I think as a whole, we in CI are not good at marketing, and that is what’s behind cooperative intelligence: bascially marketing yourself almost indirectly by displaying an openly cooperative attitude and being a giver through leadership: managing by example and delivering when you say you’re going to; connection: recognizing the value of each connection and realizing that relationships don’t happen, you have to work at them one at time; and communication: the key to success: figuring out what they need to know and how they need it delivered, which is ongoing. Unfortunately with many in CI, we aren’t in our client’s faces enough to realize how quickly our information from them about their needs becomes outdated. We don’t have the confidence to stay in touch.

What have you noticed? I think we have a lot to talk about, Tom!

Nice comparison. Your points make good sense. The observation that product management is viewed as a core and essential function is true in my experience. It often includes a measure of competitive intelligence just as it includes some financial, market research, product development and other things.

The CI problem is that CI rarely stands alone especially when there is a choice between it and a core function like product management. The value from a dedicated CI professional is often not seen as meaningfully distinctive from what an “amateur” can do (no disrespect to product managers who are often quite smart and capable).

Maybe there are two reasons. One, we might be too satisfied to be behind the scenes people. We work through and with people but this can be missed or devalued easily. Second, we market our distinctiveness poorly. Why use a CI specialist when a product management generalist appears to do everything that is necessary? Or do they?

– Tom Hawes