Key Intelligence Topics: A Process to

Identify and Define Intelligence Needs

Jan P. Herring
Herring & Associates LLC

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Defining an organization’s actual intelligence needs, and doing so in a way that
results in the production of intelligence that management feels compelled to act on,
is one of our profession’s most elusive goals. The use of a systematized or formal
“management-needs identification process” is a proven way to accomplish this task.
The objective is to create a cooperative environment between intelligence users and
CI professionals that supports the two-way communication necessary for identifying
and defining the company’s real intelligence needs. To accomplish this, the private
sector can learn from government intelligence models, such as the National
Intelligence Topics (NIT) process for identifying national-level intelligence
requirements. As adapted for the corporate world, the Key Intelligence Topics
(KIT) process has been used by many companies to identify and prioritize senior
management’s key intelligence needs. At the heart of the KIT process is an
interactive dialog with key decision makers in the company. The outcome of KIT
interviews provides the focus needed to conduct effective intelligence operations,
while permitting CI program designers and managers to determine the resources
required to address the company’s actual intelligence needs. Sample KIT protocols
are provided: (1) strategic decisions and actions; (2) early-warning topics; and (3)
descriptions of key marketplace players. These KITS are not mutually exclusive, as
a strategy-focused KIT might also require a competitor profile and some form of
early-warning intelligence to alert the user to a change in competitor activities,
which, in turn, would signal a need to modify the new competitive strategy. The
KIT process causes the CI unit to operate in a proactive mode, helping
management to identify and define intelligence requirements. Competitive
intelligence professionals’ use of the KIT process should result not only in
identifying the organization’s key intelligence needs, but also in creating the critical
communication channel’s necessary to produce credible and actionable
intelligence. © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Competitive Intelligence Review, Vol. 10(2) 4 –14 (1999)

© 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 1058-0247/99/02004-11

4
 Key Intelligence Topics

The critical success factor in any intelligence operation the users understood their role and how to properly
is meeting the user’s real needs—and doing it in such a articulate their needs.
way that the organization acts on the resulting intelli- One of the responsibilities of an NIO is to work
gence (and, as a consequence, succeeds in whatever with new government officials and policy makers to be
business endeavor is involved). In the government, these sure they understand the Intelligence Community’s ca-
intelligence needs are called “requirements.” In the pri- pabilities and how to best use them. In many respects, it
vate sector, they are called by various names, including is similar to a senior account/client manager in the pri-
“management’s needs” or their “intelligence topics.” No vate sector. The NIO focuses on the task of identifying
matter what they are called, or by whatever process they and defining those management needs that actually re-
are identified, they are the key to producing effective quire intelligence and not information that could be
and actionable intelligence. acquired from their own departments or other govern-
Surprisingly, there has been very little professionally ment representatives overseas, such as commercial and
written on this topic. In reality, the absence of manage- scientific attachés. Both the NIO responsibilities and
ment’s stated intelligence needs is often cited as the basic intelligence-requirements process are well developed,
reason for poor CI program performance and growing and usually result in well-directed intelligence collection
frustration among CI practitioners. However, in the and analysis operations that satisfied the “customers.”
more successful competitive intelligence programs, e.g., When I left the government in the mid-1980s to join
Motorola, Merck, and NutraSweet—the use of a formal Motorola, Inc. to set up their business intelligence pro-
management-needs identification process is well known and gram, I adapted the NIT-requirements process to the
viewed as one of their critical success factors. corporate world, and it became the “Key Intelligence
So why don’t more companies have such processes? Topics” (KIT) process—not “Business Intelligence Top-
The simple answer is it’s not an easy task. For some ics,” although I did consider calling the process “Corpo-
intelligence managers it’s a daunting task to get on their rate Intelligence Topics” before settling on Key in the
senior management’s calendar and then having to inter- title.
view them to identify their specific intelligence needs. At Motorola, I used the KIT process to identify and
More to the point, it requires a cooperative effort by prioritize both senior management’s and the organiza-
both management (users) and CI professionals to create tion’s key intelligence needs. Individual business manag-
the environment necessary to support the two-way ers and executives expressed their specific intelligence
communications required to identify and define the or- needs about topics such as strategic alliances and acquisi-
ganization’s real intelligence needs. The remainder of tions, technology planning and decisions, and specific
this article describes the process, and how CI managers competitors. Some business groups would combine indi-
and professionals can go about accomplishing this all- vidual manager’s intelligence needs and submit their
important task. organization’s prioritized lists. And, whenever individual
KITs overlapped or could be logically combined to the
Background and Purpose benefit of all, I did so, properly coordinating the intelli-
I have been asking intelligence users for their intelli- gence operations and tailoring the delivery of the result-
gence requirements since the early 1970s, first as a new ing finished intelligence to each user-group. The process
program manager at the Central Intelligence Agency, worked as well in the private sector as it had in the
working with White House staff and other Cabinet De- government.
partments. Later, as the National Intelligence Officer for By the time I left Motorola to become a consultant
Sciences & Technology, I became the “point person” in the late 1980s, the Key Intelligence Topics process
for identifying the U.S. Government’s national-level for identifying management’s specific intelligence needs
needs for S & T intelligence. These rather important had been both adapted to the private sector and used
intelligence requirements were called National Intelli- quite successfully. In my approach to assisting companies
gence Topics (NIT) and facilitated the Government In- such as NutraSweet, Southwestern Bell, Texas Instru-
telligence Community’s task of organizing, prioritizing, ments, Ford Motor Credit, and Rockwell Automotive
and focusing its limited intelligence resources on those Design in their set up of their business/competitive in-
few critical needs of the national security community telligence programs, the KIT process played a key role.
and its policy makers. This process worked well, once After educating the company’s senior management

