge mass of patent activity in any given indus-
try sector and to determine innovation trends (Dou, 1995; Watts et al.,
1998; Zhu & Porter, 1999).
To be truly value-adding, CI analysis must go beyond informing
knowledge which, in Taylor’s (1986) value-added spectrum (Figure 8.1),
means validating, synthesizing, comparing, evaluating, separating, and
interpreting data as a means of providing productive knowledge. This is
a judgmental process in which the task is to present options, advan-
tages, disadvantages, or implications for decision making and action.

Competitive Intelligence Systems

There is no system that automates the entire CI process. The data col-
lection, information dissemination, and analysis processes are sup-
ported by many business information technology tools such as online
databases, intelligent agents, and push technology, Web information sys-
tems (e.g., intranets, extranets, Internet), enterprise resource planning
systems (ERPs), groupware, document management systems, text
analysis tools, and data warehousing systems. Hohhof (1994, 2000)
describes the use of these technologies within the CI context.
Much interest has been stirred by the possibilities offered by the
Internet for CI purposes. One early article (Cronin et al., 1994) details
the results of an exploratory study of the use of the Internet by com-
mercial enterprises and provides a framework explicitly linking the
types of documents found on the Internet and the typical activities per-
formed with those documents relating to CI practices. Others have tack-
led the Internet’s importance within the CI community, outlining
potential uses of the Internet (Chu, 1999; Ives, 1995), delineating the
benefits for-profit enterprises may derive from the Internet (Graef,
 Competitive Intelligence 367

19961, detailing the wealth of sources available (Burwell, 1999; Kassler,

1997, 2000), providing technical tips for identifying experts (da Silva,
Mannina, Quoniam, & Rostaing, ZOOO), retrieving and exploiting both
the structure and the information available on a competitor’s Web site
(Chase, 1998), and concentrating on using accepted CI analytical tech-
niques within the context of the Internet (Vibert, 2000). The Internet
has evolved so much that it has become a virtual environment of strate-
gic importance requiring its own surveillance and has resulted in the
development of a new information market niche for specialized monitor-
ing services (e.g., Cyveillance [http://www.cyveillance.com]).
Many software products exist to streamline increasingly onerous data
collection and organization activities. Intelligence agents-while not
specifically created for CI purposes-typically find and filter text accord-
ing to predefined rules (Bui & Lee, 1999), and are frequently used for
continuous monitoring of changes and updates on key Web pages and
sites (Fuld, 1999), continuous filtering for weak signals, tracking com-
petitors, and for automating research activities (Boureston, 2000).
Push technology is also a key tool at the data collection and informa-
tion management levels. Electronic clipping services-analogous to the
older, often paper-based selective dissemination of information (SDI)
services-have arisen to deliver preselected information directly t o the
desktop; supporting both data collection and internal informatiodreport
dissemination activities within the context of CI (Fuld, 1999; Herther,
1998; Berkman, 1999a, b; Johnson, 1999; Notess, 1999).
Analytical techniques have benefited greatly from the growth in busi-
ness intelligence tools. Data warehousing technology, with its variety of
sophisticated, statistically oriented data mining software including
OLAP, neural networks, and advanced data visualization techniques, is
particularly useful for CI.
Systems that support knowledge and information sharing within a n
organization are also important to CI (Shaker & Gembicki, 1999). The
literature indicates that employees often hear rumors and see docu-
ments that would help in understanding a phenomenon or could be used
to start an inquiry, but may not realize the importance of this informa-
tion to the organization; or, if they do, they do not know how, where, or
to whom it should be relayed (Davenport, 1997; Martinet & Marti, 1995;
O’Dell & Grayson, 1998). Thus, employees need a virtual learning and
368 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology

sharing space to facilitate information exchange and dissemination.

Systems supporting this process are variously presented as part of CI
(Shaker & Gembicki, 19991, knowledge management (O’Dell& Grayson,
1998), or information management (e.g., Davenport, 1997). For example,
an internal database of organizational expertise is presented as a CI tool
(Fuld, 1995), a knowledge management tool (O’Dell& Grayson, 1998), or
an information management tool (Davenport, 1997). These systems can
be computer-based or utilize more traditional technologies, such as the
telephone. Xerox’s Competitive Hot Line is an example of a system that
permits its sales representatives to quickly share competitive informa-
tion (Vezmar, 1996).
The purpose of CI is to provide context and meaning to seemingly dis-
parate facts, suppositions, and deductions surrounding a particular
topic. Despite software producers’ claims to the contrary, no tool yet pro-
vides automated competitive intelligence. Existing tools support captur-
ing, assessing, organizing, and displaying of relationships between data
elements, but CI still requires human intervention in order to transform
information into practicable knowledge.

Key Actors in Competitive Intelligence

There are three groups of key actors: the CI specialists whose main
mandate is t o manage the formal CI process, the decision makers who
use actionable intelligence produced by CI activities (for more on deci-
sion makers’ use of information see Choo & Auster [19931 and Katzer &
Fletcher [19921),and all members of an organization who, together, form
the human intelligence network that contributes to a fully fledged, orga-
nizationally integrated CI activity (Fuld, 1995; Martinet & Marti, 1995;
Villain, 1990; Weston, 1991). Weston (1991) predicted that, by the end of
the 199Os, successful organizations would be those in which CI perme-
ated the organizational culture and the duties of collecting and sharing
intelligence were included in each job description. While, in 2000, the
number of organizations that have reached this point might not be great,
anecdotal evidence suggests that organizations are moving in that direc-
tion; blending CI and KM in their information strategies.
Studies of CI specialists’ competencies, skills, and personal traits
(Chochrek, 2000; Hohhof & Chitwood, 2000; St-Jacques, 1996) show that
 Competitive Intelligence 369

there are two categories of information workers necessary in a formal CI

process: information managers and analysts. While the information spe-
cialists, managers, and analysts each have their own areas of expertise,
it is important t o recognize that, in practice, the nonlinear nature of the
CI process means that each of the key actors is present, to a greater or
lesser degree, depending on their mandates, skill sets, and organiza-
tional requirements, in each step of the process (Bergeron, 1995b).
Figure 8.1 illustrates this overlapping of roles throughout the value-
added CI processes.
Information specialists should be primarily responsible for the infor-
mation management phase (Fuld, 1995; Moon, 2000). However, they
must increase their capacity to create and use primary data effectively
in addition to tapping into secondary sources (Walker, 1994a). They
should also master the various technologies and systems that not only
support retrieval, analysis, and dissemination of information and intel-
ligence, but also support the development of the organization’s social
intelligence (Davenport, 2000).
While information specialists’ main responsibilities in CI lie within
the information management phase, these specialists ought t o be
involved throughout the entire analytical process (Figure 8.1).
Information specialists can also become analysts in their own right even
though anecdotal evidence suggests that few of them already are in such
positions (Hohhof & Chitwood, 2000). An example of an information spe-
cialist providing actionable intelligence to a decision maker using a
mode of communication appropriate for her end-user is illustrated by
Buchanan (1999), who reports how Highsmith Inc.’s chief librarian
works with that organization’s CEO in identifying future trends that
may affect the company in the short and long term on a project entitled
“Life, the Universe and Everything.”
Analysts are, generally speaking, subject or business specialists such
as economists, engineers, or financial analysts. Their core activities
include synthesis, hypothesis creation, and assumption building and
testing aimed at providing actionable intelligence (Westney & Ghoshal,
1994), which implies that they are able to develop and maintain their
ability to make credible recommendations (Hovis, 2000). While their
general mandate concerns analysis, these specialists are also necessar-
ily involved in information management activities (Figure 8.1).
370 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology

