An extension of this French public policy of CI is Territorial Intelligence (Francois, 2008;
Knauf & Goria, 2009) which has also been referred to as regional competitiveness (Bergeron, 2000b; Parker, 2000) and regional development (Dou & Manullange, 2004).
Francois (2008) observed that Territorial Intelligence emerged from the regions rather than centralised government, and that these initiatives had four broad objectives. First was the need to raise awareness levels and training in CI concepts. Second, was the need for networks to bridge government and the private sector. Third, was to encourage the essential technologies and fourth, to promote a region internationally. In contrast to this vision of CI emerging locally, Pelissier (2009) insists on the explicit policy goals for Territorial Intelligence in the Carayon Report (2003), the government structures which coordinate initiatives and the top down approach. Objectively it would appear that
Territorial Intelligence has emerged within both central government and local support. The initiatives were grounded in the theory of Porter (1993) that identified the source of
national competitive advantage originates at the local level, as technology, institutions, firms and capital reach critical mass. Pautrat & Delbecque (2009) emphasised that Porter
41 (1993) recognised the role of government as a catalyst and amplifier, to create the
conditions for competitive advantage. Recent research by Knauf & Goria (2009) identified the emergence of a new French CI actor which they named the coordinator-animator within territorial business support. In addition to France, Canada has set up regional intelligence programmes (Bergeron, 2000b; Calof & Brouard, 2004) as well as Belgium (Larivet & Brouard, 2012).
An earlier doctoral study by Bulinge (2002) proposed an incremental model for
transferring CI skills to SMEs. This was undertaken partly through action research in a Territorial Intelligence context. Bulinge (2002) analysed the ‘state of the art’ in France in his doctoral thesis and concluded that the concept of CI in France was still ‘fuzzy’ and not scientifically valid. His model recognised that SMEs had particular constraints with regard to information and strategy development, notably, a passive information culture, a reactive strategic approach, high levels of change resistance, a lack of time, minimal financial investment, and short term practices. This model is presented in Table 3 .1.
Table 3.1 The Incremental Model of French CI(Bulinge, 2002) Stage A Informational Intelligence
Reactivity 1. Strategy Formulation
2. Identification of Informational Problem
3. Resource Management: the Network of Information and Communication Technologies 4. Information Search and Treatment
5. Management of Document Information
Stage B Operational Intelligence Pro-activity
1. Environment Factored into Analysis 2. Surveillance Organisation
3. Integration of Tactical and Strategic Approaches 4. Integration of Security Parameters
5. Information Sharing
6. Surveillance System Piloting
Stage C Strategic Intelligence Inter-activity
1. Relationship Network Exploitation 2. Security Policy
3. Attack Manoeuvers
4. Strategic Management of Information
Incremental in design, to accommodate the realities of SMEs, he proposed a three phase grid to implement a CI system: Informational Intelligence is reactive, Operational
42 Intelligence pro-active and Strategic Intelligence interactive. Bulinge (2002) acknowledged the limitations of this approach, which include the heavy time and resource investment, whether borne by the SME or the region, or both.
Another goal in the construction of this grid was to make each step learnable, a unit of training that can correlate to education provision either at the company level or
institutionally (universities), an approach later picked up by Dou (2004). Smith (2008) compared this prescriptive approach to the Typology developed by Wright et al (2002).
The difference in the formulation of the models is telling. The Wright et al (2002) typology was specifically developed to reflect practices within the sample of UK firms in regard to CI, whether they were good, bad or indifferent. It was based on empirical data and has been widely referenced in a number of subsequent CI studies (Comai, 2004; Bouthillier &
Jin, 2005; Liu & Wang, 2008; Hudson & Smith, 2008; Wright et al, 2012). The
incremental model by Bulinge (2002) is the more theoretically grounded of the two and was transferred to a company after its formulation. There is little evidence however as to its up-take by either managers or academics. These conceptually opposite approaches of deductive (French) versus inductive (UK) illustrated the attitudinal diversity that existed in Europe towards CI practices and how they could be researched and implemented.
Larivet (2002) proposed a managerial science definition of CI encompassing three
overlapping fields of intelligence, influence, and protection. This is depicted in Figure 3.2.
Figure 3.2 CI as a Managerial Science Larivet (2006)
Intelligence
Protection
Influence
CI
43 Referring to each field as a function, the framework proposes intelligence as a means to anticipate opportunities and threats in the environment. Protection, or risk management, refers to the protection of information held by an enterprise, notably from the competitors.
This is commonly referred to as defensive CI. The third function of influence is the hardest to translate. It refers to putting pressure, through the application or withholding of
information, to some advantage in the market place. Lobbying is not a good translation but it does convey the sense of pressure to some desired end. Larivet (2002) proposed that French CI only really exists when these three functions intersect. Collectively, the three working together can provide competitive advantage in terms of strategically managing information between the company and its environment. It is in this sense that French CI as a managerial concept looks similar, but not the same as, CI in the English speaking world.
Differences would include the French emphasis on protection and the inclusion of lobbying. The hereby stated managerial definition of CI, formulised by Larivet (2002) or ones very similar to it, is popular with French authors (Harbulot, 1992; Clerc, 1995; Levet
& Paturel, 1996; Larivet, 2006; Dufour, 2010).