5
 Herring

Figure 1.
The traditional intelligence cycle.

about intelligence production and their role in using it, actual intelligence needs. In effect, an analytical under-
the first step in the design process was to conduct KIT standing of management’s initial KIT (i.e., the nature
interviews of the key decision makers and managers. and scope of the organizations’ intelligence needs) per-
This is also the first step in the traditional intelligence mits the program resources to be optimally matched to
cycle (see Fig. 1). More importantly, it made a lot of the expected demand.
sense to the managers. They knew they needed intelli- In a different vein, once management’s KITs are
gence, i.e., business, competitive, technological, etc., identified and organized by business and/or functional
and once trained how to ask for it, they were more category, the related intelligence operations can be bet-
than willing to do so. Of equal importance, manage- ter planned to maximize success and produce the re-
ment soon became convinced that the better they could quired intelligence. Furthermore, I have found that a
articulate their needs (KITs), the more likely they were company’s intelligence needs can generally be assigned
to receive intelligence they could use. to one of three functional categories:
STRATEGIC DECISIONS AND ACTIONS, including the
BY THE TIME I LEFT MOTOROLA IN THE LATE
development of strategic plans and strategies.
1980S, THE KEY INTELLIGENCE TOPICS PROCESS
FOR IDENTIFYING MANAGEMENT’S SPECIFIC EARLY-WARNING TOPICS, including competitor initia-
INTELLIGENCE NEEDS HAD BEEN ADAPTED TO THE tives, technological surprise, and governmental actions.
PRIVATE SECTOR AND USED QUITE SUCCESSFULLY.
DESCRIPTIONS OF THE KEY PLAYERS in the specific
marketplace, including competitors, customers, suppliers,
Key Intelligence Topics’ interviews at the beginning
regulators, and potential partners.
of a CI program provide the focus and prioritization
needed to conduct effective intelligence operations and This categorization can be very helpful to the CI man-
produce the appropriate intelligence. They also permit ager, because different types of KITs require different types
the program’s designers and developers to determine the of intelligence operations. For example, intelligence to sup-
number of CI professionals, their skills, and the level of port decision making usually requires both business and
external resources needed to address the organization’s intelligence analysis, supported by thorough secondary-