For both groups of CI specialists, key skill sets and attitudes required
include creativity; curiosity; innovativeness; risk taking; high tolerance
for ambiguity and uncertainty; political acumen; the ability to build and
nurture internal and external, formal and informal networks of people;
and the ability to identify within those networks the gatekeeperslinfor-
mation boundary spanners who are key organizational players
(American Productivity & Quality Center, 2000; Choo, 1998a; Coburn,
1999; Davenport, 1997; Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Fuld, 1995; Martinet
& Marti, 1995; Villain, 1990; Weston, 1991). They must also master data
collection skills and techniques similar to those of a qualitative
researcher in field research or of an investigative journalist.
There is strong agreement that the head of a CI unit must have high
credibility within the organization and in the eyes of senior manage-
ment (Bernhardt, 1999; Fuld, 1995; Villain, 1990). This is in line with
the literature on managerial information-seeking behaviors and use,
which suggests a link between the credibility of the source and receptiv-
ity to the message transmitted (Katzer & Fletcher, 1992; Choo & Auster,
1993; Choo, 1998a, b).
The model based on the presence of CI specialists is more adapted to
large organizations. Small and medium-sized organizations will gener-
ally not have dedicated CI specialists. The decision makers and other
key employees will undertake these activities (Chapus & Lesca, 1997;
Julien, 1995, 1996; Julien et al., 1995; Julien et al., 1997).
There are no clear-cut guidelines regarding the optimal mix of per-
sonnel, skill sets, and assigned roles within CI, which are dependent
upon a specific organization’s culture, size, span of operations, and
short- andor long-term needs. Research is needed to better understand
this issue. Also, while the literature calls for the participation of all
employees within an organization’s CI process, little is known about the
appropriate mechanisms that need to be put in place to foster, maintain,
and enhance their ongoing involvement.

Organizing Competitive Intelligence

Baumard and Benvenuti (1998) posit that organizations that tend to
have formal CI units also view their environments as analyzable. Studies
have shown a positive relationship between the degree of uncertainty in
 Competitive Intelligence 371

the environment and the amount of scanning done by a decision maker

(Choo & Auster, 1993), suggesting that the perceived increase of environ-
mental uncertainty within an organization will lead to an increase of
environmental scanning activities from its organizational members. Case
studies of implementations of CI practices in organizations indicate that
they are often initiated in reaction to a critical incident, thus following an
emergent, rather than a structured approach (American Productivity &
Quality Center, 2000; Bergeron, 1995a).
Davenport’s (1997) information politics model, with its four categories
of feudalism, monarchy, federalism, and anarchy, can be used to evalu-
ate the impact of an organization’s choice of CI structure. An organiza-
tion may choose to create one or more CI units, bringing together
information specialists and analysts working in partnership with a net-
work of key informants (Villain, 1990) in a parallel, yet interconnected,
CI process (Gibbons & Prescott, 1996).An organization might decide to
adopt a decentralized approach whereby information specialists and
analysts are scattered throughout various business units, working in a
more or less close relationship. Alternatively, an organization might
have no formal unit devoted t o CI and therefore work on a more ad hoc,
project-driven basis (Vedder, Vanecek, Guynes, & Cappel, 1999).
Gibbons and Prescott’s (1996) study of parallel CI processes in organi-
zations reports that business units also conduct their own informal CI-
activities that run the risk of being duplicative rather than
complementary and collaborative with formal CI units. Whatever the
configuration, there is a need for strong links between the various CI
units, be they formal or “ghost” (parallel) CI activities in business units.
Otherwise, the organization risks developing a piecemeal CI approach,
resulting in an overall lack of strategic intelligence (Bergeron, 1995a).
The CI unit’s position within the corporate structure varies depending
on whether the organization has a unit-specific or an organizationwide
mission. Wherever it is placed, however, a CI unit must maintain a deli-
cate balance between tactical and strategic requirements. For those CI
units having an organizationwide focus and impact, Sutton (1988) sug-
gests that the most appropriate reporting levels are the CEO or the high-
est-level manager responsible for strategy development. Miller (2000a)
claims that the criteria of choice for CI unit placement should be the need
for intelligence and the support provided by senior management. Surveys
372 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology

of CI units indicate that they generally report to corporate planning, mar-

keting, research and development, or economic analysis departments
(Fuld, 1995; Westney & Ghoshal, 1994). For example, if the organiza-
tional focus is on competitive technological intelligence, then the R&D
vice-presidency might be the most appropriate reporting line for the CI
unit (Westney & Ghoshal, 1994). In a 1995 survey of CI practices,
Prescott and Bhardwaj (1995) found that 40 percent of the respondents
reported to marketing or marketing research, 32 percent to planning, and
8 percent to research and development. Nine percent were independent
CI units with the rest scattered among various units such as libraries
and sales departments. Lackman, Saban, and Lanasa (2000) recommend
a CI structure composed of three building blocks: research, intelligence
library, and strategic marketing intelligence. An example of this configu-
ration is found in Matteo and Dykman (1996).
Fuld (1995) and Villain (1990) estimate that it takes from three to five
years to firmly embed a CI function within the strategic decision-making
processes of an organization, during which time decision makers’ views
of CI and its usefulness will evolve from mistrust to interest to support,
and, finally, to enthusiasm. Among the critical factors for a successful CI
implementation within an organization is an informational culture
favoring sharing and learning, including learning from decision mistakes
(Daft, 1998, p. 429), so as to make sense of the organization’s environ-
ment (Weick, 1995) and incorporate learning into its common knowledge
base (Choo, 1998b). Another critical success factor is an organization’s
willingness to regularly question what it is thinking and doing so as to
minimize the “not-invented-here”syndrome, which is defined as “the ten-
dency of a project group of stable composition to believe it possesses a
monopoly of knowledge of its field, which leads it to reject new ideas from
outsiders to the likely detriment of its performance” (Katz &Allen, 1992,
cited in Choo, 1998b, p. 151), a willingness that leads an organization to
the recognition and support of the need t o monitor its environment
(Baumard & Benvenuti, 1998; Fahey, 1999; Pollard, 1999; Prescott,
1995; Salmon & de Linares, 1999; Westney & Ghoshal, 1994). This criti-
cal success factor is illustrated by Salmon, whose mission, as Vice-
President and Director of L’OrBal’s future scanning unit, was to
“cultivate the art of stirring things up” (Salmon & de Linares, 1999, back
cover). The support of top management and champions at all levels of the
 Competitive Intelligence 373

