Know your information sources

I'm not sure what the weather is like outside London. Summer here could have been better - but also a lot worse. I know that there are heatwaves in Southern Europe, and I'm sure that even though hurricanes hardly hever happen in Spain (where there currently is not much rain on the plain), this is not the case everywhere. And as Discovery found out, you can't predict when bad weather can cause you to change your landing slot!

It is important to know information sources. When I do competitive intelligence training, one workshop exercise I take people through is to show how many different information sources there actually are. I do this by compiling an A to Z of information sources - with one rule, that they must all be different types. (So you can't have Search Engine and then Yahoo! as options for S and Y as Yahoo! is a Search Engine and so is included in this category). Try it - it is not that difficult. I have 4 items for K and 2 for Q, X and Z. Most other letters get spoilt for choice.

However it is not just good enough to know your information sources. You should also know how accurate they are - and ideally how the source gathers the information. Only then can you guard against disinformation - or perhaps from using secondary information that you think is actually a primary source.

There is a story:

A film crew was on location deep in the desert. One day an
elderly native American went up to the director and said, "Tomorrow rain."
The next day it rained. A week later, the native American went up to
the director and said, "Tomorrow storm."

The next day there was a hailstorm. "This Indian is
incredible," said the director. He told his secretary to
hire the man to predict the weather for the remaining of
the shoot. However, after several successful predictions,
the old native American didn't show up for two weeks.

Finally the director sent for him. "I have to shoot a big
scene tomorrow," said the director, "and I'm depending on
you. What will the weather be like?"

The native American shrugged his shoulders. "Don't know," he said.
"My radio is broken."

So before using a source, make sure you fully understand it - and any drawbacks or weaknesses associated with it.

The above story illustrates the need to know your source's source. There is a variation on the story illustrating the same lesson, but also showing how important it is to be objective. Some sources are not totally objective, and so the information provided can actually be false or disinformation.

The Native Americans asked their Chief in autumn, if the winter was going to be cold or not. Not really knowing an answer, the chief replies that the winter was going to be cold and that the members of the village were to collect wood to be prepared.

Being a good leader, he then went to the next phone booth and called the National Weather Service and asked, "Is this winter to be cold?"

The man on the phone responded, "This winter was going to be quite cold indeed."

So the Chief went back to speed up his people to collect even more wood to be prepared. A week later he called the National Weather Service again, "Is it going to be a very cold winter?"

"Yes," the man replied, "it's going to be a very cold winter."

So the Chief goes back to his people and orders them to go and find every scrap of wood they can find. Two weeks later he calls the National Weather Service again: "Are you absolutely sure, that the winter is going to be very cold?"

"Absolutely," the man replies, "the Native Americans are collecting wood like crazy!"

As real examples of disinformation, there is the well known Di-hydrogen Monoxide Research Division web-site.

Another interesting example is the satellite maps shown for 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, CA 95014 on Google Maps compared to that on Microsoft's Virtual Earth.

Of course it could be that Microsoft is using a satellite image from around 30 or so years ago (despite the 2004 copyright notice from NAVTEQ at the bottom). More likely is that Microsoft just wants to air-brush a major competitor - Apple Computers - out of history.

As somebody who has just received delivery of my brand new Apple iBook, I can fully understand why Microsoft would like to do this. However just renaming your future operating system from a breed of cow (Longhorn) to a long-term view (Vista) does not make it a Tiger! :-).

From a competitive intelligence information source point of view the above two maps show how easy it is to

a) misinform
b) blind yourself to the real picture
c) use a respected information source such as Microsoft's mapping software that may not be totally accurate.

Online Again!

Yesterday was the first day of the International Online Information Conference and Exhibition - the premier (well I think so anyway) trade show for those interested in anything to do with online information.

Whether you are interested in competitive intelligence, or scientific information or history or knowledge management - or even just chilling out with some really great people, you'd find something to keep you interested, amused or just full up with chocolate. (Yes - lots of stands were giving out free chocolates - which means that this is one show that you should skip if you subscribe to Chocoholics Anonymous).

My day started with the annual AIIP breakfast - sponsored by the Thomson Organisation (Yes - even corporates can be altruistic sometimes!) - and speaking to old (and new) friends within the AIIP community. (You don't know what AIIP is - and you call yourself an information professional? Go this minute to their web-site and sign up - or if you are not independent, find out how you can improve your research efforts by using some of the world's best searchers (www.aiip.org).