6
 Key Intelligence Topics

source research with current human-source collection in- gence in response to important business decisions and ac-
puts. Early-warning intelligence is critically dependent on tions is what it’s all about.
human-source collection and monitoring, with analysis The intelligence topics (KITS) in this category will vary
serving as the detection mechanism that “signals” possible in form from specific questions and/or decision statements
future developments that a company should be prepared to to the more typical “topic” subject, that must be better
act on. Player-oriented intelligence usually takes the form defined later through interactive dialogue with the user.
of analytical profiles, sometimes tailored to specific user Both forms are quite acceptable, particularly at the time
questions or planned actions. they are identified, because both will eventually have to be
refined when the KIT is turned into an intelligence action
SIGNIFICANTLY, KITS ARE NOT MUTUALLY plan for management review and approval.
EXCLUSIVE: A STRATEGY-FOCUSED KIT MIGHT Decision/Issue KITS run the gamut from strategic in-
ALSO REQUIRE A COMPETITOR PROFILE AND vestment decisions, to action plans for new product roll-
SOME FORM OF EARLY-WARNING INTELLIGENCE outs, to requests for intelligence inputs for the formulation
TO ALERT THE USER TO A CHANGE IN of strategic plans and new competitor strategies. As long as
COMPETITOR ACTIVITIES, WHICH, IN TURN, management’s stated need for intelligence involves business
WOULD SIGNAL A NEED TO MODIFY THE NEW decisions or pending business actions, such requests are
COMPETITIVE STRATEGY. probably legitimate KITs. The examples shown in Table 1,
taken from actual KIT interviews, demonstrate the breadth
Significantly, KITs are not mutually exclusive: A strate- and variety of management intelligence needs as well as the
gy-focused KIT might also require a competitor profile different forms they might take.
and some form of early-warning intelligence to alert the
user to a change in competitor activities, which, in turn, Early-Warning KITs
would signal a need to modify the new competitive strat- Early-warning topics typically stress activities and sub-
egy. An insightful understanding of an organizations KITs jects by which management does not want to be sur-
usually creates a combination of intelligence operations that prised. They are usually heavily weighted toward
causes the CI program to become truly anticipatory and threats, though they need not be because good intelli-
produces the timely and insightful intelligence necessary to gence operations are also quite capable of searching for
cause management to act intelligently. possible business opportunities. Again, topic subjects run
the gamut, often reflecting the range and variety of the
Strategic Decision KITs. Table 2 shows a typical set of
KIT Examples Early-Warning KITs (specific examples about competi-
Having interviewed over 1,000 executives and man- tors have been left out for the sake of brevity).
agers in almost every industrial sector, I found it These KITs are often more cryptic than Decision and
somewhat surprising that their needs were rather sim- Player KITs, mainly because managers often are expressing
ilar, only the specifics were different. To illustrate hunches or “fears.” This is natural, and your turning such
these basic user needs I have listed a representative KITs into intelligence monitoring activities will not only
sample in Tables 1, 2, and 3. For the sake of brevity, “quiet” a manager’s fear but may, in fact, translate his or
I have left out some subtopics and shortened the her unanalyzed concerns into potential business actions—
original statement-of-need. Although there are only even to the extent of contingency plans that can be ini-
12 sample KIT’s in each category, they represent a tialed should intelligence discover early-warning signs of
cross-section of over 20 varied industries. Let’s take the realization of these fears and/or concerns.
an analytical look at each category.
Key Player KITs
Strategic Decisions and Issues Among the three KIT categories, Key Player KITs are
In most respects this set is the most important for a suc- the least actionable (see Table 3). They usually reflect a
cessful CI program. Identifying and meeting the specific manager or management team’s need to better under-
needs of management for planned decisions or pending stand the “player.” Typically a group of managers each
actions provide the most visible and tangible measures of have a different mental model of the player and because
intelligence value. Producing useful and actionable intelli- of that they tend to think and act differently concerning