organization is also critical (American Productivity & Quality Center,

1997, 2000; Fuld, 1995; Hussey & Jenster, 1999).
Measuring CI’s impact on an organization, particularly on its bottom
line, has proven difficult (Lackman et al., 2000; Pollard, 1999; Salmon &
de Linares, 1999). CI’s impact is related to the information absorption
capacity of the organization and the willingness of decision makers to
act on the intelligence provided (Herring, 1996; for reviews of decision-
making processes in organizations see Katzer & Fletcher, 1992; Choo &
Auster, 1993). Herring (1996) proposes four basic measures to evaluate
CI’s impact: cost avoidance, time saving, cost saving, and revenue
increase. Additionally, he supplements an overall measure of value
added t o the organization. Herring (1996) suggests evaluating the CI
unit from the perspective of senior managers as well as the degree to
which CI outputs are aligned with the organizational strategy. Bonthous
(1995) proposes nine indicators with Likert-type measures in order to
evaluate CI’s contribution to organizational intelligence and learning.
Quality measures, such as the IS0 9001 certification, which France’s
Agence rbgionale d’information scientifique et technologique (ARIST)
Haute-Normandie received for its CI products and services, can also be
employed (Urso, 1997-1998).
It is still a challenge to measure the impact of any information func-
tion on an organization, and CI is no exception. Various impact models
have been developed within library and information science (e.g.,
Griffiths & King, 1993; Marshall, 1993; Taylor, 19861, which CI may
fruitfully borrow. More research is needed, however, t o better assess the
impact of competitive intelligence on various components-including,
but not limited to the bottom line-information and knowledge manage-
ment within an organization. There is also a lack of validated guidelines
that an enterprise can use to most effectively organize a CI process in
terms of structure, placement, human resources, and managerial and
organizational expectations, avoiding costly trial and error.

Competitive IntelIigence:
Implementation
Surveys conducted of CI practice indicate that it is only infrequently
implemented as a formal activity (American Productivity & Quality
374 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology

Center, 1997; Bergeron, 2000a, c; Calof & Breakspar, 1999; Julien et al.,
1995; Lesca, 1994; Sawka, 1996).Anecdotal evidence suggests that orga-
nizations still do not have a sound understanding of what CI is (e.g.,
Fuld, ZOOOb), that they have a piecemeal approach t o CI (Hussey &
Jenster, 1999), and that those with some formal CI practice are often
dissatisfied with their performance (Harkleroad, 1996; Hussey &
Jenster, 1999; Sawka, 1996). Formal CI practice is mostly found in very
large organizations (American Productivity & Quality Center, 1997;
Choo, 1998a; The Futures Group, 1997; Harkleroad, 1996) such as
Microsoft, Motorola, General Electric, 3M, IBM, Eastman-Kodak,
Procter & Gamble, or Xerox (Ettorre, 1995; The Futures Group, 1997;
Galvin, 1997; Pepper, 1999; Vezmar, 1996). This is not surprising, since
large organizations are more likely to invest in formal information
processes due t o factors such as their greater capacity to absorb infor-
mation, their strategic orientation, and their access to greater financial
resources (Baumard & Benvenuti, 1998; Bergeron, 1996). The Futures
Group (1997) study of CI practice found that 60 percent of its respon-
dents had a formal CI practice. The sample was limited to 101American
companies, 66 percent of which had annual revenues of more than $1bil-
lion and 28 percent of which had annual revenues of over $10 billion.
These companies are certainly not representative of the corporate world
in general; particularly when one considers that, in developed countries,
SMEs represent the vast majority of firms (Bergeron, 2000~).
There are very few studies and examples of CI in SMEs, and American
literature on this topic is rare (e.g., Brandau & Young, 2000; Miller,
2000~).Most studies of SMEs have been conducted in France (Chapus &
Lesca, 1997; Clerc, 1998; CRCI Midi-Pyrenees Service ARIST, 2000; DOU,
2000; Hassid, Jacques-Gustave, & Moinet, 19971, in Quebec (Bergeron,
2000c; Julien et al., 1995; Julien et al., 1997), and in Canada as a whole
(Calof & Breakspar, 1999), where government involvement has been key
to the dissemination of the CI concept and the study of its implementa-
tion in SMEs (Bergeron, 2000a, b, c). Studies show that the presence of
formal CI practice in SMEs is related to the presence of entrepreneurs
with a strategic vision and to the level of adoption of new technology. The
CI process in such organizations is influenced by the presence of and the
participation in high-quality formal and informal networks, and by the
level of environmental turbulence (CRCI Midi-Pyrenees Service ARIST,
 Competitive Intelligence 375

2000; Julien, 1995, 1996; Julien et al., 1995; Julien et al., 1997; Lesca &
Raymond, 1993).
Governments of many countries consider information and knowledge
management (I&KM) to be a key success factor within a competitive
economy, implementing measures t o help organizations, particularly
SMEs, develop effective I&KM practices including competitive intelli-
gence. For example, the Department of Industry, Trade, Science and
Technology of Quebec supported the creation of fourteen competitive
intelligence centers specializing in various industrial sectors such as
chemistry, environment, light metals, textiles, and fashion to provide CI
to SMEs (Bergeron, 2000~).In France, the report of the Groupe
Intelligence economique et strategie des entreprises (1994) acted as a
catalyst for a flurry of CI publications, conferences, and activities, such
as the development of education in CI, the consultancy market, guide-
lines for hiring or contracting CI work (for the guidelines, see
Association des professionnels de l’information et de la documentation,
Association pour la promotion de I’intelligence economique, & Syndicat
national des prestataires et conseils en information, 19961, and the cre-
ation of agencies and programs in both the public and private sectors
(Bergeron, 2000a, c). A comparative study of government approaches
covering initiatives undertaken by the European Union, France,
Germany, Japan, Quebec, Sweden, United Kingdom, and the United
States to promote the development of CI in SMEs finds that govern-
ments typically support a range of mechanisms, with one of the most
common being the use of regional, local, or industrial networks of part-
ners to implement a program designed and managed by a government
agency (Bergeron, 2000a, c). In these cases, government agencies more
frequently act as catalysts, stimulators, and coordinators, while the net-
work of partners deals with the actual creation and offering of products
and services directly to the SMEs. Examples of these products and ser-
vices include reference services, publications such as SDIs and market
research reports, and training programs. Three primary financing
sources are employed, often in a mixed approach: government funding,
cost recovery, and partner contribution. The majority of these initiatives
are on a partial cost-recoverybasis and receive a government subsidy for
an indeterminate period of time (Bergeron, 2000a, c). While the study
did not find one “best model” of government intervention, it did suggest
376 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology

that governments do, indeed, have a role to play in fostering CI and eco-
nomic intelligence activities in SMEs, in local and regional areas, and in
society in general.
Although examples of CI implementations are mostly found in for-
profit organizations, the concept of CI has also been adapted and imple-
mented within the public and not-for-profit sectors such as national,
provincial, and municipal government departments, public research
centers, and museums (for examples see Bergeron, 2000b, c; Hassid et
al., 1997). This suggests that CI is, therefore, a value-adding process
applicable to any type, style, or size of organization.

