competitive intelligence and its implication for

COMPETITIVE INTELLIGENCEANDITSIMPLICATIONFORCOMPETITIVEADVANTAGE INNIGERIABREWERY INDUSTRY

FelixORISHEDE

DepartmentofBusinessAdministrationDeltaStateUniversity,Abraka,DeltaState,Nigeria

[email protected]

AbstractBusinessisdrivenbyprofitandinordertoremaincompetitive,companiesneednotonlytoprotecttheirinterests,butalsotoexpandtheirinterests.Theyneedtoout-innovatetheircompetitors.ThemainaimofthisstudywastoinvestigatethepracticesofcompetitiveintelligenceintheNigerianBreweryindustry,specificallyinrelationtoits impactoncompetitiveadvantage. Stratifiedsystematicsamplingmethod(Lotterymethod)wasemployedtoselectanumberwithintheintervalofI–K.Subsequently,everyKth

workerwasincludedinthesample.Staffstatuswasthebasisofstratification.Thedatausedforthestudywrrecollectedwiththeaidofquestionnairewhichcontainsitemsthataddressedtheobjectivesofthestudy.Thefindingsrevealedthatcompetitiveintelligencetoalargeextentenhancesfirmsoperation;thestudyhoweverconcludedthatcompetitiveintelligencetoalargeextentenhancescompetitiveadvantageinthebreweryindustry.Thestudyrecommendedthatorganizationsshoulddevelopdatabankswherelargeamountofdatacanbestoredandretrievedforinnovativeactionsandapplicationsinorganizationaloperations.Keywords:Competitiveintelligence,Competitiveadvantage,NigeriaBreweryIndustry.IntroductionThe nature of business and by definitioncompetitive intelligence under the strategicintentdoctrineofcompetingandout-innovatingthecompetitorsshouldbeoffensive,notdefensive.However,theopposite is unfortunately true. Gilad (1996)statesthatmostcompaniesare inareactivemode,focusedonidentifyingeventsaftertheyhadtakenplaceratherthanhavingasystemof'earlywarning'inplace.Today,itisnotenoughtotrackthecompetitors,whichisinessenceapassiveordefensiveapproach.Thetrackingofcompetitorsareconductedtobeabletocreateamodelfor'competitiveresponsemodeling,implyingmuchmore than simpleunderstanding–theimplicationistoanticipate actions, understanding intentionsratherthantrackingevents.Thisstrategyhasproventobeverysuccessfulinthepast.

Porter (1998) states that for companies toremainorbecome truly globally competitive,itisrecognizedthatinformationisrequiredtosupport decisions on various levels of theorganization. In a world of informationoverload, the emphasis is not on moreinformation but on actionable intelligence,capable of guiding decisions in companies.Competitiveintelligenceshouldbepositionedin the company to identify threats in thestrategic environment capable of impactingnegatively on the future of the company. Asecond and equally important function ofcompetitive intelligence is to identify newopportunities for the company, leading toinnovation and ultimately benefiting thecompetitivestatusofthecompany.Kahaner(1996)explainsthatintelligencemayberequiredtoattainacompetitiveadvantageinaparticularareaofthecompanyandcould

JOURNALOFSOCIALANDMANAGEMENTSCIENCESVolume11,No.2,May-August,2016providethecompanywithacompetitiveedgebycreatinganadvantageinoneparticularareaofthecompany.Intelligenceisrequiredtomakeanexecutivedecisiononthefutureofthecompanyintermsof, for example, a joint venture partnership.Intelligencemayberequiredonanoperationallevel to support a decision in terms of, forexample,thepricetopurchaserawmaterialortechnological informationforresearchanddevelopmentpurposesormarketingorcompetitorintelligence.Schnaars(1994),assertsthatcompetitiveintelligencestrategyimplies the need to fully understand themarketleaderandtobuildonitslearningandmistakes.Evidencepointstothefactthatsuccessfulcompaniesbuild'layers'ofcompetitiveadvantageratherthanonetransient advantage. These layers suggestconstantsearchfornewcompetitiveadvantages faster than the competition cancopytheexistingones,andreducingrisksbyhaving a portfolio of advantages. Whateverthe core strategy of the company -winningthrough competitive innovationorcompetitiveimitation- bothplaceenormousdemandsonan intelligence function.Thisdecisionhasadirectimpactontheintelligenceprocess applied to support decisions in thecompany.Inthecaseofcompetitiveinnovation,itradicallyaltersthenature,scopeandorganizational relationshipsofcompetitiveintelligenceintheorganisation.Business is driven by profit and in order toremaincompetitive,companiesneednotonlytoprotecttheir interests,butalsotoexpandtheir interests.Theyneedtoout-innovatetheircompetitors.PrahaladandHamel(1990)explainthatcompetitiveinnovationisthe'artofcontainingcompetitiveriskswithinmanageable proportions'. To achieve this, itimpliesafundamentallydifferentapproachinterms of expanding the interests of theinstitution.Anew intelligenceprocess forbusiness is required,keeping inmind thefundamentaldifferencesandunderstanding

