Educational Programs for Intelligence Professionals

PROFESSIONS educational programs result from AND THEIR FORMAL the interaction of social, cultural, and institutional factors. The current interplay of economic, technological, social, and cultural factors may support the establishment of formal educational programs for competitive intelligence professionals. However, due to the hybrid nature of the intelligence profession, the established disciplines may not provide the most appropriate environment in which these programs can flourish. To appreciate its distinctive characteristics, a definition of the intelligence function, as well as a description of the required competencies, is presented. INTRODUCTION The demand for intelligence professionals is rising as for-profit and not-for-profit firms recognize the need to formalize their intelligence activities (Prior, 1993). This increased awareness stems from the competitive pressures of the global marketplace as well as the favorable impacts of intelligence activities upon corporate revenues (Kelly, 1993). However, American colleges and universities place a low priority on educating competitor intelligence professionals. A small private college school offers a four-year program for the training of intelligence analysts, and a few colleges provide a single course in intelligence (Wreden, 1994). Regrettably, although the government supports two intelligence programs, only federal employees are permitted to enroll (Herring & DeGenaro, 1994). In Jerry P. Miller, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, Simmons College, 300 The Fenway, Boston, MA 02115-5898 LIBRARY TRENDS, Vol. 43, No. 2, Fall 1994, pp. 253-70 @ 1994 The Board of Trustees, University of Illinois 254 LIBRARY TRENDS/FALL 1994 addition, various professional associations occasionally offer seminars and workshops. If an apparent need for trained intelligence workers exists, why do American universities virtually ignore this profession? The answers to this question are complex and varied. This discussion addresses the possible causes for this dilemma. To frame these comments, the definition of the intelligence process as well as a description of the required competencies needs to be clarified. THEINTELLIGENCE DEFINED FUNCTION The intelligence function comprises the collection, analysis, and dissemination of information to decision makers and/or strategists about events in a company’s external environment (Aguilar, 1967; Porter, 1980). Each organization implements the function differently, with specific components being assigned to individual members of a large intelligence team or with the entire function either being outsourced to a research firm or to a single individual. In some settings, specific components are inappropriate. The reasons for this variance are addressed later in this discussion. Where the organization positions the function within the decision-making process of ten determines its focus and, therefore, its nomenclature. Strategic intelligence emphasizes its relationship to strategy formulation. Business intelligence stresses the detection of a wide range of movements throughout the company’s external environment as well as the dissemination of the identified opportunities or threats to decision makers (Stanat, 1990; Hohhof, 1993). Competitive intelligence focuses on the present and potential strengths, weaknesses, and activities of the firms within a specific industry whose products or services closely resemble those of the company initiating the search (Porter, 1980). Competitor intelligence emphasizes the acquisition of detailed and current information regarding a specific corporation (Fuld, 1985). Although each term shifts the focus, the typical process contains the central components of collection, analysis, and dissemination of information to decision