Ethics and Competitive Intelligence

As stated earlier, CI is based on ethically and legally obtained infor-
mation. However, what, exactly, constitutes an ethical practice is not
clear-cut, with shifting gray zones of CI activities within industrial sec-
tors from country to country, as illustrated in Paine and Santoro’s (1993)
case study of United Technologies. To clarify their stance on what consti-
tutes legal and ethical behaviors regarding competitive information gath-
ering, various organizations have adopted their own codes of conduct to
which organizational members must adhere (e.g., the Society of
Competitive Intelligence Professionals’ [SCIPI code of ethics [http://www.
scip.org1;United Technologies’“Gathering Competitive Information” pol-
icy circular [http://utc.mondosearch.com/cgi-bi~smGo.exe?site_id=
ll&page_id=204]). Readers interested in legal and ethical issues are
referred to Duffey (ZOOO), Fuld (1995), Kalb (ZOOO), Paine and Santoro
(19931, Pooley and Halligan (ZOOO), Rangan and Porter (19921, and
Schultz, Collins, and McCulloch (1994).
Within the context of CI, it is impossible to ignore the issue of indus-
trial espionage. In the literature, authors insist on the ethical and legal
aspects of CI in order to clearly distance CI from industrial espionage
(e.g., Gilad & Gilad, 1988; Nolan, 1999). These two concepts are readily,
but wrongly, conflated by the media, the layperson, and even the Library
of Congress’subject headings (see the section on definitions). When cov-
ering CI, the popular press readily resorts to using the “spy” metaphor
which makes for attention-grabbing headlines (Friedman, Friedman,
Chapman, & Baker, 1997; Miller, 2000a). Adding t o the confusion is the
 Competitive Intelligence 377

visible presence of former intelligence agents on the CI scene as SCIP

members-a group initially composed of librarians and MBAs (Nolan,
1999)-or as influential writers. Government cuts and layoffs a t
national intelligence agencies have led to what Sigurdson and TAgerud
(1992) refer to as the privatization of intelligence, with former agents
turning their skills to “civil” intelligence-not always successfully,
according to Baumard (1998).
Economic espionage, which is considered to be on the rise, is seen as
the new form of “foreign intelligence” against which nations such as the
U.S. have to fight (Fialka, 1997; Fraumann, 1997; Schweizer, 1996;
Winkler, 1997). In response to this perceived threat, the U.S. adopted
the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. 51831-1839 1996).
Interested readers are referred to a special issue of the Competitive
Intelligence Review (8[31, 1997) as well as to Fraumann (1997), Gross0
(2000) and Horowitz (1999).
There is no doubt that there will always be gray areas in the collec-
tion of competitive information. As a sound business practice, organiza-
tions should include within their portfolios of policies a formal code of
ethics that is both well-communicated and clearly understood at all lev-
els of the organization. The code of ethics should take into account the
values, culture, and environment of the organization.

Education and Training

In response to the heightened interest in CI, educational opportunities
are growing. Efforts have been made to identify the core competencies,
skills, and attitudes required for CI. An example is SCIPs 1996 proposal
of curriculum modules for educational programs in CI (Society of
Competitive Intelligence Professionals Education Committee, 1996).
Miller (1994, ZOOOb), St-Jacques (19961, Sawka (1999a), and Shelfer and
Goodrum (2000) also examine CI education from the viewpoint of
required competencies.
A broad range of CI-related courses is generally found in the fields of
management (e.g., strategy, marketing), economics, communications,
and library and information science. These courses are offered primarily
within graduate-level business and library and information science
degree programs. Three educational tracks exist: special courses within
378 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology

an existing degree program, focused CI degreedcertificates, and contin-

uing education opportunities (noncredit courses or seminars). Some of
these courses/programs aim a t training CI specialists while others seek
to raise awareness and build basic skills and competencies for nonspe-
cialists. For these nonspecialists, the acquired skills and competencies
can represent a competitive advantage in the marketplace (Davenport &
Cronin, 1994).At the Ph.D. level, various universities accept CI-related
research topics, as evidenced by the dissertations found in Dissertation
Abstracts and on France’s TheseNet (http://thesenet.abes.fr/).A nonex-
haustive list of CI-related courses and programs can be found on SCIP’s
Web site (http://www.scip.org/education/degrees.html).
Consultancies, various international, national, and regional profes-
sional associations, and governmental and nonprofit organizations also
offer a varied mix of activities, such as internal training to corporate
staff, off-the-shelf training, and e-learning modules. Some of them tar-
get particular audiences (e.g., SMEs by the Centre de recherche indus-
trielle du Quebec [http://www.criq.qc.cal).
The trend toward distance education and online learning has also
fueled the gr th in CI seminars and courses available via the World
Wide Web by all of these above-noted groups. Examples come from uni-
versities (e.g., Drexel University’s CI certificate program (http://www.cis.
drexel.edulgrad.ci.htm1); Shelfer & Goodrum, 2000)’ electronic informa-
tion clearinghouses (e.g., headlight.com and click2learn.com), and con-
sultancies (e.g., Iron Horse Multimedia’s The Fuld War Room
[http://~~~.ir~nhor~emultimedia.com]). There are also several CI
forums allowing the creation of virtual CI communities (e.g., Competia
[http://w~~.competia.com]; Multimedium [http://www.mmedium.com/
forum]).
The development of education and training, especially within uni-
versities a t the graduate level, is one of the factors that may support
the professionalization of CI. Some claim that CI is a “growing and
mature discipline” (McGonagle & Vella, 1998, p. 1491, while others posit
that CI is not a discipline, but an area of expertise (Rouach, 1996). Still
others state that CI is a profession (Friedman et al., 1997; Nolan, 1999,
p.109), although Walker’s (1994a) review suggests that CI does not yet
meet the criteria to be considered a profession. Interested readers can
 Competitive intelligence 379

find a discussion of the CI profession in Walker (1994a, p. 154) and of

the information professions in Abbott (1988, chapter 8).

Conclusion
This chapter has reviewed the evolution of CI between 1994 and 2000.
The picture that emerges shows that there are areas of consensus
related to what constitutes CI, its processes, its tools, and its enabling
technologies. It also shows that CI implementation is spreading in every
type of organization, with mixed results. Much of the literature avail-
able on CI is prescriptive and anecdotal with a high level of redundancy;
signaling that perhaps a saturation level has been reached for this type
of work. There is growing evidence of the need for a convergent approach
to organizational information and knowledge management-within
which CI is embedded-among organizations to develop an “organiza-
tional intelligence” framework.
This review suggests that CI is expert- and system-driven, with little
attention being paid in the professional literature to understanding CI
needs and uses. Rather, the literature abounds with advice on data col-
lection and analysis, but is deficient in understanding and developing
user-driven CI products and services.
CI research can draw upon both information science’s and manage-
ment studies’ theoretical frameworks in order to create useful and valid
models upon which to build a better understanding of the transforma-
tion of data analysis into an actionable intelligence process from a user-
driven perspective, t o develop valid and organizationally useful
performance measures, and to evaluate the impact and benefits of CI for
people and organizations. There is also a need to improve understand-
ing about the appropriate degree of formalization regarding the organi-
zational characteristics, and which informational configurations-
within which CI is situated-an organization ought to develop.
The development of CI is at a crossroads. To grow, it requires the
development of sound, multidisciplinary research from which results
can be appropriately transferred and applied within training programs
and practices. Areas of exploration presented throughout this review
could contribute to validating and strengthening CI’s theoretical base
and practice. When frames of reference are disrupted, organizations,
380 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology

more than ever, need this lens that is CI to provide a clearer way of
thinking and analyzing, and to focus o n near and distant objects in order
t o create a semblance of order o u t of a turbulent, ever-evolving world.

Acknowledgments
The a u t h o r s express their appreciation to Blaise Cronin and Debora
Shaw and to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.
They also thank J o h a n n e Mongrain and Denise Bernard for their help
in document provision and bibliography preparation.