theneedsofbusinesstobepre-activeandtosearchfornewopportunities.Prahalad and Hamel (1990) in their work,continue in depicting traditional competitoranalysis intheWestasoutmoded,because itconcentratesonexistingresources.'Assessingthe current tactical advantages of knowncompetitorswillnothelpyouunderstandtheresolution, stamina, and inventiveness ofpotentialcompetitors.Gilad and Smith (1998) argue that while themajorityofexecutivesinindustriesarehappywith the way their company handle thegathering and communication of competitivedata,therealityisthattheireffortsarewhollyinadequate and that very few companiespossess a serious competency in competitiveintelligence. The unmistakable conclusionfromthis study is that theexecutivedecisionmakerswerenotgettingtherightinformationat the right time in order tomake decisions,thereby inhibitingcompetitiveness.Thus, thisstudyseekstobridgethegapbydeepeningourunderstandingonhow competitiveintelligencecanbeusedtoimprovecompetitive advantage in the breweryIndustry.StatementoftheProblemIntheCompetitiveIntelligencegatheringstage,Competitiveintelligenceinvolvesthekey defining event of personnel involved incompetitiveactivitieslocatedmostlyinLibrary,internetorMarketingdepartmentandthe primary skill is the capability to findinformation.Despitethefactthatorganizationhas collected large amount of data, overgathereddatararelywereappliedsomestaticanalyses which may have adverse effect onorganizationalcompetence.Thus,theinabilityoffieldingcreativepersonnelonsuchsensitivetasksposesamyriadofproblemtothestudy.Competitive intelligence is understood as a'valueaddedproductresultingfromthecollection,evaluation,analysis, integration,andinterpretationofallavailableinformation

COMPETITIVE INTELLIGENCEANDITSIMPLICATIONFORCOMPETITIVEADVANTAGE INNIGERIABREWERY INDUSTRYFelixORISHEDE

thatpertainstooneormoreaspectsofadecisionmaker'sneeds,andthatisimmediately or potentially significant todecisionmaking, competitive intelligence theprocess of developing actionable foresightregardingcompetitivedynamicsandnonmarket factors that can be used toenhancecompetitiveadvantage'.Another shortcoming is occasioned by veryweak connection between competitiveintelligenceanddecisionmakingprocess.Theinability of organisations to adapt to trends,and management executing andimplementingdecision identified renders theorganisation'spracticesobsoleteandhamperscompetitiveness.Thestudythereforeseekstoexamine the implications of competitiveintelligence for competitive advantage byspecificallyexaminingtheeffectofcompetitive intelligence process on theenhancement of organizational operationsand providing competitive advantage to theorganizationsinthebreweryindustry.RelatedStudiesIntelligence ismorethanreadingnewspaperarticles;itisaboutdevelopinguniqueinsightsregarding issueswithina firm's businessenvironment.Miller(2000).Competitiveintelligence is defined as the process ofdevelopingactionableforesightregardingcompetitivedynamicsandnon-marketfactorsthatcanbeused toenhancecompetitiveadvantage. Competitive intelligencemovesbeyond traditional environmental scanningandmarketresearchbyfocusingonallaspectsof the firm's environment (i.e., competitive,technological,social,political,economic,andecological)andatvariouslevelsofthefirm'senvironment(i.e.,remote,industry,andoperating).Competitive intelligencedelineatesbetweeninformationanditsanalysisto produceintelligence.Prescott(1999).Itisnoteasytofindjustoneall-encompassingdefinitionofCompetitive intelligence.This

maybeduetorelativelyshorthistoryandhighdiversity of practical application within thisfield.TheSocietyforCompetitive IntelligenceProfessionals(SCIP)says“competitiveintelligence is a necessary, ethical businessdisciplinefordecisionmakingbasedonunderstanding the competitiveenvironment.”(SCIP2). “Competitiveintelligence is information that's beenanalysed to thepointwhere you canmakeacriticaldecision.Drivingthat informationtoadecision point is where the value lies.Miller(2000).Competitive intelligence is the process ofmonitoring the competitive environment. Tobe more exact, competive intelligence is asystematicandethicalprogramforgathering,analyzing,andmanaginginformationthatcanaffect a company's plans, decisions, andoperations.Kahaner(1996).Tosummarizethecommonalities, competitive intelligence isdefined as an information-gathering processinvolvingtheanalysisofacompany'sexternalenvironment, including its competitors, inorder to remain competitive. Bouthillier andShearer(2003).Aswecansee,mostdefinitionsarerelatedtothebusinessfield.AlthoughCItechniquesandmethods are also used in military, research,politics and, basically, in all fields that arebased on competition and advantage –businessCIiswellresearched,widelyusedanddiscussed and probablymost published. CI isdesigned to help the subject (company,organization,etc.)tobeatthecompetitionbyanalysing legally obtained information aboutexternal environment and competitors inparticular.According to Calof (2001), competitiveintelligence is defined as An actionablerecommendation arisen from a systematicprocess,involvingplanning,gathering,

JOURNALOFSOCIALANDMANAGEMENTSCIENCESVolume11,No.2,May-August,2016analyzing and disseminating information ontheexternalenvironment,foropportunitiesordevelopmentsthathavethepotentialtoaffecta company or a country's competitivesituation. Despite the positive impact andgrowth of competitive intelligence, thereexistsavarietyofassociatedethicalissuesthatare still unresolved. First we notice thatcompetitive intelligence is different fromindustrialespionage.Forexample,Rittenburg(2006) go further and propose a theoreticalframework that outlines various factors thatimpact ethical decision-making in competitorintelligence gathering situations. Theyhighlight that ethical decision-making forcompetitive intelligence gathering can beproactivelymanaged.Crane (2005) pointoutthat industrial espionage or spying is bothunethicalandillegal.Thereissometimesafineline between the legitimate tactics ofcompetitive intelligence gathering and theillegitimatepracticeofindustrialespionage.Attheendcompetitiveintelligenceisconductedinordertogainmoreknowledgeaboutthingstocomesothattoday'sdecisionscanbebasedmore solidly on available expertise thanbefore. Prescott (1999) outlines a decision-oriented approach to design a competitiveintelligenceprogram.At the most fundamental level, firms createcompetitive advantage by perceiving ordiscoveringnewandbetterways tocompetein an industry and bringing them tomarket,which is ultimately an act of innovation.Innovationsshiftcompetitiveadvantagewhenrivals either fail to perceive the new way ofcompeting or are unwilling or unable torespond.Therecanbesignificantadvantagesto early movers responding to innovations,particularly in industries with significanteconomies of scale or when customers are

