Evaluating Business and Competitive Intelligence Research
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.
- Introduction: Frames the three-article review scope
- CI Performance Assessment: Blenkhorn and Fleisher: Critiques CI ROI measurement survey study
- BI and CI Measurement Approaches: Buchda: Evaluates overview of BI effectiveness methods
- Global Demand for Business Intelligence: Herzog: Assesses Herzog's BI demand literature review
- Overall Evaluation and Recommendations: Recommends articles for students, not academics
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Each article review follows a consistent structure: purpose, methodology, findings, strengths, and weaknesses — making the critique easy to follow and compare across sources.
- The reviewer maintains an objective, academic tone throughout, offering balanced assessments rather than purely negative or positive judgments.
- The concluding recommendation is nuanced, distinguishing between the articles' limited value for academic audiences and their genuine usefulness as student-oriented overviews.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates critical source evaluation — a core academic skill in which the writer moves beyond summarizing content to assess methodological rigor, evidential support, and the practical or theoretical contribution of each source. This is especially evident in the critique of Blenkhorn and Fleisher's survey methodology and Herzog's failure to support claims with quantitative evidence.
Structure breakdown
The paper is organized as a sequential multi-article review. Each of the three articles receives its own dedicated section following a summary-then-critique format. A brief introduction frames the subject area, and a short concluding paragraph synthesizes the reviewer's overall assessment and audience recommendation. The Works Cited section follows MLA citation style.
Introduction
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.
CI Performance Assessment: Blenkhorn and Fleisher
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.
Works Cited
Blenkhorn, D. & Fleisher, C. (2007). Performance assessment in competitive intelligence: An exploration, synthesis and research agenda. Journal of Competitive Intelligence and Management, Vol. 4 (2), 4–22.
Buchda, S. (2007). Rulers for business intelligence and competitive intelligence: An overview and evaluation of measurement approaches. Journal of Competitive Intelligence and Management, Vol. 4 (2), 23–54.
Herzog, J. (2007). Why is there increasing global demand for business intelligence? Journal of Competitive Intelligence and Management, Vol. 4 (2), 55–71.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.