Bibliography
Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert
labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Aguilar, F. J. (1967). Scanning the business environment. New York: Macmillan.
American Productivity & Quality Center. (1995). Benchmarking: Leveraging
best-practice strategies. Houston, TX: APQC. (Consortium Benchmarking
Study Best-Practice Report).
American Productivity & Quality Center. (1997). Competitive and business intel-
ligence: Leveraging information for action. Houston, TX APQC. (Consortium
Benchmarking Study Best-Practice Report).
American Productivity & Quality Center. (2000). Developing a successful com-
petitive intelligence program: Enabling action, realizing results. Houston, Tx:
APQC. (Consortium Benchmarking Study Best-Practice Report).
Ashton, W. B., & Klavans, R. (1997). Keeping abreast of science and technology:
Technical intelligence for business. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press.
Association des professionnels de l'information et de la documentation,
Association pour la promotion de l'intelligence economique, & Syndicat
national des prestataires et conseils en information. (1996). Intelligence
dconomique: prestations de veille: Spdcifications et exigences contractuelles
minimales. Paris: ADBS.
Association frangaise de normalisation (AF'NOR). (1998). Prestations de ueille et
prestations de mise en place d'un systsrne de ueille. Norme XPX 50-053.Norme
expirimentale. Paris: AFNOR.
Barclay, R. O., & Kaye, S. E. (2000). Knowledge management and intelligence
functions-a symbiotic relationship. In J. P. Miller (Ed.), Millennium intelli-
gence (pp. 155-170). Medford, NJ: CyberAge Books.
Barndt, Jr., W. D. (2000). SCIP at the crossroads: A response to the President's
message. Competitive Intelligence Magazine, 3(3),39-42.
Baumard, P. (1991). Stratdgie et surveillance des environnements concurrentiels.
Paris: Masson.
 Competitive Intelligence 381

Baumard, P. (1996). From infowar to knowledge warfare: Preparing for the par-
adigm shift. In A. D. Campen, et al. (Eds.), Cyberwar: Security, strategy and
conflict i n the information age (pp. 147-160). Fairfax, VA: AFCEA
International Press.
Baumard, P. (1998). Stratdgies compardes d’intelligence dconomique en France et
aux Etats-Unis / A comparison of economic intelligence strategies in France
and in the United States. Retrieved February 1, 2001, from the World Wide
Web: http://www.idt.fr/~ch-idt97/fr~idt97/F~congres/Abstracts/D4.html
Baumard, P., & Benvenuti, J.-A. (1998). Compdtitivitd et syst2mes d’information:
De l’outil d‘analyse a u management stratdgique. Paris: InterEditions.
Bergeron, P. (1995a). An examination of the perceptions and practices of infor-
mation resources management i n large organizations from the Canadian pri-
vate sector. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, NY.
(University Microfilms International No96-16298).
Bergeron, P. (1995b). Observations sur le processus de veille et les obstacles a sa
pratique dans les organisations. Argus, 24(3), 17-22.
Bergeron, P. (1996). Information resources management. Annual Review of
Information Science and Technology, 31, 263-300.
Bergeron, P. (2000a). Government approaches t o foster competitive intelligence
practice in SMEs: A comparative study of eight governments. Proceedings of
the G3rd A S I S Annual Meeting, 301-308.
Bergeron, P. (2000b). Regional business intelligence: the view from Canada.
Journal of Information Science, 26, 153-160.
Bergeron, P. (2000~).Veille stratdgique et PME: Comparaison des politiques gou-
vernementales de soutien. Sainte-Fox Quebec: Presses de l’Universit6 du
Quebec.
Berkman, R. (1999a). Comparing news alert services-part 1. The Information
Advisor, l l ( l O ) , 1-8.
Berkman, R. (199913). Choosing a business news alert service-part 2. The
Information Advisor, 11(11),1-8.
Bernhardt, D. C. (1999). Consumer versus producer: Overcoming the disconnect
between management and competitive intelligence. Competitive Intelligence
Review, 10(3), 19-26.
Bonthous, J.-M. (1994). Understanding intelligence across cultures.
International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, 7, 275-3 11.
Bonthous, J.-M. (1995). Intelligence as learning. Competitive Intelligence Review,
G(1), 4-14.
Boucher, D. (1998). Processus de veille dans un centre de recherche. In P.
Bergeron, & S. Tellier (Eds.). Actes d u colloqire sur la veille technologique et
stratdgique. Pour des organisations intelligentes: Mdthodes et outils de veille
(pp. 93-101). Montreal: Universite de Montreal, Ecole de bibliotheconomie et
des sciences de l’information et Centre de recherche informatique de
Montrkal.
Boucher, D., & Henry, V. (2000). Intelligence technique et strategique dans un
centre de recherche et developpement: organisation, methodes et outils,
382 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology

perspectives de d6veloppement - le cas de France TBlBcom R&D. Revue d’in-

telligence 6conomique, 6-7, 53-60.
Boureston, J. (2000). Using intelligent search agents for CI. Competitive
Intelligence Magazine, 3(1),32-36.
Brandau, J., & Young, A. (2000). Competitive intelligence in entrepreneurial and
start-up businesses. Competitive Intelligence Review, 11(1), 74-84.
Brandenburger, A. M., & Nalebuff, B. J. (1997). Co-opetition. New York:
Doubleday.
Breitzman, A. F. (2000). Assessing a n industry’s R&D focus rapidly: A case study
using data-driven categorization in a consumer products area. Competitive
Intelligence Review, 11(1), 58-64.
Brynjolfsson, E., & Kahin, B. (2000). Understanding the digital economy: Data,
tools, and research. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Buchanan, L. (1999). The smartest little company in America. Inc., 21(1),42-54.
Bui, T., & Lee, J. (1999). An agent-based framework for building decision support
systems. Decision Support Systems, 25, 225-237.
Burwell, H.P. (1999). Online competitive intelligence: Increase your profits using
cyber-intelligence. Tempe, AZ:Facts on Demand.
Calof, J., & Breakspear, A. (1999). Survey of Canadian R&D companies:
Awareness and use of competitive technical intelligence i n Canadian technol-
ogy-intensive industry. CI Survey for NRCICISTI. Phase 2 Report: Interview
and Final Results. Unpublished report, Canadian Institute for Science and
Technology, Ottawa, 1999. Retrieved February 1, 2001, from the World Wide
Web: http://www.nrc.ca/cisti/ref/nrcci-e.html
Cartwright, D. L., Boughton, P. D., & Miller, S. W. (1995). Competitive intelli-
gence systems: Relationships t o strategic orientation and perceived useful-
ness. Journal of Managerial Issues, 6, 420-434.
Castells, P. E., Salvador, M. R., & Bosch, R. M. (2000). Technology mapping, busi-
ness strategy, and market opportunities. Competitive Intelligence Review,
11(1),46-57.
Chapus, E., & Lesca, H. (1997). Implantation d’une veille stratbgique en coopera-
tion en milieu de PMI. Syst2mes d‘information et management, 2, 31-62.
Chase, L. (1998). Essential business tactics for the Net. New York: Wiley.
Chochrek, D. (2000). Market the value of your competitive intelligence: An added
role for the information center. Information Outlook, 4, 32-35.
Choo, C. W. (1998a). Information management for the intelligent organization:
The art ofscanning the environment. 2nd ed. Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Choo, C. W. (199813). The knowing organization: How organizations use informa-
tion to construct meaning, create knowledge, and make decisions. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Choo, C. W., & Auster, E. (1993). Environmental scanning: Acquisition and use of
information by managers. Annual Review of Information Science and
Technology, 28, 279-314.
 Competitive Intelligence 383