more concerned about switching suppliers.The most typical causes of innovations thatshift competitive advantage are: newtechnologies,neworshiftingbuyerneeds,theemergence of a new industry segment,shiftinginputcostsoravailabilityandchangesingovernmentregulations.But besides watching industry trends, whatcan the firm do? At the level of strategyimplementation, competitive advantagegrows out of theway firms perform discreteactivities - conceiving new ways to conductactivities, employing new procedures, newtechnologies,ordifferent inputs. The"fit"ofdifferentstrategicactivitiesisalsovitaltolockout imitators. Porters "Value Chain" and"Activity Mapping" concepts help us thinkabout how activities build competitiveadvantage.A firm gains competitive advantage byperforming these strategically importantactivities more cheaply or better than itscompetitors. One of the reasons the valuechain framework is helpful is because itemphasizes that competitive advantage cancomenotjustfromgreatproductsorservices,butfromanywherealongthevaluechain.It'salso important tounderstandhowa firm fitsinto the overall value system,which includesthevaluechainsofitssuppliers,channels,andbuyers.With the idea of activity mapping, Porter(1996)buildsonhis ideasof generic strategyand the value chain to describe strategyimplementation inmoredetail. Competitiveadvantagerequiresthatthefirm'svaluechainbe managed as a system rather than acollection of separate parts. Positioningchoicesdeterminenotonlywhichactivitiesacompany will perform and how it willconfigure individual activities, but also how


they relate to one another. This is crucial,sincetheessenceofimplementingstrategyisintheactivities-choosingtoperformactivitiesdifferently or to perform different activitiesthanrivals.Afirmismorethanthesumofitsactivities. Afirm'svaluechainisaninterdependentsystemornetworkofactivities,connectedbylinkages. Linkagesoccurwhen theway inwhichoneactivity isperformedaffectsthecostoreffectivenessofotheractivities. Linkagescreatetradeoffsrequiringoptimizationandcoordination.Porterdescribesthreechoicesofstrategicpositionthatinfluencetheconfigurationofafirm'sactivities:Variety-BasedPositioning-basedonproducingasubsetofanindustry'sproductsorservices; involves choice of product orservice varieties rather than customersegments. Makes economic sense when acompany can produce particular products orservicesusingdistinctivesetsofactivities.Needs-BasedPositioning-similartotraditional targeting of customer segments.Arises when there are groups of customerswithdifferingneeds,andwhenatailoredsetofactivitiescanservethoseneedsbest.Access-Based Positioning - segmenting bycustomerswhohavethesameneeds,butthebestconfigurationofactivitiestoreachthemisdifferent. (i.e.CarmikeCinemasfortheatersinsmalltowns)Porter's major contribution with "activitymapping" is to help explain how differentstrategies,orpositions,canbeimplementedinpractice.The key to successfulimplementation of strategy, he says, is incombiningactivities intoa consistent fitwitheach other. A company's strategic position,then, is contained within a set of tailoredactivitiesdesignedtodeliverit.Theactivities

aretightlylinkedtoeachother,asshownbyarelevance diagram of sorts. Fit locks outcompetitors by creating a "chain that is asstrong as its strongest link." If competitiveadvantage grows out of the entire system ofactivities, then competitorsmustmatcheachactivitytogetthebenefitofthewholesystem.Porter (1990)whilediscussing thesustainabilityofcompetitiveadvantage,emphasizedthathierarchyofsource(durability and imitability) lower-orderadvantages such as low labour cost may beeasilyimitated,whilehigherorderadvantageslikeproprietarytechnology,brandreputation,or customer relationships require sustainedand cumulative investment and are moredifficulttoimitate.Numberofdistinctsourcesare harder to imitate than few, Constantimprovement and upgrading of firm isessentialforcreatingnewadvantagesatleastasfastascompetitorsreplicateoldones.ClassASourceofCompetitiveAdvantageItisgenerallyacceptedthatCIisrelevanttothecompetitiveness of an organization, evenwhen considering different implementationmodels and the difficulties of relatingintelligence activities to organizationalperformance. Also, several theoreticalapproaches, such as competitive forces, theresource-based theory of the firm and thedynamiccapabilitiesapproachallsupporttheideathatCIisabletoprovidetheorganizationwith sustainable competitive advantage (CA).As defined by Eisenhardt andMartin (2000),dynamiccapabilitiesconsistof"organizationalandstrategicroutinesbywhich firmsachievenew resource configurations as marketsemerge,collide,split,evolve,anddie".TobeabletocreatesustainableCA,thesecapabilitiesmustbe

JOURNALOFSOCIALANDMANAGEMENTSCIENCESVolume11,No.2,May-August,2016(a)Strategic,whichmeanstheyareassociated

with the needs of the organization'scustomers,providingasourceofrevenue;

(b)Unique,sothatpricesofproducedgoodsorservices can be established withoutconcernforcompetition;and

©Difficult to imitate, so that profits are noteroded by competition. These distinctivecapabilities cannot be surmounted, usingthe same market logic and cannot beboughtorsold,unlessonebuysthewholeorganization or a significant part of it. Inshort, onemust build them and that cantakea long time.Consequently,competitionamongcompanies,whichwasformerly focused onmarkets or products,has now shifted to the application ofunique resources derived from specificorganizationalprocesses.