And then to the day's key-note speaker: David Weinberger (for more on David – visit his site at www.evident.com or his blog at www.johotheblog.com). Unfortunately I spent too much time chatting at the breakfast and so missed the start of David's talk. However what I heard was enough to make me realise how much further things will go in the information-using industries (and isn't that all industries?). He highlighted how blogs and wikis are changing the way people perceive information. He contrasted corporate web-sites with the newer collaborative models such as wikis and blogs. He suggested that corporate sites tend to be narcissistic in that they are self-referencing with links that only refer to other parts of their web-site, or sometimes to paid advertisements. Compare this to blogs which invite the reader to explore outside and visit other sites. Rather than focus on sticky eyeballs and making sites sticky (whatever that means - I've yet to see anybody attach their eyes to a sticky screen showing some cool web-site!) they have enough confidence in their content to know that readers will return for more - after they've visited the links of interest.

The impact of such collaborative approaches is sure to grow - just consider the number of entries on Wikipedia compared to something more traditional - the Encyclopedia Britannica for example. Wikipedia has more entries - many of which are highly eclectic showing the range of information that people view interesting or important. The Britannica is, more staid, serious, and tied to older ways of sharing knowledge. As a result it can't keep up with the dynamism of Wikipedia. (Could you imagine an entry such as the Wikipedia one for Deep Fried Mars Bars in the Britannica. This was one example of several given by Weinberger).

Apparently Weinberger has given a similar talk before - which was turned into a Podcast. So if you missed the talk at online, it is available for downloading at the Everything is Miscellaneous link on Paidcontent.org. (Thanks to Marydee Odjala for this - Marydee, apart from producing a great blog at InfotodayBlog, is the editor of Online Magazine).

And then to my session. I spoke for 30 minutes on using Online tools for finding competitive intelligence that can help identify opportunities and threats. Obviously you can't do more than an overview of such a vast topic in 30 minutes - but I tried, by giving a brief overview on competitor, customer and similar monitoring using selected online tools before moving on to mention RSS feeds as a way of keeping up to date and then selected futurist sites for anticipating the future (e.g. the Global Business Network (led by Peter Schwartz, author of the excellent The Art of the Long View) or Shaping Tomorrow as two examples. (The Art of the Long View is my favourite scenario planning/futures studies books - I list several more on my web pages at www.marketing-intelligence.co.uk/resources/books.htm. OK - I know that is a plug for my site, but this is my blog, so tough - live with it! )

In the afternoon, I found time for two sessions on searching, featuring luminaries from both the UK and across the pond in the US including Chris Sherman (of Search Engine Watch; Karen Blakeman of RBA Information services - one of the top UK based information search services; Amelia Kassel of MarketingBase who had joined me a short-while earlier as a co-leader for a round-table session on competitive intelligence where we were joined by an international audience with people from the UK, US, Europe, Egypt...; Mary-Ellen Bates of Bates Information Services; the UK's own Phil Bradley and the aforementioned Marydee Odjala. Could you ask for more?

If all that wasn't enough for one day - I finished off joining Will Hann of Freepint (the information professional community site - if you don't know Freepint then this is another one to visit and bookmark now) and friends for after show drinks and snacks. A great day - to start a great show. Today - Wednesday - will finish with the International Online Awards dinner, but before then will be some more great sessions.

And the show goes on (until Thursday - 1st December 2005, that is!)

Sometimes things are not what they seem: Debunking Mythologies!

I just read an e-mail newsletter from the headmaster of my old school - Rabbi Jeremy Rosen. Rabbi Rosen is not your typical Rabbi, and likes to challenge and get people to think. He encourages questioning at a deep level.

The Old Testament is often seen as a book of vendettas and vengeance - and compared unfavourably to the New Testament. Many of the most interesting stories are not even taught in Sunday schools, so most people - unless they read the bible - are unaware of some of the stories that appear in the bible. For example, Rabbi Rosen mentions how the book of Genesis contains the following:

• A story about a major character who puts his wife and marriage in danger - with blatant lies about her - in order to save his own skin. This happens not just once but three times;
• A story about how a lively teenager and his mother are kicked out of the biblical hero's home into the world with no more than a day’s supplies;
• A story where the above biblical hero tells his son that they are going on a hiking holiday, when in fact the intention is to kill him;
• A story about another biblical hero who cheats his father and tells lies - in order to get his hands on the inheritance promised to his older brother;
• Stories where one child is favoured over another and stories where the hero takes advantage of their siblings;
• A story where the hero moonlights and takes advantage of his father-in-law's capital assets;
• A story where two of the hero's children go out of control and top the local gang (in revenge for the gang leader molesting their sister);
• A story where a major character spends the night with a call-girl who he's picked up off the street and who turns out to be his daughter-in-law.

