Exclusive Interview: Tracking the U.S. National Intelligence Strategy
SUBSCRIBER+ EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW – The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) is offering some rather overt clues about just how the country’s 18 […] More
FEATURE — Occasionally, we ask Cipher Brief Experts with experience in both the public and private sectors to share their thoughts on security-related issues.
The DNA of value creation
Indigenous corporate intelligence programs are no longer novel. Companies big and small have invested in intelligence people, tools, data, and third-party services to support executive understanding of both opportunity and risk in hopes of finding competitive advantage while limiting company exposure. But some corporate intelligence teams struggle to make their full value realized, and some corporate executives struggle with how best to task and use intelligence (and their intelligence teams) to drive strategically consequential decision-making. Material value is being left on the table, and some folks don’t even see it laying there.
For private sector intelligence leaders trying to fix this problem, there is no silver bullet. It’s a campaign, part organic and part choreographed, that demands mutual education and enlightenment (that means not only your customer, but also yourself), a stubborn commitment to tradecraft and the whole of your technical discipline, relentless focus on the business imperative, and a hell of a lot of hustle.
So, what does good look like?
It reflects one simple truth: ‘Intelligence’ is a discipline, not a topic or a narrowly-focused tool. Packaged correctly, it will be pointed at anything that matters most to a decision-maker, agnostic to the subject matter.
There’s a simple formula for how, where and why it works in a corporate setting. Purpose + Placement + Process.
Purpose: A corporate executive needs strategic intelligence just like a senior government policy maker. Plans and intentions of governments, individuals, companies, and non-state actors, along with their assessed potential outcomes and impacts, make a significant difference to the financial, reputational and physical well-being of a company and its people.
A thriving intelligence program anticipates the needs of the company and its executives, isn’t constrained by imagination to a limited scope or only tactical concerns and is proactively and cyclically pointed at a wide range of commercial goals, geopolitical risks and opportunities, and other strategic interests of the executive. “Good” looks like a corporate leader clearly identifying the gaps in their knowledge on virtually any topic of strategic interest to the company, leveraging a full-cycle intelligence capability to help fill those gaps, and making smarter, faster decisions as a result.
Placement: Intelligence must have a horizontal relationship with other support functions so that it can maintain a direct, vertical relationship with company leaders.
This is another place where programs fail to mature or become limited in their ability to deliver. Poor placement can create a necessarily narrow scope for the corporate intelligence team or put unintentionally disruptive filters between the intel producer and the intel consumer, or both.
For example, intelligence programs in most companies are tied into corporate security programs. This is a critical codependent relationship: successful security programs thrive on threat assessment to drive risk management, and security requirements necessarily make up a significant portion of a company’s intelligence needs. But a failure of imagination, either by an intel team or by corporate leadership, often results in the intelligence team being built as an ancillary or subordinate function of a security organization which in turn limits the intel scope exclusively to security issues, the most prioritized of which tend to be granular ones that address immediate, pressing needs. That leaves no room, or no mandate, for the team to deliver more broadly or for the company to realize the team’s full value (the ‘Purpose’ described above).
The same can be said when an intel team, either through corporate design or corporate protocol, is managed by or has its message filtered through other support functions (legal, compliance, government affairs, etc). Either through a difference in goals or a misunderstanding of nuance in methods or message, these corporate filters erode the intelligence process and unintentionally limit the corporate executive’s ability to realize full intelligence value.
The Cipher Brief hosts private briefings with the world’s most experienced national and global security experts. Become a member today.
Process: A successful program is built around a full-cycle capability. Meaning:
Read part 2 of The Corporate Intelligence Playbook in The Cipher Brief
Related Articles
SUBSCRIBER+ EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW – The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) is offering some rather overt clues about just how the country’s 18 […] More
SUBSCRIBER+EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW – Hostage negotiations are one of the most difficult political issues for a U.S. administration to deal with, particularly in light of a […] More
CIPHER BRIEF REPORTING — On the outskirts of the battle-worn eastern Ukrainian city of Bakhmut, where Russia’s most effective mercenary force once tallied Moscow’s most […] More
Analysis by experts from the Special Competitive Studies Project EXPERT ANALYSIS — In an era of information overload, the rise of AI and machine learning tools, […] More
CIPHER BRIEF REPORTING – Kyiv, Ukraine – Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently announced new sanctions against more than 650 individuals and legal entities that the […] More
BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT: A crucial decision by Germany to provide Leopard II main battle tanks to Ukraine and to allow other Leopard-equipped militaries to do […] More
Search