| |
 |
|
|
POINT OF VIEW
Communicating Words
 |
|
|
By Bonnie Hohhof
Director of Competitive Research
SCIP
|
|
All processes require organization -- of initial input, of interim stages, of final deliverables. And Competitive Intelligence (CI) is organized around words. An intelligence activity starts with a directive, received in either written or spoken form. The primary input for the process itself is information generated by people, which has to be organized not only for preliminary analysis, but also manipulated during the actual analysis itself. A structured approach to intelligence information makes collection, analysis and distribution faster and more efficient.
Intelligence information is primarily made up of words, and words are slippery critters. Their meaning is affected by the words that accompany them (context), the way they are communicated or spoken (inflection), and the way they are heard (understanding). Not only is the communication value of words affected by their different meanings (often determined by an individual’s training and background), but they are also shaped by cultural norms. And when we cross languages, these effects are compounded significantly. Words can also be important by their absence, especially when they are expected.
Communication is an amazingly complex activity. Doing it effectively is often one of the more difficult activities in CI. Although there are many levels in the intelligence communication process, the first step in all of them is when two individuals decide to take the time to establish a link that transfers the needs of one (the client) into a task for the other (the intelligence analyst).
This handover is often done through many mediums, including answering the phone, reading an email, listening to a voicemail, attending a meeting, holding a conversation. Almost all intelligence experts will tell you that the most effective information transfer method involves direct, personal communication between the two individuals. This allows meanings to be clarified, focus to be sharpened and agreement on goals to be reached.
When the intelligence process is routed through an intermediary (particularly during the first step), all sorts of ‘noise’ is injected into the communication process. In addition to eliminating the ability to directly clarify meaning and intent, the task communication is subject to interpretation through the intermediary’s own biases, background, goals and cultural context. One of the key characteristics of a successful CI function is providing direct links between clients and analysts throughout the entire process.
Maintaining effective communication throughout the information collection and analysis phases of the intelligence effort is also crucial. When interviewing individuals, you are often interfacing with an individual who has a completely different background, experience and vocabulary. (This is why journalists often make first-rate intelligence collection specialists.)
More analytical efforts are being conducted by ad-hoc teams consisting of individuals from different departments, divisions and often countries. This diversity, while resulting in better analytical results, also throws contextual and definitional obstructions into the communication flow. To counter this, some intelligence efforts include a facilitator on the analysis team to clarify and channel the discussion more quickly and effectively.
Part of your role responsibility when communicating your intelligence results to your clients is to make their communication experience as simple, effective and predictable as possible. Intelligence clients who are higher in the organization have little inclination to devote time to deciphering your communicated message, so you must put extra effort into developing crystal-clear analysis and recommendations that your clients can absorb in a quick glance or a short conversation. Several intelligence groups routinely “pre-test” the efficiency of their message on an individual who has not been involved in the project.
Every time a communication link is completed during the intelligence process, it creates some form of value received by each side and reinforces the worth of the intelligence activity. In the future, both individuals should find it easier to make the decision to commit their time to the intelligence effort. Even in our electronic age, developing effective personal communication skills can make the difference between intelligence success and failure.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
PRIVACY POLICY: We are committed to protecting your right to privacy. © 2010 Society of
Competitive Intelligence Professionals. This message was sent to you by
Society of Competitive Intelligence Professionals, 1700 Diagonal Road,
Ste. 600, Alexandria, VA 22314. If you would prefer not to receive
further messages from this sender, please reply to this email and place
the word REMOVE in the subject line.
|
|
|
|
