Organisational Structure and Support for CI

Considering core CI activities in terms of the firm organisation that supports it requires theorists to see the shape and nature of the CI process as an outcome of the overall organisational structure and support that is developed for it. The new management model of St. Gallen integrates strategy, structure and culture (Spickers 2004) both horizontally and vertically (Bleicher 1999; Schwaninger 2001). The organisational support for the CI process is part of the firm organisation and influences the degree to which external information (market, competitors) can be successfully accessed and analysed.

Staskeviciute and Neverauskas (2008) offered a useful overview of organisational intelligence, taking the example of a university they outline how organisational transformation occurs by thinking systemically rather than hierarchically. They put group work and group decisions in the foreground instead of hierarchies and

individuals. When considering how this relates to the CI process, it is their emphasis on informal – ad hoc and flexible – ways of interaction that has relevance. Explicit and implicit knowledge sharing are an important organisational support for effective CI. In considering Miller (2008), who argued that implicit knowledge drives allocative efficiency, and Nonaka and von Krogh (2009), who emphasised that tacit knowledge is of central importance in knowledge creation, it is important to take into account the nature of knowledge sharing practices that are part of the CI activities in firms. Bray (2007) identified a key steps for knowledge sharing in turbulent environments: opportunities and motivation to exchange knowledge; the process of knowledge exchange, and its impact on organisational performance. These steps apply for CI activities in the firms, too. It is noteworthy that Bray (2007) and Calof and Dishman (2008) emphasised the impact of knowledge sharing on organisational performance, which is seen as relevant for this PhD study. Razmi and Ghasemi (2015) found

relatedness between flexibility – which they agility – and technology intelligence, trust, and commitment, implying the importance of links (systems). These considerations show the importance of knowledge management for CI activities. Schweinsfurth and Herstatt (2016) detailed the innovation process emphasising to include CI and the role of employees within that process by defining the need for knowledge.

In considering explicit knowledge gathering and knowledge sharing this brings the role of information systems in CI implementation into play. While the identification of the organisational structure that supports CI is a good starting point for defining CI less as a discrete function and more as an integral part of the overall management approach, a further consideration is the technology that underpins CI activities. When examining the Swiss telecom market, one critical area of CI is technological intelligence. Technology intelligence enables a firm to identify and analyse technology changes (Hwang and Christensen 2008). Information systems support the application of data analyses of market changes, which is a core CI activity. Information systems support technology intelligence, as noted below in the following definition:

“A multi-disciplinary subject, whose objects of study are information and its functions,

information technology and its use in organisational contexts” (Kecheng 2000).

Arman and Foden (2010) presented a technology intelligence process and toolset

supporting firms to assess technological changes. At the core of the process is a scenario analysis for technology threats and opportunities, and a benchmark of the firm’s

position. Tanev and Balletti (2008) recommend applying appropriate firm

classifications and in depth statistical analyses when studying the relationship between CI information and innovation. Capon, Farley and Hulbert (1988) identified criteria to evaluate organisational innovativeness as one factor of change, stating:

“Evaluate how often a company is the first-to-market with new products and services compared to the competition; evaluate the market stage (growth, maturity, decline) at the moment of introduction of a new product or service; evaluate the novelty of implemented technologies.”

Evaluating innovativeness can identify the nature of market change but can also evaluate how well the organisation is set up to assess technological change, to identify the impact and to generate alternative options to respond to technological change. Stair and Reynolds (2011) illustrate the success of executive information systems, such as how they can help to determine critical drugs in a hospital, to spot safety issues, and

to generate information for staffing decisions. Swan (2001) claimed that the ability to organise knowledge with an appropriate knowledge management system enables firms to encourage innovation. Expert systems have been seen as exemplars of this kind of integrated information system approach. Turban et al. (2005) defined a computer based decision support system as: “combining models and data in an attempt to solve non

structured problems with extensive user involvement”.

While information systems should be usable in organisational contexts (Kecheng 2000) and should be well-adapted to user needs (McIntosh et al. 2011), their robustness in supporting CI depends on the resources management of the firm. In practice, it needs to be asked how information systems are actually applied in CI activities at firm level. In this study, in addition to gaining insight into ‘what information systems are used?’ the researcher also seeks to understand the CI process design (how CI is structured at organisational level?) and the team organisation (how is the analyst role manifest?)

Business Intelligence (BI) places emphasis on a highly systematic use of information systems (Dittmar and Gluchowski 2002) to capture and disseminate data. However, Draghici (2011) suggests that BI is primarily concerned with data, while CI is primarily focused on analyses. Hannig (2002) identified BI as effective, if its functionalities are adapted to the individual needs of the firms. Sangari and Razmi (2015) found that BI supports flexibility in supply chain performance by comprising technical, cultural and managerial competencies in firms. BI provides broader ongoing information systems that can support the CI process but also support other management functions. Key information systems functions that have been identified (Wright 2005; Schlick 2006; Schlick 2009; Schlick and Wright 2011) include knowledge management systems to store and structure internal information, competitor information systems to support identification of external threats and opportunities (Fletcher and Donaghy 1993), mathematical modelling systems to support data analyses and forecasting, and

management information system or executive information system to analyse top level financial data, and customer relationship management systems to crunch customer data.

This PhD study takes the view that core CI activities are carried out by analysts as actors who process data, who analyse CI content and apply systematic analysis if appropriate to the information needs. The CI process may, in addition, draw upon all of the identified systems of information available within firms. Table 3.3 sets out some of the supporting system tasks that might be relevant when examining core CI activities.

Table 3.3: Overview of CI Management Elements and supporting System Tasks

Key Elements of

CI Management Tools Information System System View Focus and

planning Systems Engineering

Competitor Information System

KM System

Align CI process with other firm processes Data Gathering Internet, Databases,

news, rumours Competitor Information System, Knowledge Management System Knowledge sharing from firm databases Data Analysis Business analyses, statistical analyses, customer relationship analyses Market analyses (predict, compare), Management Information System Learning CI team for doing analyses

Communication

Communication tools such as internal reporting, intranet, email, face to face or social media platforms

Management Information System, intranet portals, social media applications Knowledge transfer within organisation Decision Firm as system, Management Model of St. Gallen

Market analyses (set priorities, alternatives, recommendations)

Embed CI process in firm organisation

Nevertheless, CI activity is also human-oriented and is equally about human insight, intuition and innovative thinking on the part of the analyst. McIntosh et al. (2011) emphasised the importance of the team structure and roles for CI. Rapp, Agnihotri, Baker and Adzulis (2015) identified that role conflict impacts the collection and use of CI, showing the importance of analyst roles. While Choi, Han and Cheng (2015) emphasised the importance of systems in supporting analysts by managing large volumes of data, the CI team organisation aspect is also significant. Hattula, Schmitz, Schmidt and Reinecke (2015) emphasised that firms should balance their organisational culture insofar as to pay importance to all departments.