This paper critically reviews three articles published in the Journal of Competitive Intelligence and Management. The first article examines factors for assessing competitive intelligence (CI) performance and the difficulties of measuring CI return on investment. The second provides an overview and evaluation of measurement approaches for business intelligence (BI) and competitive intelligence, finding most existing methods flawed. The third explores the drivers behind increasing global demand for business intelligence. Across all three articles, the reviewer identifies a common limitation: each functions more as a literature overview or introductory survey than as original empirical research, making them more suitable as student reference material than as contributions to academic scholarship.
This review examines three articles published in the Journal of Competitive Intelligence and Management (Vol. 4, No. 2, 2007). Each article addresses a different dimension of competitive intelligence and business intelligence — performance assessment, measurement approaches, and global demand — and each is evaluated here for its research quality, methodological rigor, and contribution to the academic literature.
The first article is "Performance Assessment in Competitive Intelligence: An Exploration, Synthesis and Research Agenda" by David Blenkhorn and Craig Fleisher. The purpose of the article is to answer the vital question: what are the critical factors for assessing competitive intelligence (CI) performance? The research question addresses the role that competitive intelligence plays in a company's profitability. The question is interesting in that external environmental scanning and competitor research make important contributions to strategic decision-making, but they can be costly and time-consuming. Understanding the role that CI plays in generating profit is important for determining the point at which CI achieves diminishing returns on investment.
The authors used workshops and discussion sessions at a CI conference to obtain survey results from 103 respondents. The selection process was expedient rather than rigorous, and respondents were given a large number of questions. Qualitative analysis was performed, though the analysis was limited by the poor quality of most responses. The authors attempted to determine why companies measure CI return on investment (ROI), how they do so, what barriers they face, and what alternative measures might be used. They found that measurement allows companies to quantify the value of their CI initiatives, to request additional resources, and to move CI toward functioning as a profit centre. Companies are constrained in their ability to measure the outputs of CI activities, so while they appreciate the value of measuring CI ROI, the task is often prohibitively difficult. The authors offer some suggestions for measuring CI ROI, but none of those suggestions appears to adequately address the core difficulty of measuring outputs.
The article is limited because the authors were unable to obtain quality responses, relying more on summarizing existing research and their own observations than on analysis of the survey results. The strength of the article lies in its identification of major obstacles to studying the value of CI within organizations. Overall, the article has limited value. The material would be useful in a textbook chapter about CI, but as an academic article it represents introductory coverage rather than providing new insights into the topic.
"Evaluates overview of BI effectiveness methods"
"Assesses Herzog's BI demand literature review"
"Recommends articles for students, not academics"
You’re 41% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.