And this is just Genesis. There are many more stories as graphic as these and more later on in the bible. Yet - this is a source book and holy writ for Christianity and Judaism, and many of the characters and stories are also sacred to Islam and Bahaism. The characters have influenced the way we think about life, society and ethical behaviour.

So what does this all have to do with competitive intelligence. Well - one mistake that people make is to make myths out of information. They get blinded and make assumptions. They read the company histories and believe that what was written about the company history is correct - or mostly correct. But real life is not like this. People make mistakes. Things go wrong. The company founders were never the paragons that are portrayed in later company literature. Part of the role of competitor analysts is to uncover the truth, and to disperse the fog that companies like to put around their origins and history. Because the history is important in that it sets the scene for the present. The culture, strategies and vision are all products of what went before - even if the company refuses to accept this and tries to airbrush the unpleasant bits out of their collective story.

That is part of the genius that is the bible - as the bible does not run away from stories that put its heroes in a bad light. The idea is to show that even biblical heroes got it wrong and that nobody is perfect - and that we should learn from the mistakes made. If only companies did the same, and were as honest: the job of a competitor analyst would be much easier.

PS: I've deliberately not identified the above stories. As good information searchers it should not be too difficult to identify each. However as a seasonal competition (no prize - just the honour of getting praise) - see how many you can work out. Post the answers in the comments - or wait, and I'll respond in a couple of weeks if people ask!

Biblical Animals

You can get tips to better practice from many sources - and one of my favourites is the Bible. There are several bible stories that convey lessons for today's competitive intelligence professionals. One example is in the story of Noah. After the biblical flood, Noah sent out a raven and a dove to search the earth for clues that the flood had truely ended.

The story seems simple, but in fact it is not. Why couldn't Noah just look outside and make a decision? The reason is that when he did this, all he could see was water. It wasn't even as if he was on low ground. The bible says that the Ark came to rest on Mt Ararat which is in today's Turkey. However Noah realised that what you see close up is not necessarily the real situation. Sometimes you need to look further afield. A colleague of mine pointed this out to me - stating that what Noah needed was an unmanned air-reconnaissance vehicle (UAV) (this colleague works for an aircraft / defence manufacturer). So Noah used birds who spied out the land. The first came back with nothing whereas the second, the dove, brought back an olive branch. So what!

It is not the evidence that counted, but the analysis. Noah had gathered information - that with the raven there was nothing to be found, whereas with the dove, there was an olive twig. The analysis showed that with the raven, the waters had not receded whereas with the dove they had.

The same lesson still applies. It is not the information that is important, but the analysis that you make based on this, turning information into intelligence and leading to operational or strategic decisions..

(At this point I can't resist a "business" type joke: Who was the first entrepreneur in the Bible?. Answer: Noah. He floated a company when the rest of the world was under liquidation!)

In fact, it was not Noah that made me think of this theme, but an article I recently read about Bilaam and his donkey. In synagogues throughout the world, the story of Bilaam (told in the Biblical book of Numbers) will be read this Saturday. Essentially, the heathen soothsayer/prophet Bilaam was paid by King Balak to go and curse the Children of Israel (plus ça change...). On his way, an angel appeared blocking the way forward. The donkey on which Bilaam is riding sees that the way is blocked and turns aside. In response, Bilaam hits the donkey - and this happens twice. (Hence the joke that Bilaam had a stubbon ass).

At this point, the donkey spoke to Bilaam and asked Why are you hitting me? Bilaam then enters into an argument with the donkey about why it turned aside which only ends when Bilaam looks up and spots the angel.

The question is what is going on here? Bilaam is not a fool so why is he talking to animals? And why are animals talking in the first place? (The Bible is not Dr Dolittle or Babe).

The question on why the donkey was talking is relatively easy - God made the donkey talk. (God can do things like that!)

