13 Sep

SCIP Minnesota Presents: A Panel Discussion with Line of Sight Group, PDMA & CXPA Practitioners

2017-09-13_17-47-31

Line of Sight Group is proud to be part of SCIP Minnesota’s panel discussion later this month. President and Founder Steve Schulz will join other top experts in the competitive intelligence, product management, and customer experience arenas.

The discussion will touch on and provide insight on common challenges, including the type of intelligence leadership is looking for, and illustrate how top practitioners gather intelligence for internal use and on their competitors. Panelists will also illustrate some useful tips and tools that are used by top practitioners.

Other panelists include:

  • Lori Laflin, Global Customer Engagement Research Program Manager, Cargill/ Member CXPA , CCXP
  • Paul Santilli, WW OEM Business Intelligence & Customer Insights at Hewlett Packard Enterprise/ Secretary & Treasurer, Board of Directors, SCIP
  • Mark Jensen, Director of Product Management-Distribution, Epicor Software/ Board of Directors, PDMA
  • Tom Mcgoldrick, Strategic Insights Director of UnitedHealth Group

The Panel will be moderated by Brett Norgaard, Principal, Line of Sight Group.

The SCIP MN Panel Discussion will take place September 27 from 5 pm-7 pm Central Time at the Grant Park Conference Room, 500 East Grant Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

For more information or to attend the event, please go to the SCIP MN website or reach out to MN Chapter Chair, Julie Johnson.

Line of Sight’s Market-i Competitive Intelligence Program is a SCIP “Endorsed” product. Strategic and Competitive Intelligence Professionals (SCIP) is the nonprofit Association representing the Integrated Intelligence industry internationally for over 32 years.

SCIP

 

 

31 Aug

When Listening to the Market, One Plus One Can Equal Three

OnePlusOnePic

I was talking with someone recently who wanted to accomplish three specific tasks – gather market intelligence, create competitive profiles and send out newsletters. As we talked further, we discovered that the three tasks were closely related. The conversation then shifted to what intelligence was needed and how would it be used?

In this situation, it probably makes sense to take one step back and conduct a Competitive Landscape Analysis using helpful frameworks like PESTEL and Five Forces.  These types of analyses can narrow the focus and yield a specific set of competitors and trends to study and monitor.

Next, a knowledge portal, like Line of Sight Group’s Market-i Competitive Intelligence System, enables a way to organize, relate and contextualize all types of structured and unstructured intelligence. Using this system and the information garnered from the Competitive Landscape Analysis, a team could start gathering competitive intelligence, saving it, and then creating weekly newsletters, demonstrating swift value.

After several weeks or months, competitive profiles could also be created. As soon as these profiles were activated, all of the previously posted articles and artifacts could automatically link and append to the profiles.  Similarly, any new intelligence added to Market-i would have immediate relevance and would add to the collective knowledge.  The newsletter function could also include tips and techniques for using the intelligence as well as information regarding what to look for and how to capture it.

Knowing what you are looking for, why you need it, and how you will use it will allow you to architect a solution that will provide short and long term benefits. It also becomes more valuable with each new piece of intelligence, report or artifact added. Finally, an approach that includes both a push and a pull aspect helps ensure that there will be high levels of engagement. The total value can indeed be greater than that of the parts.

27 Jul

Competing through Intelligence – The Journey to a More Proactive Strategy

In my observation over the years in leading market research and intelligence efforts within organizations and then supporting them in a consulting role, I’ve observed how organizations tend to migrate along a ‘continuum’, based on their experience and skills in making data-driven strategic decisions.

Phase 1: Surprise! The initial realization that organizations need better knowledge and understanding of their external and competitive environment is when management experiences a significant surprise. This can be the appearance of a new competitor in their space, maybe through a partnership or acquisition. An example is the recent entry of Amazon into the grocery business through the acquisition of Whole Foods. Or it might be the loss of business at a loyal customer to an ‘irrational’ competitor, or simply growing price pressure caused by a value proposition that customers increasingly cannot discern as different from the competition. Whatever the cause, the general response in Phase 1 is to go overboard and ‘boil the ocean’ in an all-out/in-depth analysis to ensure it never happens again. Unfortunately, within months of completing this time consuming and expensive analysis, the external environment has continued to change bringing new potential surprises.

Phase 2. Dedicated Projects. The next phase on the continuum involves the realization that information and knowledge about a firm’s external environment can help manage risk and improve chances of success in its strategic ‘bets’. So instead of relying on gut feel, the organization conducts in-depth research to support and inform a strategic decision, usually related to combating a threat or taking advantage of a specific opportunity. These are one-time efforts designed to support a specific decision. In that way, they are highly valuable and actionable, and many organizations choose to stay in this phase. Again, the primary disadvantage with this approach is that the external environment does not stop evolving and changing. While the ‘snapshot’ analysis is valuable in supporting a specific decision, it gradually becomes obsolete as the environment changes.