Itispossibletoobserveasynergybetweentheconcepts of dynamic capabilities and CI. Inorganizationswhere it is fully established, CIcan be seen as an information processingroutine that looks forward to prepare theorganizationtocompete(andwin)inchangingenvironments,whosedynamism is the resultof systematic monitoring. By continuouslyobservingandanalyzingtheexternal(andalsotheinternal)environment,theorganizationisablenotonlytoadaptitsprocesses(decisionmaking,strategicplanning,planning,marketingplanning,R&D, etc.) toenvironmentalchanges,butalsotoanticipatethesechanges.This idea has been confirmed by empiricalresearch. Teece et al. (1997) cite as anexample, a study accomplished by Garvinconducted in 18 air-conditioning factories,whosequalityofperformancewasduenotsomuchto investedcapitalortothedegreeof

facilitiesautomation,butmainlytothespecialroutinesthatincludedgatheringandprocessing of information and directlyconnecting consumer experience withproductdevelopment, thereby improving theproductionprocess.Accordingtothislogic,CIasasourceofCAisstill supported, from the perspective ofdynamic capabilities, even when it isunderstood as an activity within a broaderplanning process. Eisenhardt and Martin(2000)characterizeproductdevelopmentandstrategicdecision-makingroutinesasdynamiccapabilities, whose aim is to integrateresources. In general, the processes ofacquiring and structuring information andknowledgearecentraltoadynamiccapabilities perspective. Collecting andprocessing information and knowledge arepartoforganizational learningYeo,S (2003)aprocedure referred to as essential inexplaining how organizations employ theirresourcesandbuildcompetencies.TheNigerianBreweryIndustryThe Nigerian beer industry has recorded adecline in growth as at third quarter 2013,research has shown, with high cost of livingandheightenedsecurityconcernshighlightedasmajorfactors.TheNigeria'sbeerindustryisa very vital component of Nigeria's non-oilsector, which has largely contributed toeconomicgrowthinrecenttimes,expertssay.The industry isalsopivotaltothemanufacturing sector of Nigeria. Reportsreveal beer consumption inNigeriahasbeenexperiencing growth of 9 per cent annuallyover the last 10 years. This growthwas as aresult of foreign investments in newproduction plants, rising disposable income,andchangingconsumptionpatterns.


Nigeria's favourable demographics, with apopulous and vibrant youth and growingmiddle class are also contributing growthfactors.Analystsestimateaninstalledcapacitydeficit of 53m hectoliters (hl) to serve thismarketwithhugepotentials.Nigeria has moved from a duopoly beerindustry,toanoligopolyone.Heinekenhasa71% share, through its two subsidiaries,Nigerian Breweries Plc (NB Plc) with 61%marketshareandConsolidatedBrewerieswitha10%marketshare.Diageohasa27%marketshare through its stake in Guinness Nigeria.South African Breweries Miller (SABM) is amorerecententranttothemarketandhasagrowing but very significant stake in theindustry.NBPlchasthe largestcapacityandcoverage,withabouteightbrewerieslocatedacrossthecountry, (estimated to have total annualcapacityof13.5mnhl).Guinnessoperatesfourbreweries (total annual of 7.5mn hl by 2014due to on-going capacity expansion). SABMhas built up its capacity (by acquisition) toapproximately1.8mnhl,whichincludesPabodBreweries in Port Harcourt, InternationalBreweriesinIlesaandOnitsha.Theattractivenessorotherwiseofanindustrydepends on varying factors ranging fromfavourable returns on investment to theinteractionofthecomponentsoftheindustrystructure.Despite thechallengeshighlighted,analysts say Nigeria's beer industry isattractiveandtheoutlookisbright.“From our analysis, we conclude that theindustryisattractive.Wenotethatthoughthebarriers to entry are high, the bargainingpower of suppliers is moderate, while thebargaining power of buyers is low. There islittle threat of substitutes for the productsproduced in the industry and favourablecomplementsfortheproducts,”FDCsaid.

TherecententranceofSABMintotheNigerianmarketthroughtheacquisitionoftworegionalbrewing companies, has also given rise tospeculationregardingthefuturedominanceofthetwoincumbentmajors(NBPlc&GuinnessNigeria Plc). SABMiller has grown from aregionalplayerintotheworld'ssecondlargestbrewerbyvolumesinthespaceof15years.Itsdecentralised approach, with the belief thatbeer is a local business (where local brandsresonate strongly with consumers) has beeninstrumental in the growth of the business,accordingtoRenaissanceCapital,aninvestmentbank.Recent research reveals that, overall, theNigerianbeermarkethaswitnessedadeclineofabout10percentin2013onthebackoftwokey factors: increased pressure on flexibleincomeresultingfromhighcostof living,andheightenedsecurityconcernsincertainpartofthe country which has added pressure ondistributionandcostofcommodities therebyrestrictingbeerconsumptiontosafelocations,among other factors. Financial DerivativesCompany, a diversified financial institution,said the nation's beer market has seen adeclineinthesuper-premiumandmainstreambrandstothebenefitofvalue/growthbrands(8.3 per cent growth in 2013) typicallycharacterized by relatively lower prices. Suchbrands include Trophy lager, Hero beer,Goldberg,LifebeerandDubicbeer.CompetitiveIntelligenceProcessThecompetitiveintilligenceworkswithinformation trying to arrive from data toknowledge.Thisisacomplexprocessinvolvingbasic concepts such as data, information,intelligenceandknowledge.BouthillierandShearer (2003) argue, that goodunderstandingoftheseconcepts,theirmeanings,thedifferencesandlinksbetweenthemarecrucialforsuccessfulconductofcompetitiveintelligence.