Chu, S. (1999). Competitive intelligence on the World Wide Web. I n

Communication jazz: Improvising the new international communication cul-
ture (pp. 237-243). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
Clerc, P. (1997/1998). Economic intelligence. In Y. Courrier & A. Large (Eds.),
World information report (pp. 304-3171, Paris: UNESCO.
Clerc, P. (1998). Les PME et l'intelligence economique. Athe'na, 5, ler semestre,
181-188.
Coburn, M. M. (1999). Competitive technical intelligence: A guide to design, analy-
sis, and action. Washington, D.C./New York American Chemical Society/
Oxford University Press.
CRCI Midi-Pyrenees Service ARIST. (2000). Les pratiques des PMI de la region
Midi-Pyrenees en matiere d'information strategique et d'intelligence
konomique. Revue d'intelligence e'conomique, 6-7, 29-35.
Cronin, B. (2000). Strategic intelligence and networked business. Journal of
Information Science, 26, 133-138.
Cronin, B., & Crawford, H. (1999a). Information warfare: Its application in mil-
itary and civilian contexts. The Information Society, 15, 257-263.
Cronin, B., & Crawford, H. (1999b). Raising the intelligence stakes: Corporate
information warfare and strategic surprise. Competitive Intelligence Review,
10(3), 58-66.
Cronin, B., & Davenport, E. (1993). Social intelligence. Annual Review of
Information Science and Technology, 28, 3-44.
Cronin, B., Overfelt, K., Fouchereaux, K., Manzvanzvike, T., Cha, M., & Sona, E.
(1994). The Internet and competitive intelligence: A survey of current prac-
tice. International Journal of Information Management, 14, 204-222.
Daft, R. L. (1998). Organization theory and design. 6th ed. Cincinnati, OH:
South-Western College Publishing.
da Silva, A., Mannina, B., Quoniam, L., & Rostaing, H. (2000). Searching for
experts on the Internet. Competitive Intelligence Review, 11(4), 38-46.
Davenport, E. (2000). Social intelligence in the age of networks. Journal of
Information Science, 26, 145-152.
Davenport, E., & Cronin, B. (1994). Competitive intelligence and social advan-
tage. Library Trends, 43, 239-252.
Davenport, T. H. (1997). Information ecology: Mastering the information and
knowledge environment. New York: Oxford University Press.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations
manage what they know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Davis, J. C. (1999). How volume, value, growth ( W G ) analysis can work for you.
Competitive Intelligence Review, 10, 41-54.
Davis, J. L., & Livny, E. (1994). Monitoring Japanese scientific and technical
information using JICST databases. Database, 17(3), 33-42.
Dedijer, S. (1999). Doing business in a changed world: The intelligence revolution
and our planetary civilization. Competitive Intelligence Review, 10(3),67-78.
Denning, D. E. (1999). Information warfare and security. Reading, MA Addison-
Wesley; ACM Press.
384 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology

Dishman, P., & Nitse, P. (1999). Disinformation usage in corporate communica-

tions: CI'ers beware. Competitive Intelligence Reuiew, 10(4), 20-29.
Dou, H. (1995). Veille technologique et compe'titiuite'.Paris: Dunod.
Dou, H. (2000). Competitive intelligence for SMEs. From intellectual concepts to
actionable CI. Rules and good practices. Proceedings of the 63rd ASZS Annual
Meeting, 301-308.
Dou, H. J.-M. (1997). Technology watch and competitive intelligence: The
European way. Competitiue Intelligence Reuiew, 8(1),78-84.
Duffey, W. S. (2000). Competitive information collection: Avoiding legal land
mines. Competitive Intelligence Reuiew, 11(3),37-53.
Elston, G. (2000). Great analysis to impress your CEO: The SWOT analysis.
Competia. 5 . Retrieved February 1, 2001, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.competia.com
Ettorre, B. (1995). Managing competitive intelligence. Management Review, 84,
15-19.
Evans, J. C. (1994). U. S. business competitiveness and the intelligence commu-
nity. International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, 7,
353-361.
Fahey, L. (1999). Competitors: Outwitting, outmaneuvering, outperforming. New
York: Wiley.
Fernandez, E., Montes, J . M., Perez-Bustamante, G. O., & Vazquez, C. J. (1999).
Competitive strategy in technological knowledge imitation. International
Journal of Technology Management, 18, 535-548.
Fialka, J. J . (1997). War by other means: Economic espionage in America. New
York: W.W. Norton.
Fink, A., & Schlake, 0. (2000). Scenario management -An approach for strategic
foresight. Competitive Intelligence Reuiew, 11(1), 37-45.
Finnigan, J. P. (1996). The manager's guide to benchmarking: Essential skills for
the new competitiue-cooperative economy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fleischer, C. S., & Bensoussan, B. (2000). A FAROUTO way t o manage the GI
analysis process. Competia, 9. Retrieved February 1, 2001, from the World
Wide Web: http://www.competia.com
Fraumann, E. (1997). Economic espionage: Security missions redefined. Public
Administration Reuiew, 57, 303-308.
Friedman, G., Friedman, M., Chapman, C., & Baker, J . S., Jr. (1997). The intel-
ligence edge: How to profit i n the information age. New York: Crown.
Fuld, L. (1999). Competitive intelligence on the Web: Finding true net worth.
EContent, 22(4), 16-24.
Fuld, L. M. (1995). The new competitor intelligence: The complete resource for
finding, analyzing, and using information about your competitors. New York:
Wiley.
Fuld, L. M. (2000a). Foreword. In J . P. Miller (Ed.), Millennium intelligence (pp.
1-2). Medford, NJ: CyberAge Books.
 Competitive Intelligence 385

Fuld, L. M. (2000b). What competitive intelligence is and is not! Retrieved

February 1, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http:llwww.fuld.codw/whatCI.
html
The Futures Group. (1997). Ostriches & Eagles 1997. Retrieved February 1,
2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.tfg.com/pubs/docs/O~EIII-97.
html
Galvin, R. W. (1997). Competitive intelligence at Motorola. Competitive
Intelligence Review, 8(1),3-6.
Georgantzas, N. C.,& Acar, W. (1995). Scenario-driven planning: Learning to
manage strategic uncertainty. Westport, C T Quorum Books.
Gibbons, P. T., & Prescott, J. E. (1996). Parallel competitive intelligence
processes in organisations. International Journal of Technology Management,
11, 162-178.
Gilad, B. (1994). Business blindspots: Replacing your company’s entrenched and
outdated myths, beliefs, and assumptions with the realities of today’s markets.
Chicago: Probus.
Gilad, B., & Gilad, T. (19: 1. The business intelligence system:A new tool for com-
petitive advantage. New York: Amacom.
Graef, J. (1996). Sharing business intelligence on the World Wide Web.
Competitive Intelligence Review, 7(1), 52-61.
Griffiths, J.-M., & King, D. W.(1993). Special libraries: Increasing the informa-
tion edge. Washington, DC: Special Libraries Association.
Grosso, A. (2000). The economic espionage act: Touring the minefields.
Communications of the ACM, 43(8), 15-18.
Groupe Intelligence economique et stratkgie des entreprises. (1994). Intelligence
kconomique et stratigie des enterprises (pp. 3, 26). Pans: La Documentation
frangaise.
Hall, H. (2000). Online information sources: Tools of business intelligence?
Journal of Information Science, 26(3), 139-143.
Harkleroad, D. (1996). Too many ostriches, not enough eagles. Competitive
Intelligence Review, 7(1), 23-27.
Hassid, L., Jacques-Gustave, P., & Moinet, N. (1997). Les PME face a u dkfi de
l’intelligence 6conomique: Le renseignement sans complexe. Paris: DUNOD.
Hendrick, L. G. J. (1996). Is competitive intelligence getting the proper atten-
tion? Security Management, 40, 149-150.
Herring, J . P. (1996). Measuring the effectiveness of competitive intelligence:
Assessing & communicating Cz‘s value to your organization. Alexandria, VA:
Society of Competitive Intelligence Professionals.
Herring, J . P. (1998). What is intelligence analysis? Competitive Intelligence
Magazine, 1(2),13-16.
Herther, N. K. (1998). Push and the politics of the Internet. The Electronic
Library, 16, 109-116.
Hoetker, G. (1999). Patterns in patents: Searching the forest not the trees.
EContent, 22(5), 37-45.
386 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology

Hohhof, B. (1994). Developing information systems for competitive intelligence

support. Library Trends, 43, 226-238.
Hohhof, B. (2000). The information technology marketplace. In J. P. Miller (Ed.),
Millennium intelligence (pp. 133-154). Medford, NJ: CyberAge Books.
Hohhof, B., & Chitwood, L. (2000). At a crossroads: Information professional t o
intelligence analyst. Information Outlook, 4(2), 22-25.
Horowitz, R. (1999). SCIP policy analysis: Competitive intelligence and the eco-
nomic espionage act. Competitive Intelligence Review, 10(3), 84-89,
Hovis, J. H. (2000). CI a t Avnet A bottom-line impact. Competitive Intelligence
Review, 11(3), 5-15.
Hussey, D., & Jenster, P. (1999). Competitor intelligence. Chichester, U.K.: John
Wiley.
Industry Canada. Research Publications Program (1998). Recent jumps in
patenting activities: Comparative innovative performance of major industrial
countries, patterns and explanations. Working Paper number 27. Ottawa,
Canada: Industry Canada.
Ives, T. (1995). An overview of the Internet for competitive intelligence profes-
sionals. competitive Intelligence Review, 6(l),28-36.
Johnson, A.R. (1999). When knowing news is good news. Limra's Marketfacts,
18(4), 14-15.
Julien, P.-A. (1995). New technologies and technological information in small
business. Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 459475.
Julien, P.-A. (1996). Information control: A key factor in small business develop-
ment. In International Council on Small Business 41st World Conference.
Retrieved February 1,2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.sbaer.uca.
edu/docs/proceedings/96ICSW 129.txt
Julien, P.-A., Lachance, R., Raymond, L., Jacob, R., & Rarnangalahy, C. (1995).
L a veille technologique dans les PME manufacturieres que'be'coises. (Report
No. 95-05). Trois-Rivihres: UQTR: Groupe de recherche en economie et gestion
des PME.
Julien, P.-A., Raymond, L., Jacob, R., & Ramangalahy, C. (1997). Information,
strategies et pratiques de veille technologique dans les PME. Syst6mes d'iia-
formation et management, 2, 63-83.
Kalb, C. C. (1999). Beyond competitive intelligence: Repositioning SCIP.
Competitive Intelligence Reuiew, 10(4), 1-2.
Kalb, C. C. (2000). Conducting intelligence ethically. In J. P. Miller (Ed.),
Millennium intelligence (pp. 189-202). Medford, NJ: CyberAge Books.
Kassler, H. S. (1997). Mining the Internet for competitive intelligence: How to
track and sift for golden nuggets. Online, 21(5), 34-64.
Kassler, H. S. (2000). Competitive intelligence on the Internet: Going for the
gold. Information Outlook, 4(2),37-42.
Kassler, H. S., & Sandman, M. A. (2000). Information resources for intelligence.
In J. P. Miller (Ed.), Millennium intelligence (pp. 97-132). Medford, NJ:
CyberAge Books.
 Competitive Intelligence 387

Katzer, J., & Fletcher, P. T. (1992). The information environment of managers.

Annmal Review of Information Science and Technology, 27, 227-263.
Kennedy, M. L. (1996). Positioning strategic information: Partnering for the
information age. Special Libraries, 87, 120-131.
Kline, D. (2000). Discovering new value in intellectual property. Haruard
Business Review, 78, 54-66.
Klobas, J. E., & McGill, T. (1995). Identification of technological gatekeepers in
the information technology profession. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science, 46, 581-589.
Kurtz, C. J. (2000). Business wargaming. Kappa White Paper. Laguna Hills, CA:
KappaWest.
Lackman, C. L., Saban, K., & Lanasa, J. M. (2000). Organizing the competitive
intelligence function: A benchmarking study. Competitive Intelligence Review,
11(1),17-27.
Lancaster, F. W., & Loescher, J . (1994). The corporate library and issues man-
agement. Library Trends, 43, 159-169.
Lesca, H. (1994). Veille strategique pour le management strategique: Etat de la
question et axes de recherche. Economies et soci6t6s, 28(5),31-50.
Lesca, H., & Raymond, L. (1993). Experimentation d'un systkme-expert pour l'e-
valuation de la veille strategique dans les PME. Revue internationale PME, 6,
49-65.
Library of Congress. (1991). Library of Congress Subject Headings. Washington,
D.C.: Library of Congress.
Marshall, J . G. (1993). The impact of the special library on corporate decision-
making. Washington, DC: Special Libraries Association.
Martinet, B., & Marti, Y.-M. (1995). L'intelligence kconomique: Les yeux et les
oreilles de l'entreprise. Paris: Editions d'organisation.
Matteo, M. A,, & Dykman, E. H. (1996). Building credibility, champions, and a
mandate for competitive assessment. Competitive Intelligence Review,
7(Supplement l),S19-S23.
McGonagle, J . J., & Vella, C. M. (1998). Protecting your company against com-
petitive intelligence. Westport, C T Quorum Books.
Miller, J . P. (1994). Educational advantage for intelligence professionals. Library
P e n d s , 43, 253-270.
Miller, J. P. (2000a). The intelligence process-what it is, its benefits, and current
status. In J. P. Miller (Ed.), Millennium intelligence (pp. 9-30). Medford, NJ:
CyberAge Books.
Miller, J . P. (2000b). Skills and training for intelligence. In J. P. Miller (Ed.),
Millennium intelligence (pp. 55-68). Medford, N J CyberAge Books.
Miller, J . P. (2000~). Small business intelligence-people make it happen. In J . P.
Miller (Ed.), Mzllenniurn intelligence (pp. 225-238). Medford, NJ: CyberAge
Books.
Mogee, M. E. (1994). Patent analysis for strategic advantage: Using interna-
tional patent records. Competitive Intelligence Review, 5(1),27-35.
388 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology

Moon, M. D. (2000). Effective use of information & competitive intelligence.