7
 Herring

Table 1. Examples of Strategic Decisions & Issues

1. Provide intelligence inputs for the company’s strategic plan to create “our” future
competitive environment.
2. Formulating “our” global competitive strategy: Assess the role of competitors in
achieving our business objective(s).
3. Globalization of (Our) Industry: How/with whom should we proceed? What are our
competitors doing? With whom?
4. Asian/South American/etc. market development: Assess current competitive situation;
describe the most likely future situations.
5. Strategic investment decisions: Identify and assess changes in the competitive environ-
ment, including:
➢ Key/critical industry investments by others
➢ Cash requirements of other industry companies
➢ Involvement/role of investment community
➢ Possible alternative sources for future investments, including alliances, acquisitions,
etc.
6. Should we expand our present production capacity or build a new plant with a more
cost-effective manufacturing process?
7. What plans and actions must we take to maintain (our) technological competitiveness
vis-a-vis key competitors.
8. “Product” development program: Identify and assess the programs of our leading com-
petitors and assess the status of other competing technologies.
9. New product development and roll-out: How and when will the competitors respond?
How will they affect our plan?
10. How will our new distribution/sales/marketing strategy be viewed by the industry?
Our competitors? Our distributors?
11. Protection of “our” proprietary information/technology
➢ Competitors efforts to acquire it?
➢ Others interested in it?
12. Human resource issues: Hiring and retaining key employees.

that player. However, once the intelligence department their manufacturing (or distribution) strategy?” The final
provides a competitor profile or baseline assessment of intelligence report or profile should reflect all such user
the player, all the managers at least have a common un- questions.
derstanding—although they may still have different ideas In one instance involving a large multinational corpo-
about what to do about that player. Usually, the profile ration, I used the Player KIT questions posed by the
or assessment is developed at the beginning of an action heads of five different operating divisions about a com-
or related decision-making process. mon competitor to both define the competitor profile
Player KITs can vary considerably depending on the and to analytically frame the answers to their separate
management teams need and sophistication. The most im- CI-requested questions. The resulting report was a com-
portant aspects of such KITs are the specific user questions prehensive profile of the competitor that, in turn, sup-
regarding the players. For example, “Why did they change ported the specific answers to their individual questions.

8
 Key Intelligence Topics

Table 2. Examples of Early-Warning Topics

1. Areas of possible technological “breakthrough” that could dramatically affect our

current and future competitiveness.
2. Technological developments, affecting either production capabilities or product de-
velopment and their uses by competitors and others.
3. Status and performance of Key Suppliers.
➢ Their financial “health”
➢ Cost & quality problems
➢ Possible acquisition and/or alliances
4. Possible disruptions in supplies of crude-oil/components/etc.
5. Change in (our) industry procurement policies and processes.
6. Change in customers/competitors perceptions of us/our services.
7. Companies and/or combinations of companies, considering possible entry into our
business or markets.
8. Changes in international political, social, economic or regulatory situations that could
effect our competitiveness.
9. Regulatory Issues: Near-term changes; deviations in long-term trends; other govern-
mental changes that could impact current regulatory regimes, e.g. people, policy, etc.
10. Intelligence on Alliances, Acquisitions, and Divestitures among our competitors, cus-
tomers, and suppliers:
➢ Reasons and forces causing them
➢ Objectives and purposes of completed deals
11. Financial Initiatives by major competitors:
➢ Changes in current financial strategy(s)
➢ Alliances, acquisitions, divestitures, etc.
12. Interests and efforts by others to acquire our company.

Then, by analytically combining both, the competitor Responsive Mode

report provided the basis for developing a unified and The first mode is entitled “Responsive.” To perform in
coordinated response by several of the divisions to this this mode, the CI organization must be prepared to ad-
common threat. In this case, addressing the users ques- dress a broad range of user needs, i.e., anticipate the
tions along with the requests for a competitor profile led “overall” needs of its clients. Essentially, the intelligence
to competitive action. organization receives the user’s intelligence requests and
then must be prepared to deliver the necessary intelli-
gence. This mode places a strong emphasis on taking
Using the KIT Process the right orders. This, in turn, means that some intelli-
Purpose is the essence of all successful intelligence oper- gence requests have to be turned away.
ations. Therefore, that operation must begin with the There are two basic criteria for rejecting a user’s re-
identification of the intelligence requirement(s) of the quest for intelligence. First, only true intelligence tasks
company’s key decision makers and/or senior manage- should be taken; in other words, requests that are best
ment. There are two basic ways of doing this. satisfied by other departments such as market research