JOURNALOFSOCIALANDMANAGEMENTSCIENCESVolume11,No.2,May-August,2016

According to Bouthillier and Shearer (2003)the correct handling of the first step“Identification of competitive intelligenceneeds”iscrucialforasuccessfulandeffectivecompetitive intelligence process. Great careshould be used to identify the key decisionmakers and their specific information needs.No less important is to choose the rightmethods and tactics for collection ofinformation,andtherightchoiceofthewayinwhichtheinformationisgoingtobepresentedtoitsacceptorssothatitiscomprehensibletothem.Thefirststepinvolvesakindofplanning,outlining, or mapping the whole process ofcompetitiveintelligencecyclewiththegoalofproviding the most relevant competitiveintelligence product intelligible to the rightdecision makers. Though this first step ofcompetitiveintelligencecyclemightseemlessimportantthantheothers,Competitive

intelligencespecialistsdeemitthefoundationofsuccessfulcompetitiveintelligenceconduct. “Without a road map, the processrumbles.”Miller (2000).Since theidentification of competitive intelligenceneedsiscomplexandoftendemandingintheever-changing competitive environment, it isvital that it is being carried out on a regularbasisBouthillierandShearer(2003).After identifying the competitive intelligenceneeds, Competitive intelligence professionalscanmoveontothesecondstep–collectionofinformation. Here again some planningconcerning the sources of information takesplace. Bouthillier and Shearer (2003) tell usthat there are two important kinds ofinformation sources – internal and external.Internalinformationcomesfrominsideofthecompany or organisation – e.g. internaldocumentssuchasreports,circulars,records,


databases,employees,etc.Externalinformationsourcescomefromtheoutsideofthe organisation – e.g. analyst reports,newspaperarticles,employeesofothercompanies.AccordingtotheauthorsBouthillierandShearer(2003) inpracticethemanagers and competitive intelligencespecialistsfocusmoreontheexternalsources,butboth,internalandexternalsourcesshouldbe taken into account when collectingcompetitive information. To identify valuableinternalsourcesanInternalInformationAuditiscarriedout.Infact,theauthorrecommendsemploying the Internal Audit prior tobeginningtheinformationacquisitionprocess.Theauthorspointoutthataccordingtomanystudiesthemajorityofinformationneedscanbe satisfied from within the organisation.Besides internal documents, company's ownemployeesaswellasseniormanagementwhodealwith customers and suppliersonadailybasis and can provide valuable insights andinformation.Furthermore, the sources of information canbe divided into primary and secondary. Wecould characterize the primary sourceinformationasfirst-handinformation,comingright from its producers. These can be e.g.financial reports, staff members, andsuppliers. According to Miller (2000),“Managers regard primary sources quitehighlydue to their uniqueness and the likelycompetitive advantage that the informationmay provide – unlike secondary print andelectronic sources that are non-proprietaryandreadilyavailable.”Secondary source information is usuallyintermediated by someone outside theorganisation - e.g. by journalist, analyst, ordatabaseeditor.They“…providethebackground information to support theinsightsthataregainedfromprimarysources.”

Miller (2000). Among secondary sourceinformation typically belongs newspaperarticles, industry analysts reports, public orcommercialdatabases,etc.Wecanspeculatethatsecondarysourceinformationisprobablybetteraccessiblethanprimarysource,sinceitis usually published and widely available.Whereas the vast volume of primary sourceinformation tends to be more accessibleinternallyfromwithintheorganisation.Theprocessofinformationcollectionemploysmany methods and techniques. Two mainstrategies of information acquisition arestated in Bouthillier and Shearer (2003). It iseither targeting a specific information andconcentrating on acquiring it, or monitoringinternal and external environment, gatheringallrelevantpiecesofinformationwhichmightbeuseful,butweren'tpreviouslyidentified.Itis clear that in the process great volume ofinformation is collected. It is necessary tocleanandfilterthecollectedinformationofallredundantorirrelevantdata–totrimitdowntoitsmostrelevantcorpusthatwillbefurtheranalysed. To ensure the analysis will not goastray the supply of collected informationshould be accurate and true. Collectedinformation should be, therefore, assessedconcerningitsvalidity.Thiscanbee.g.donebyassessing the credibility of the informationsource, or by checking its consistencythroughoutvariedsources.Afterrelevant,criticallyassessedinformationwas collected the competitive intelligencesystemwillneedtostoreittobeavailableforfurtheranalysis.Theorganisation,storageandretrievalofinformationisanimportantpartofthecompetitive intelligenceprocess.Information is typically organised into topic-groups. It needs to be indexed according topre-set indexingrulesresponsiveofcompetitiveintelligenceneedsandstoredforfutureretrieval.Itisclearthatthebetterand