Phase 3. Longitudinal Projects. After organizations have been conducting one-off research efforts for a while, they often identify some that they would like to repeat periodically. They may involve ongoing marketing or sales campaigns, for example, or existing products where pricing, features and enhancements change regularly. These periodic updates help managers keep a pulse on the changing external landscape, and make adjustments based on changing customer needs, competitor moves or changes in market or industry-level forces that affect strategic decisions. The primary disadvantage is that these updates generally look backward and decisions are based on what has happened rather than being future-based to include what is likely to happen.

Phase 4: Systematic Intelligence. As organizations see value in periodic updates, some move further to a systematic environment that involves continuous monitoring of threats and opportunities, regular updates, and an ongoing development of a strategic knowledge asset that is leveraged across the organization. Ongoing monitoring of leading indicators and patterns of changes in products and offerings, strategic assumptions, potential opportunities, threats and disruptors, and customer perception of the firm’s value proposition are designed to enable the organization to identify threats and opportunities earlier and to adjust its strategy quickly and effectively.

In order to get to this point, managers in these organizations start to develop a different mindset and an understanding that they cannot control how customers and ‘irrational’ competitors will behave in the future. They acknowledge that strategy is not perfect. They realize that, while their annual strategic plan is valuable for creating initial budgets and a list of important initiatives, they also need to have the capability and discipline to make strategic changes mid-stream and be able to justify them to the board using data. Managers shift their thinking to focus on the risks involved in the strategic choices (i.e.: placing bets) rather than insisting on proof that a given strategy will succeed.

This journey along the sophistication curve from episodic fixes to a data-driven culture of continuous knowledge and insight can be difficult for many organizations, but I’ve observed that those that make it to the systematic program level find a number of benefits:

  • Faster strategic response and first-mover advantages
  • Improved efficiency through a continuous process
  • Better communication and ‘line of sight’ for middle managers and others who support and execute strategic decisions
  • A knowledge asset that can be built upon and leveraged for innovation across the organization

In general, these organizations become more proactive by developing the capabilities to make hard strategic choices and ‘bets’ even as some things are unknowable and uncontrollable, and to adjust their strategies based on their own continuous learning about their external environment.

25 Jul

All Roads Lead to Services When Competing in Technology

Technology

Disruption has always been the norm in the technology industry.  As all industries embrace waves upon waves of new technology…initially in the Cloud and with Mobility, then Analytics and Big Data, and now Artificial Intelligence, and Virtual Reality to name a few. Along with all of these advances also comes disruption.

Looking at the current state of the technology industry may reveal what is likely to happen in other increasingly technology-driven industries going forward. The Technology Services Industry Association (TSIA) has been tracking the largest 50 technology firms (IBM, Oracle, Microsoft, Cisco, Amazon, Google, etc) for the last 10 years. In the 2013/2014 timeframe, the aggregate services revenue line of the 50 technology firms crossed and surpassed product revenue and has not looked back ever since. Services now comprise nearly 60 percent of the total revenue mix of this group. But, the air coming out of the product side of the balloon is more than the service side has put back in, so overall revenue is flat or declining for most technology firms.

Where is it all going?

As products have given way to services, services have led to a focus on experiences, and experiences have led to the goal of achieving favorable business outcomes. It is likely that shifts like this will cause organizations to fundamentally examine the actual business that they are really in.

In many cases, this calls for a change in the very business models upon which they have been operating under. Accelerating this change is the arrival of well funded “Tech” firms – start-ups with deep pockets, seasoned management and highly scalable business models. There are lots of FinTech, InsureTech, HealthTech, LegalTech, etc.  firms coming onto the scene. You might think of it more broadly as “YourIndustry”Tech with a well-funded group of start-ups going after the most vulnerable and profitable chunks of your industry.

What to do?

The move toward services requires a new set of disciplines, processes, and methodologies as well as new ways of thinking vs. product management. The field of service design is garnering a lot of attention lately within organizations of all sizes. Concepts like Jobs-to-be-Done, Service Blueprinting, Journey Mapping, Human Centered Design, Biomimicry, Virtual Reality, Ethnography, and more are shaping the next wave of new service design. Some of these concepts are well established while others are quite new. How they are combined is the exciting part.

One of the most important things to do is to take a hard look at your external environment (competitors and trends) and thoroughly research the opportunities and threats that you are facing. Once identified, these can inform your strategy formulation – the arenas, vehicles, differentiation, sequencing and economic logic of how you plan to operate. Once the strategy is in place, the specifics of go-to-market initiatives can determine how to move forward. And it is likely that new forms of services will play an increasingly important role on your roadmap as you go forward.