9
 Herring

Table 3. Examples of Key Players in the Marketplace

1. Provide profiles of our major competitors, including their strategic plans, competi-
tive strategies, financial & market performance, organization & key personnel, R&D,
operations, sales & marketing, etc.
2. Provide in-depth assessments of Key Competitors, including:
➢ Their competitive intent vis-a-vis us and our major customers
➢ Strategic plans and goals, including international objectives
➢ Key strategies: Financial, technological, manufacturing, business development,
distribution, and sales and marketing
➢ Current operational and competitive capabilities
3. Identify new and emerging competitors, particularly those coming from entirely dif-
ferent industries and businesses.
4. Describe and assess our current and future competitive environment, including:
customers and competitors; markets and suppliers; production and product technolo-
gies; political and environmental; and the industry’s structure, including changes and
trends.
5. New customers, their needs and future interests: What are they and how are our
competitors trying to satisfy them?
6. Industry and customer views, attitudes and perceptions regarding “worth” of our
branded products, services, etc.
7. Identify and assess new industry/market players, including: Suppliers, major distribu-
tors, customers and/or competitors, that are considering entry into our business.
8. New technology/product developers: What are their plans and strategies for com-
peting in our industry?
9. Need significant improvement in marketshare and growth data, including that of our
competitors.
10. Management and operations need better intelligence concerning regulatory and en-
vironmental activities for planning and decision making.
11. The investment/financial community: What are their views and perceptions of our
business and industry?
12. What are the interest and purpose of various suppliers and industry observers in
gathering information about our company?

should be redirected. The second acceptance criterion is strategy or long-range planning, this task probably
whether the request is for intelligence or basic informa- should be undertaken.
tion. If it’s for information, the request should be re-
jected, but with some advice on where and/or how the Proactive Mode
user can get the information from appropriate sources. The second mode for identifying the users intelligence
But if the request is for “actionable information,” i.e., needs is entitled “Proactive.” This requires the manager
intelligence focused on specific actions, decisions or is- of the intelligence unit to take the initiative and inter-
sues related to the company’s competitive situation, view the appropriate company managers and decision

10
 Key Intelligence Topics

Table 4. Competitive Intelligence Needs Survey

Purpose:
● To identify your needs for Competitive Intelligence (CI)
● To obtain your ideas and suggestions on how to best develop an intelligence ca-
pability for the company.
I. Intelligence Needs: Your Key Intelligence Topics (KITS)
A. Decision making/Operational Responsibilities
➢ Planned/future decisions or actions
➢ Strategic plans and related actions
➢ Strategy formulation and implementation
B. Early-Warning Intelligence
➢ Examples of “past” surprises
➢ Concerns about: Company; industry; government; etc.
➢ Competitors: Their actions and intent
C. Players: Competitors, Customers, Suppliers, Others
➢ Which players are you most concerned about?
➢ What types of information and intelligence do you need?
➢ What uses would you make of such intelligence?
II. Intelligence Capabilities and Uses
➢ What experience/familiarity do you have with intelligence?
➢ What types of intelligence do you currently receive?
➢ What intelligence capabilities does you organization have?
➢ Who in your organization do you expect to be regular users?
➢ Will your organization conduct intelligence operations to help other divi-
sions?
➢Any barriers to sharing?
➢ What types of intelligence products would you like to receive? (e.g., field
reports, analytical alerts, competitor and competitor product assessments, intelli-
gence briefings, etc.)
➢ How should the company’s intelligence system be organized?
➢ How will you evaluate the intelligence that you receive?

makers, to help them identify and define their intelli- The “proactive” mode, which I have called the Key
gence requirements. An interview protocol can be very Intelligence Topics (KIT) process, has several opera-
useful to ensure the consistency of results. Table 4 and tional virtues. These stem mainly from the regular meet-
Figure 2 are examples of such protocols. Table 4 would ings with the principal intelligence users. Such meetings
be used initially, possibly at the start of an intelligence can be used to define and refine the users’ needs as well
program. Once the program is ongoing, the Figure 2 as coordinate related intelligence requirements across the
protocol would be more appropriate. In some cases, company for more effective and efficient intelligence
after a CI program has been well established, and there operations. These meetings also provide a means for
is good rapport between the intelligence manager and getting feedback from the users concerning past and
the various intelligence users, no formal protocol is ongoing work.
needed. The operational benefits from the KIT process are

11
 Herring

1. Business Decisions and Strategic/Tactical Topics

What decisions and/or actions will you/your team be facing in the next months, where CI could make a significant
difference?