JOURNALOFSOCIALANDMANAGEMENTSCIENCESVolume11,No.2,May-August,2016moreextensivethe indexingoftheinformationthemoresuccessfulretrievalcanbe expected. Storage and retrieval ofinformationoccurthroughoutthecompetitiveintelligence process. Not only collectedinformation is stored, but so also theoutcomes of analysis and various stages ofinformationprocessing.“Itisdifficulttodrawline between where the 'organization andstorage'functionendsand'analysis'beginsinthecompetitiveintelligenceprocess.”BouthillierandShearer,(2003).Thehistoryofthestoredinformationcanshowdevelopmentwhich can be used as a part of predictionmethods. Only meticulously organizedcollectionisofanyvalueasgoodorganisationand indexing of information is in direct linewiththesuccessfulretrievalwhichisvital.“Aswith any information system, the inability tofind stored information can have severeconsequences toanorganisation.”Bouthillierand Shearer (2003,p. 51).Also theability tostore the information indifferentmultimediaformats (text, picture, sound) is emphasisedBouthillierandShearer(2003).Analysisofthecollecteddataandinformationisoftendescribedastheprocessoftransformationof information intointelligence Bouthillier and Shearer (2003).“The analysis phase can require a scientificresearchapproach:formulatingaproposition,anddeterminingthevalidityofassumptionsaswell as the probability of the upcomingimpacts. Bouthillier and Shearer (2003) alsoincludetheabovestatedmethodsofscientificapproach intoanalysisprocess,butnotethatsome specialists emphasize the link ofhypothesis to a recommendation for action.They maintain an opinion that competitiveintelligence analysis should be action-orientated. The authors give the followingexamplesofthetwoapproaches:

Hypothesis-oriented:“Ifwelowerthepriceofourproduct,howwillourcompetitorsreact,andwhatimpactmighttheirreactionhaveonourorganization?”Andtheygoontostate:“Infact,analysis involvesasking questions and developing hypothesesabout the answer for each question.”BouthillierandShearer(2003).Action-orientated:“Based on the competitor profiles we haveestablished,weshouldlowerthepriceofourproduct.”Bouthillier and Shearer (2003). Theauthorsexplainthatforthiskindofanalysis,anexpertsystemwithabuilt-inknowledgebaseis necessary. This base would includeknowledge from management, psychology,law,finance,etc.andshouldbeverylargeandcomplex.Itisasysteminwhich“theinputsarethe competitive conditions, and an inferencemechanismuses thebuilt-in knowledgebasetomakeadecisionaboutwhatkindofactionshouldbe taken.” (BouthillierandShearer(2003).Among most common analysis techniquesbelongBenchmarking,SWOTanalysis,Growth-Share analysis, Profiling, Patentanalysis, War Gaming, and many more. Thechoice of the methods depends on theinformation needs and analysed object orsituation. Ideally, a mix of two or moremethodsareusedtodrawthefullpicturesinceeach of the methods focuses on differentaspects.A value added in this (analysis) stageof thecompetitiveintelligencecycleisthekeytothetransformation process – the processwhereinformation transforms into intelligence. AsBouthillierandShearer(2003)argue:“Becauseinformationinthisstepismanipulated,examined,condensed,orexpanded–toalargeextenttoaddmeaningandinference–itistransformedinto


intelligence. It has, after this process, asignificantly higher use value for thecompany.”The overall effectivity and success ofcompetitive intelligence service dependsgreatlyontheabilityofCIprofessionalstogettheir findings across to the decision makerswhowillfurtherutilizethem.Disseminationofintelligence productstakes place throughvariousmeans: from face-to-faceconversation,writtenreportsorhandouts, topersonal presentation in staff meetings,emailing,topostingsonIntranet.Itisdesirableto choose the means of disseminationaccordingtothecurrentsituation,competitiveintelligencecontentandthepreferenceofthetarget audience. Together with the ability todetermine the target audiencegoeshand-in-handtheabilitytochooseappropriatemeansof dissemination of competitive intelligenceproducts.All the above mentioned parts of thecompetitiveintelligencecyclearenotseparateactions.Astheword'cycle'impliesitisanever-ending process, where the individual phasesareintertwinedandreacttoeachotheraswellas to the dynamic competition environment.Forexamplethefirststepthe'identificationofcompetitive intelligence needs' should bechecked for changes constantly throughoutthewholeprocessandadaptationsshouldbemade. Only this way we will ensure thecompetitiveintelligenceproductswilladdressthe current situation and answer thecompetitive intelligenceneeds to thehighestdegree. During the analysis phase, forexample, questions may arise and we mayneed to go back to the previous phase andsearch for more information. All in all, thecompetitive intelligence cycle should beflexible and operational, always checking itaddressestheright issues,keepingpacewiththechangingcompetitiveenvironmentaswellaswithhe competitive intelligenceneedsof

thereceiversofcompetitiveintelligenceservices.TheObjectivesandResultsofUsingCIInOrganizationsFromthebeginningisimportanttoemphasizethatisnotnecessarythateveryorganizationtodevelopandimplementanorganizedcompetitiveintelligenceactivity.Inmanycasesformalinformationgatheredfromexternal sources (Internet,media,governmentetc)andinformaldataandinformationcollected,analyzedandfilteredbymanagersrepresentaveryflexibleandefficientinformalcompetitiveintelligence.Butinthecaseofsomeorganization,aninformalcompetitiveintelligenceisnotenoughinordertosupporttacticandstrategicdecisionmakingprocess,factthatconducttodevelopandimplementanorganizedcompetitiveintelligencesystem.Thecompetitiveintelligencecanbeused inorderto increasethecapabilitiesoftheorganizationalmemory(OM) of the enterprise because the OMcontains organizationalmemory informationsystemswhicharebasedonKnowledgeManagementtechniquesVrincianu(2009)..AccordingtoKahaner, (1996).thereasonswhich are staying at the base of decision toimplementacompetitiveintelligenceinorganizationarevarious:Theglobalizationprocesswhichdetermineanincreasinglevelofcompetitionamongorganizationsbecausethenumberofcompetitorisincreasingand,inthesametime,thequantityandqualityofgoodsandservicesprovidedbythemgrowingcontinuously:Thenewproducts,services,methods andtoolsprovidedbyinformationtechnologyandcommunicationdomain,therapidlychangingof the business environment where newbusinessopportunitiesappearanddisappearveryfastandtheperiodoftimeallocatedfordecisionmakingprocessesisdecreasing