Information Outlook, 4(2), 17-20.
Nolan, J. (1999). Confidential: Uncover your competitor’s secrets legally and
quickly and protect your own. New York: Harper Business.
Nolan, J. A., & Quinn, J. F. (2000). Intelligence and security. In J. P. Miller (Ed.),
Millennium intelligence (pp. 203-224). Medford, NJ: CyberAge Books.
Notess, G. R. (1999). On the Net: Searching for current news. Database, 22,
57-60.
ODell, C., & Grayson, C. J., Jr. (1998). If only we knew what we know: The trans-
fer of internal knowledge and best practice. New York: Free Press.
Oxelheim, L. (1999). Applying “MUST” analysis and the role of government in CI.
Competitive Intelligence Review, 10(4), 65-73.
Paine, L. S., & Santoro, M. (1993). Competitive information policy at United
Technologies. Boston: Harvard Business School. (Case study no. 9-392-091).
Pepper, J. E. (1999). Competitive intelligence at Procter & Gamble. Competitive
Intelligence Review, 10(4),4-9.
Pinkerton, R. L. (1996). Competitive intelligence revisited: A history and assess-
ment of its use in marketing. Competitive Intelligence Review, 7(Supplement
l),S127-S135.
Pollard, A. (1999). Competitor intelligence: Strategy, tools and techniques for com-
petitive advantage. New York: Pitman.
Pooley, J., & Halligan, M. R. (2000). Intelligence and the law. In J. P. Miller (Ed.),
Millennium intelligence (pp. 171-188). Medford, NJ: CyberAge Books.
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries
and competitors. New York: Free Press.
Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free Press.
Powell, Tim (1999). Tracking patents with ‘IPAM.’ Competitive Intelligence
Magazine, 2(2), 33-34.
Prescott, J . E. (1995). The evolution of competitive intelligence. International
Review of Strategic Management, 6, 71-90.
Prescott, J. E., & Bhardwaj, G. (1995). Competitive intelligence practices: A sur-
vey. Competitive Intelligence Review, 6(2), 4-14.
Rangan, U. S., & Porter, M. E. (1992). Ethical dimensions of competitive analy-
sis. Boston: Harvard Business School.
Romagni, P., & Wild, V. (1998). L’intelligence e‘conomique au service de l‘entre-
prise. Paris: Les presses du management.
Rouach, D. (1996). L a veille technologique et l’intelligence e‘conomique. Paris:
Presses universitaires de France. (Que sais-je? 3086)
Salmon, R., & de Linares, Y. (1999). Competitive intelligence: Scanning the global
environment. London: Economica.
Sawka, K. (1999a). The analyst’s corner: It’s the analysis, stupid! Competitive
Intelligence Magazine, 2(4), 43-44.
Sawka, K. (1999b). Competiting [sic] hypothesis analysis. Competitive
Intelligence Magazine, 2(3), 37-38.
 Competitive Intelligence 389

Sawka, K. A. (1996). Demystifying business intelligence. Management Review,

85(10), 47-51.
Schultz, N. O., Collins, A. B., & McCulloch, M. (1994). The ethics of business
intelligence. Journal of Business Ethics, 13, 305-314.
Schweizer, P. (1996). The growth of economic espionage. Foreign Affairs, 75,
9-14.
Shaker, S. M., & Gembicki, M. P. (1999). The warroom guide to competitive intel-
ligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Shapiro, C., & Varian, H. R. (1999). Information rules: A strategic guide to the
network economy. Boston: Harvard Business School.
Shelfer, K., & Goodrum, A. (2000). Competitive intelligence as an extension of
library education. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science,
41, 353-361.
Sigurdson, J., & Tigerud, Y. (Eds). (1992). The intelligent corporation: The pri-
vatisation of intelligence. London: Taylor Graham.
Society of Competitive Intelligence Professionals. Education Committee. (1996).
Curriculum modules for education programs in competitive intelligence for use
by academics and professional trainers. Arlington, V A Society of Competitive
Intelligence Professionals.
Society of Management Accountants of Canada. (1996). Developing comprehen-
sive competitive intelligence. Management Accounting Practices Handbook.
Toronto: The Society. [Management accounting guideline 391.
Steele-Vivas, R. D. (1996). Creating a smart nation: Strategy, policy, intelligence,
and information. Government Information Quarterly, 13, 159-173.
St-Jacques, N. (1996). Profession veilleur. Argus, 25(3), 23-29.
Sutton, H. (1988). Competitive intelligence. New York: The Conference Board.
Taylor, R. S. (1986). Value-added processes i n information systems. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Tessun, F. (1997). Scenario analysis and early warning systems at Daimler-Benz
Aerospace. Competitive Intelligence Review, 8(4), 30-40.
Treat, J. E., Thibault, G. E., & Asin, A. (1996). Dynamic competitive simulation:
Wargaming as a strategic tool. Strategy & Business. Retrieved February 1,
2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.strategy-business.com/strategy/
96204
Urso, P. (1997-1998). Les services de veille peuvent Gtre certifies. Technologies
internationales, 40, 24-27.
U.S. House of Representatives. 104th Congress. Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence. (1996). IC21: The intelligence community i n the 21st century.
Staff study. U.S. GPO. Retrieved February 1,2001, from the World Wide Web:
http:Nwww.access.gpo.gov/congress/house/intel/icZl_toc.html
Vedder, R. G., & Vanececk, M. T. (1998). Competitive intelligence for IT resource
planning: Some lessons learned. Information Strategy, 15(1),29-36.
Vedder, R. G., Vanecek, M. T., Guynes, C. S., & Cappel, J . J. (1999). CEO and CIO
perspectives on competitive intelligence. Communications of the ACM, 42(8),
109-116.
390 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology

Vezmar, J. M. (1996). Competitive intelligence at Xerox. Competitive Intelligence

Review, 7(3), 15-19.
Vibert, C. (2000). Web-based analysis for competitive intelligence. Westport, C T
Quorum Books.
Villain, J. (1990). Centreprise aux aguets: Information, surveillance de l'enuiron-
nement, proprie'te' et protection industrielles, espionnage et contre-espionnage
au service de la compe'titivite'. Paris: Masson.
von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I. (2000). Enabling knowledge creation: How
to unlock the mystery of tacit knowledge and release the power of innovation.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Walker, T. D. (1994a). Introduction: The library in corporate intelligence activi-
ties. Library Trends, 43, 149-158.
Walker, T. D. (1994b). The literature of competitive intelligence. Library Dends,
43, 271-284.
Watts, R. J., Porter, A. L., & Newman, N. C. (1998). Innovation forecasting using
bibliometrics. Competitive Intelligence Review, 9(4), 11-19.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking i n organizations. Thousand Oaks, C A Sage.
Westney, E., & Ghoshal, S. (1994). Building a competitor intelligence organiza-
tion: Adding value in an information function. In T. J. Allen & M. S. Scott
Morton (Eds.), Information technology and the corporation of the 1990s:
Research studies (pp. 430-453). New York: Oxford University Press.
Weston, D. M. (1991). Best practices i n competitive analysis: Managing CA as a
business. Princeton: Stanford Research Institute. (Report 801).
Wheaton, K. J. (2000). How t o make an embassy work for you. Competitive
Intelligence Magazine, 3(1): 14-17.
Whitehorn, M., & Whitehorn, M. (1999). Business intelligence: The IRA4 solution:
Data warehousing and O W . London: Springer-Verlag.
Wilensky, H. L. (1967). Organizational intelligence: Knowledge and policy in gou-
ernment and industry. New York: Basic Books.
Winkler, I. (1997). Corporate espionage. Roseville, C A Prima Publishing.
Zhu, D., & Porter, A, (1999). Technology mapping--an application on the Internet
domain. TPAC. Retrieved February 1, 2001, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.tpac.gatech.edu/Examples/internet/internet.html