➢ How will you use that CI?

➢ When will it be needed?

2. Early-Warning Topics
(Begin by identifying/discussing a past “surprise” in your industry, business, or company.)
Identify several potential surprise topics that you do not want to be surprised by.
For example, new competitors, technology introductions, alliances & acquisitions, regulatory changes, etc.

3. Key Players in Our Marketplace: Competitors, Customers, Suppliers, Regulators, etc.

Identify those players you believe the company needs to better understand.

➢ Who are they?

➢ What specifically do we need to know?

Figure 2.
KIT protocol.

also significant. First, it permits efficient planning and three modes are the most successful and produce the
direction of the intelligence operations. Second, it ac- most valuable intelligence for their organizations.
tively involves management in the intelligence process.
And finally, it, in effect, “guarantees” an interested user
Go Ahead—Take the Initiative
for the intelligence that is produced.
When it comes to intelligence production, you have
In my experience, some combination of these two
three basic choices:
user-selection processes is probably most appropriate.
However, successful CI programs must also operate on 1. Produce the CI you believe is needed by your man-
their own initiative, identifying and addressing new and agement;
emerging intelligence topics that no manager has yet 2. Wait until they ask you for it; or
recognized. Intelligence programs that operate in all 3. Take the initiative and ask them what decisions and

12
 Key Intelligence Topics

actions they are considering where good intelligence agement’s decision-making styles better, I recommend
could help them make the right choices. you review the 1995 SCIP Annual Conference presen-
tation on the “Dynamics of Decision Makers,” by Hans
In reality you probably should be doing all three, but I Hedin and Katarina Svensson.)
would start with the third choice—the other two will A third classic problem concerning management’s
evolve over time. intelligence needs is the executive that responds with,
In taking the initiative and seeking management’s Key “You tell me what intelligence I need.” In my estima-
Intelligence Topics, you should be prepared for what I call tion this is the most frustrating situation. But you should
the three classic problems. These are situations that are likely be prepared to do just that. The KIT process is a proven
to derail the efforts of most inexperienced CI professionals. and practical way of getting management’s input and
But if you are prepared for them, you should be able to involvement in the intelligence process. It usually leads
overcome them—at least on the second attempt. to a successful intelligence operation and the production
The first classic problem is the reticent manager. Al- of useful and actionable intelligence. But management
though most successful business managers I have inter- cannot envision every possible need for intelligence, and
viewed are “naturals” when it comes to using intelligence, most importantly they cannot anticipate those future
they are not good at asking for it—at least not in the be- competitive situations or competitor initiatives that are
ginning. They need a little coaching and/or some good only beginning to evolve. These are the responsibility of
examples to follow. The best way to do this is through the intelligence department.
some form of education. A management seminar on KITs So when asked, “What do I need to know?,” be pre-
and related action plans is one way. Another is having an pared to list several new and emerging competitors or
experienced manager in the meeting with you and the an evolving competitive situation you have begun to
executives during your first KIT interviews. Or, if you are study, or a new competitive strategy that others in your
a CI professional who is well respected in your company, industry have recently begun using but your company
you can conduct the KIT interviews by yourself, using past has not. Raise any competitor-related topic that you
examples of successful intelligence operations to demon- know well, but stay away from issues and/or topics
strate how the KIT was initially described. Executive edu- about your own company. You are the competitive
cation about intelligence and how it’s used is a critical suc- intelligence expert and that is why they value your ad-
cess factor in the CI world. vice and input.
The second classic problem is the manager who re-
sponds, “Tell me everything” about a particular competitor THE COGENT IDENTIFICATION AND CLEAR
or competitive situation. He or she seems incapable of ex- ARTICULATION OF INTELLIGENCE NEEDS ARE THE
pressing intelligence needs in terms of a future decision or SHARED RESPONSIBILITY OF INTELLIGENCE USERS
some plan or action they are contemplating. When asked AND INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS.
what they are really looking for, they typically say, “I don’t
exactly know, but I will recognize it when I see it.” This There are other difficulties and frustrations that you
situation presents several dilemmas for the CI professional: will likely face in the process of identifying and defining
The never-ending search for “the answer”; or possibly, management’s key intelligence needs. That’s part of
they want an answer that fits their preconceived solution/ managing an intelligence department or operations.
decision. My best advice in this situation is to focus on Hopefully, you will be able to cope with them based on
helping managers define their need before beginning your your intelligence experience and managerial compe-
intelligence collection and analysis. If this fails, try provid- tence.
ing them with preliminary results quickly, and then using Not everyone in the intelligence program is “cut
these findings to help the manager define the actual KIT. out” to interview management for their key intelli-
This situation is likely to be a frustrating relationship gence needs. Not everyone wants to. But it’s impor-
for the CI manager. But when the intelligence opera- tant that someone does it, and usually that person is
tions are successful—and, they often are—the business the head of the unit. Managing an intelligence unit or
manager is quite pleased, not only for the intelligence, department is a serious responsibility, including being
but for your assistance in helping them understand the responsible for legal and ethical practices as well as
competitive situation they faced. (To understand man- producing useful and actionable intelligence for some

