Dear,
Today we are fortunate to have a supply of Mario Esteban, Innovation Manager Acciona. I have no chance to meet Mario in person, but sorry my friend, because we have had telephone conversations, exchanged mails, etc. (This post was edited slightly from the original I did to make it more clear that I am not the author, but Mario Esteban, I introduced this fix because when I read today I realized that it was not 100% clear and my professional conduct makes you want to erase any doubts in these aspects).
Mario has done some very good (the same resume here) about whether to have a competitive intelligence department. Well, less talk and the summing up Mario on his own article:
Michael Porter in 1987 published a study which investigated the value created for shareholders of takeovers 3788 by 33 large diversified corporations in the period 1950-1986. Surprisingly only 26% of these operations were successful how is it possible for companies the size of Exxon, P & G, Raytheon and General Electric fallen by 74% in their business operations? Michael Porter
wielding a variety of reasons, for example, that the sector was not attractive, which had not been calibrated input costs in the new acquisition or that the acquired business did not improve cost competitiveness.
Ultimately what was written by Michael Porter is summarized in that not using competitive intelligence did fail these operations.
mid-eighties Bill Smith, Head of Quality, Motorola, designed a methodology to improve plant operations and quality of products called Six Sigma. This process used a series of intelligence called DMAIC (define objectives, measure data, analyzing data, improving performance and controlling the process.) This methodology has been widely used by General Electric, 3M and Rolls Royce, among other companies, with typical results of $ 500,000 per project.
eighties too many countries began to promote competitive intelligence units in order to increase the competitiveness of its economy. Are notable state initiatives in Sweden, Israel, Japan, South Korea and France. Private initiatives came little later, with the emergence of consultants y grandes empresas con sus propias unidades de inteligencia.
Uno de los grandes problemas de aquellos que trabajamos en inteligencia competitiva es demostrar de manera clara e inequívoca, la rentabilidad de nuestro departamento. Los creyentes en la IC decimos que su uso permite tomar decisiones de manera más adecuada y evitar los riesgos y fallos. Evitar fallos, en el mundo empresarial, significa elegir las inversiones de mayor rentabilidad frente a otras menos ventajosas. En una empresa cotizada eso repercute en un mayor valor bursátil.
En el artículo ¿Por qué debo usar inteligencia competitiva en mi empresa? (Esteban, M. Inteligencia y Seguridad: Revista de análisis y prospectiva nº7, Dic 2009, pag 43-55) se hace un estudio sobre trece empresas que son reconocidas por su excelente función de IC, comparándolas con el índice Dow Jones de su sector en el periodo 31/1/2003 al 1/10/2009. Como promedio el índice Dow Jones se revalorizó un 29%, mientras que estas trece empresas se revalorizaron una media del 167% en el periodo. Los resultados obtenidos fueron:
Sólo una de las empresas de las trece estudiadas sólo una tiene un rendimiento por debajo de su índice bursátil de referencia
Como podemos ver las empresas que usan de manera intensiva la inteligencia competitiva (evitando riesgos y mejorando el rendimiento de las inversiones made) are performing above average business. So, responding to the initial question should have a competitive intelligence department in your company.
Now dear reader, I venture to add if your company does not have a competitive intelligence department. What are you waiting for?
Regards, Adrian Alvarez Lic
Midas Consulting Founding Partner Direct Phone
(Argentina):
Direct Phone +54-11-4775-8983 (Brazil): +55-11-3010-1685
http : / / www.midasconsulting.com.ar/
0 comments:
Post a Comment