JOURNALOFSOCIALANDMANAGEMENTSCIENCESVolume11,No.2,May-August,2016constantlyandpoliticalchangeswhichaffectandinfluence thebusiness environment aswellastheevolutionoforganizations.Peltoniemi and Vuori (2005) consider theobjectivesofusinganorganized informationsystemofcompetitiveintelligencetoinclude:(1)identifyingandanalyzingnewbusinessopportunitiesorthemarkettrends;(2)developingorupdatingsoftwareusing latesttechnologies,methodsandtoolsforsoftwaredeveloping; (3)maximizingrevenuesandminimizingexpenses;(4) identifying,understandingandanalyzingstrategies,already implemented or in the phase ofimplementation.PeltoniemiandVuori,(2005).considerthatobjectivesofusinganorganized information system of CI are: (1)helporganizationinordertogainacompetitiveedge;(2)revealopportunitiesandthreatsbysurveyingweaksignals;(3)processandcombinedata, informationandknowledgeinordertoproducenewknowledge aboutcompetitors, customers,suppliersetc.; (4)provideuseful informationformanagersindecisionmakingprocessandreduce the period of time used by decisionmakingprocess.Inouropinion,theobjectivesof using an organized information systemofcompetitive intelligence inorganizationsare:Enhancingorganization'scompetitiveness,predictingwithahighleveloftrust,businessenvironment'sevolutions,competitors'actions,customers'requirements,eveninfluencesgeneratedbypoliticalchangesandprovidingabetterandbetter support forstrategicdecisionmakingprocess.Therearestudies that identify somebenefitsderived from using organized informationsystemof competitive intelligence, accordingGilad(1989)theyincludeincreasinganalyticalskillformanagersandtheabilitytoanticipatemovesoftheotheractorsfromorganization'sbusiness environment and sharing ideas andknowledge insideorganization inorder to

develop new ideas or knowledge or tointegratetheexisting intoorganization.Someauthors identified new benefits from usingorganized information system of competitiveintelligenceResearchMethodologyThepopulationofthestudyconsistsofEight(8)breweries.NBPlchasthelargestcapacityand coverage,withabouteightbrewerieslocatedacrossthecountry,(estimatedtohavetotalannualcapacityof13.5mnhl).Guinnessoperatesfourbreweries(totalannualof7.5mnhlby2014duetoon-goingcapacityexpansion).SABMhasbuiltupitscapacity(byacquisition)toapproximately1.8mnhl,whichincludes Pabod Breweries in Port Harcourt,InternationalBreweriesinIlesaandOnitsha.ThechoiceofbrewerywasconfirmedbythefactthatCompetitiveintelligenceisacogentpracticeinestablishments,theseplacebreweriesinanadvantagepositiontoprovidean informalperspectiveofthescenariothanemployeesinothersectors.Basedonpurposivesampling,asamplesizeof8respondentsperbankwasused,thusbringingthe total number of respondents to 80.Employeesineachofthebankswerestratifiedbasedonorganisationalstatus–managementstaff, senior staff, and contract staff. Branchmanagers,provided the sampling frames forthe study.Toobtaina sampling intervalK ineach case, the total number ofworkerswasdividedby8(thesamplesizeperbank).Simple random sampling (Lottery method)wasthenemployedtoselectanumberwithinthe interval I – K). Subsequently, every Kth

worker was included in the sample. It istherefore clear that stratified systematicsampling method was used. Staff status wasthe basis of stratification. Questionnaire wasthemain research instrument and


corresponds of items that addressed thecentral corematter. Items in thecentral-corematterfeaturesLikerttypequestionswiththequestion-responseformatofthe5-pointscalerangingfromaregionofstrongdisagreement– Strongly Disagree (SD) through a neutralzone (N) to a region of strong agreement –Strongly Agree (SD). Operationalmeasurementofvariableswasasfollows:SD–2, D–1,N–O,A–1SA–2

Data analysis includes the use of descriptiveand inferential statistics.Descriptive statisticsinclude the mean, standard deviation,standard mean error and tables whileinferential statistics include the z-test forequality of means. Appropriate researchinferences weremade on the basis of the t-test. Data analysis was performed using theStatistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS)18.0

AnalysisUsingthemeananalysis,itwasagreedthatcompetitiveintelligencetoalargeextentenhancesfirmsoperationandalsoenhancescompetitiveadvantageinthebreweryindustry.Also,usingthez-teststatisticandtheprobabilityvalue,itwasdiscoveredthatbothresearchquestionsaresignificanttothestudyduetothefactthatthePvaluesassociatedwiththeZcalarelesserthan5%criticalvalue.


Sincetheprobabilityvalue(P=0.041)thatisassociatedwithzcalculated(2.966)islessthan0.05 level of significance, there is statistical

evidence to reject the null hypothesis. WethereforeacceptH1andconcludethatC.Idoesenhancefirmsoperation.