13
 Herring

of the company’s most important decisions and ac- operation, vol. 1: Insight and advice from experienced profes-
tions. Selecting the right person for the CI manager’s sionals, SCIP 1993 annual conference proceedings. [Cassette
job is tantamount to choosing the appropriate indi- Recording]. Chicago: Teach ‘em, Inc.
vidual to identify and define the company’s most im-
Herring, J.P. (1994). Managing the Intelligence Operation,
portant intelligence needs.
vol. 2: Producing actionable and effective intelligence, SCIP
1994 annual conference proceedings. [Cassette Recording].
KITs Are a Shared Responsibility
Chicago: Teach ‘em, Inc.
The identification of a company’s most important intelli-
gence needs is the critical step in the intelligence cycle (Fig. 1). Herring, J.P. (1996). Measuring the effectiveness of competi-
Their cogent identification and clear articulation are the shared tive intelligence: Assessing and communications CI’s value to
responsibility of the users and the intelligence professionals. For your organization. Alexandria, VA: SCIP Publications.
management, their stated needs for intelligence—by whatever
process—provides them actionable access to CI resources throughout Herring, J.P. (1997). Managing the intelligence operation, vol. 3,
the company. For the intelligence professional, well-defined keys to professional management, SCIP 1997 annual conference
intelligence needs are the prescription for planning and carrying out proceedings. [Cassette Recording]. Chicago: Teach ‘em, Inc.
the right intelligence operations and producing the appropriate intel-
ligence products. Both players have a critical stake in getting the About the Author
“requirement” right. To accomplish this successfully requires a Jan P. Herring has worked for over 35 years in the intelli-
well-educated user and an experienced CI manager who together gence field, first as an intelligence officer at the CIA and
have created the professional environment necessary to identify and later as the director of Motorola’s intelligence program. At
communicate real intelligence needs throughout the company. Mu- Motorola, his pioneering efforts resulted in the creation of
tual respect, trust, and confidential dialogue are the essential ele- the firm’s business Intelligence system— based on national
ments of such communications. security principles—that is today recognized by many as the
most advanced operation of its kind. Now the president of
References and Related Reading Herring & Associates, Mr. Herring helps companies design,
Barndt, W.D., Jr. (1994). User-directed competitive intelli- develop, and operate their own competitive intelligence sys-
gence. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. tems as well as improve their existing intelligence opera-
Hedin, H., & Svensson, K. (1995). Dynamics of decision tions. Mr. Herring is a founding member of the Society of
makers, SCIP 1995 annual conference proceedings. [Cassette Competitive Intelligence Professionals, and in 1993 was
Recording]. Chicago: Teach ‘em, Inc. awarded the Society’s highest honor, the Meritorious Award
for Excellence in Competitive Intelligence, in recognition of
Herring, J.P. (1991). Senior management must champion his contributions to the CI profession and to SCIP. His
business intelligence programs. Journal of Business Strategy,
firm is located at 1338 Asylum Ave., Hartford, CT
12(5), 48 –52.
06105, USA; Tel: 11 860 232-9080; Fax: 11 860
Herring, J.P. (Speaker). (1993). Managing the intelligence 232-4420.

14