Sincetheprobabilityvalue(P=0.037)that isassociatedwithzcalculated(3.076)islessthan0.05 level of significance, there is statisticalevidence to reject the null hypothesis. Wetherefore accept H1 and conclude that C.Ienhances competitive advantage in thebreweryindustry.DiscussionofResults

Thepurposeofthisstudywastoexaminethe

impactofC.Ioncompetitiveadvantageinthe

breweryindustry.Thefindingofthestudy

showedthatcompetitiveintelligence

enhances firms operation and competitive

advantage in thebrewery industry. Thiswas

supportedbytheassertionofEisenhardtand

Martin (2000) indicating that dynamic

capabilitiesofcompetitiveintelligence consist

of "organizational and strategic routines by

which firmsachievenew resource

configurations as markets emerge, collide,

split, evolve, and die ". To be able to create

sustainable Competitive advantage, these

capabilitiesmust be strategic,whichmeans

they are associated with the needs of the

organization's customers, providing a source

ofrevenue;unique,sothatpricesofproduced

goodsor services canbeestablishedwithout

concern forcompetition;anddifficult to


imitate. The findings of the studywas also

supportedbyTeeceetal.(1997)ascited ina

study conducted by Garavan, Costine and

Heraty(1995)in18air-conditioningfactories,

whosequalityofperformancewasduenotso

much to invested capital or to thedegreeof

facilitiesautomation,butmainlytothespecial

routinesthatincludedgatheringand

processing of information and directly

connecting consumer experience with

productdevelopment, thereby improving the

productionprocess.Conclusion

The paper concludes that competitive

intelligence is a significant predictor of firms

competitiveadvantagesince ithassignificant

implicationsforenhancingorganizations

operationsandprovidingcompetitive

advantage for the organizations. Competitive

intelligenceisanactionablerecommendation

arisenfromasystematicprocess,involving

planning, gathering, analyzingand

disseminating information on the external

environment, for opportunities or

developmentsthathavethepotentialtoaffect

a company or a country's competitive

situation.Attheendcompetitiveintelligence

isconductedinordertogainmoreknowledge

aboutthingstocomesothattoday'sdecisions

can be based more solidly on available

expertisethatcouldprovidestrategic

decision-oriented approach to design a

competitive intelligence program that

enhances competitive advantage in the

corporateorganizations.Recommendations

Basedonthestudyundertakenoncompetitive

intelligence the following recommendations

are hereby advanced. The Competitive

IntelligencegatheringstageofCI involvesthe

keydefiningeventofpersonnelinvolvedinCI

activitieslocatedmostlyinLibrary,internetor

Marketing department and the primary skill

wascapabilitytofindinformation.Despitethe

fact that organization has collected large

amountofdata,overgathereddatashouldbe

storedandpersonnelshouldbe innovative in

theirapplicationsinorganizationaloperations.

Firms should be proactive, adapt to trends,

and should speedily implement decision

identified, in so doing this would promote

firmscompetitiveness.Aswellanorganization

wouldedgeofcompetitorsifthereisastrong

connection between CI and decision making

process.ReferencesCalof, J. 2001. Competitive intelligence and the

small firm-Requirementsandbarriers. Available online at URL:http://www.sbaer.edu/Research/2001/ICSB/A-6-2.HTM.

Crane, A. 2005. In the company of spies: whencompetitiveintelligencegatheringbecomesindustrialespionage,


BusinessHorizons,Vol48(3).Eisenhardt,K.M.1989.Buildingtheoriesfromcase

study research,AcademyofManagement Review, vol 14, n°4.17(2),3-5.

Garavan, T.N. 1991. Strategic human resourcedevelopment. Journal of Europeanindustrialtraining15(1):17-30.

Garavan,T.N.,Costine,P.andHeraty,N.1995.Theemergence of strategic humanresource development. Journal ofEuropean Industrial Training19(10):4-10.

Gilad,B.1996.Businessblindspots:replacingyourcompany'sentrenchedandoutdatedmyths, beliefs andassumptionswiththe realities of today's markets.Chicago, Illinois: Probus PublishingCompany.

Gilad,B.,&Smith,R.(1998).Whypharmaceuticalcompanieslackrealcompetitiveintelligence. PharmaceuticalExecutive,18(5).

Hamel, G. 1996. Strategy as revolution, HarvardBusinessReview,Vol74.Hamel, G. Prahalad,C.K. 1989. Strategic intent,HarvardBusinessReview,n°3.Kahaner, L. 1996. Competitive intelligence: how

businesses gather, analyze, and useinformation in the global marketplace. NewYork: Simons & Schuster.Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. 1996.The knowledge-based economy.Paris:OECD.

Kahaner, I. (1996)Competitive Intelligence:FromBlack Ops to Boardrooms - HowBusinessesGather, Analyze, andUseInformationtoSucceedintheGlobal

Marketplace,New York,NY,TouchstoneBooks.

Peltoniemi, M. Vuori, E. (2005) CompetitiveIntelligence and Co-evolution withinanOrganisation Population,Proceedingsof6thEuropeanConference on KnowledgeManagement,Universityof Limerick,Ireland, 8-9

Porter,M.E. 1990. The competitive advantageofnations.NewYork,TheFreePress.Porter,M.E.1998.Oncompetition.Boston:HarvardBusinessSchoolPublishing.Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G. 1990. The core

competence of the corporation.Harvard Business Review, May/June.Boston: Harvard Business SchoolPublishing.

Prescott, J.E. 1999. The evolution of competitiveintelligence: designing a process foraction.APMP(Spring):37-52.

Prescott, J.E. 1999. The Evolution of CompetitiveIntelligence: Designing a process foraction,APMPSpring.AvailableonlineatURL:

Rittenburg,etal.2006.Anethicaldecision-makingframework for competitorintelligence gathering, Journal ofBusiness Ethics, Vol 70. AvailableonlineatURL:

Teece, P. S. (1997) Sustainable CompetitieAdvantage,DynamicsCapabilitiesTheory.StrategicManagementJournal,18(3),76.

Yeo, R. (2003), Linking Organisational Learning toOrganisational PerformanceandSuccess, Leadership andORganisation Development. Journal24(2).

competitive intelligence and its implication for

Documents