Explaining Bilaam's response is not so easy. Here is a man who is seen as sufficiently wise that Kings are willing to pay a lot of money for his words of wisdom. Yet in the story he talks to animals and does not see anything odd or unusual in this. The answer to this problem has many lessons for contemporary competitive intelligence practice.

Every now and then, there is some intelligence that does not fit in to the general pattern of things. It is anomalous. The easiest way to treat something anomalous is to ignore it, or pretend that it does not exist. If the anomaly continues to crop up, then denial can occur in which you just accept the anomaly as a fact of life and try and live with it. In fact, rather than face up to the new situation and change direction it is often easier to keep on trying to move forward on the same path - perhaps using brute force to try and continue by increasing advertising spend, reducing prices, or other marketing equivalents. In other words, to behave like Bilaam and to keep hitting your donkey.

It is only when all these attempts fail that the company / organisation / person in denial is forced to face up to a new situation - and look up, as Bilaam did, and see the angel blocking the path.

Part of effective competitive intelligence is to keep an eye out for anomalies and new situations. They may not be part of a current key intelligence topic (or KIT), but just because they aren't does not mean that they are not relevant or that they can be ignored. On the contrary, they should be incorporated into the current knowledge, and decisions on future actions should take them into account.

This is the lesson of Bilaam. He was in denial and refused to accept that something was wrong or odd. Rather, he incorporated the anomaly into his own world view, until it was almost too late. Only then did he look up and see that his path was blocked.

The story ends with the angel telling Bilaam that he cannot curse the Israelites - but instead should bless them. Sometimes organisations need to change direction and only then will they be able to move forward. It is often the anomalies that give the clues to such situations - rather than the routine intelligence that is collected to a schedule.

© Arthur Weiss, AWARE, 2005

Leadership and the Terrorist Plague

The last couple of weeks have set me thinking about what leadership is or should be. This entry will be fairly rambling - as I want to throw up ideas. I'm still unsure myself what the ideal leader should be like.

Maureen Sharib's blog entry (Psychopaths in the Hallowed Halls touched on this. Maureen mentioned an excellent article - a must read at www.fastcompany.com/magazine/96/open_boss.html. This great item looked at the psychology of business leaders. However it did not go far enough in my opinion, by looking at national leaders. If your boss is a psychopath at least you have the option to change jobs. If you live in a democracy, then if the President/Prime Minister is psychopathic then he/she may not get re-elected. But what if you are not in a democracy - what then! Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Syria under Assad, Myamar (Burma), Zimbabwe....

A couple of years ago there was a session at the SCIP London conference (SCIP Europe 2003) entitled "Advanced Analysis: Pychological Profiling" by Jens Hoffman and Everhard von Groote. The aim was to teach methods of leader profiling, and several of the examples were national leaders. Four leadership styles were discussed:

• Narcissistic (feelings of grandiosity, lack of empathy, need for admiration, power fantasies);
• Paranoid (General distrust, jealousy, provokes interactions, aggressive, feeling of superiority);
• Compuslive (High structure, perfectionism, rigid, highly adapted socially);
• Pyschopathic (Superficial charm, grandiose sense of self worth, a liar, manipulative, no guilt, lack of empathy. Often impulsive and reckless - and lifestyle may be parasitic, feeding off others).

Several national leaders were discussed - Clinton, Margaret Thatcher. There is a wealth of literature on the topic. (For example: Profiling Political Leaders: Cross-Cultural Studies of Personality and Behavior edited by Ofer Feldman - containing essays on several political leaders e.g. on Mao Zedong's Narcissism).

What worries me about all this is that it gives the impression that those who reach the most senior positions in countries or companies are all suffering from some kind of personality disorder - paranoia, narcissism, pyschopathy and so on.

At the same time, there is a second element to leadership - trust. Without trust, you won't get people to follow you. Instead you need to rely on control and your status.

In the bible there is an odd story - of Phinehas, who was the great nephew of Moses (and grandson of Aaron). The book of Numbers discribes a plague that came about following an episode of immoral behaviour. (See Numbers ch 25). It appears that none of the leaders of the Israelites did anything to stop this - other than talk. That is until, Phinehas (who was not in the chain of command) caught one couple in flagrante delicto. In a gesture of righteous indignation, Phinehas killed the couple. The strange thing is that instead of being condemned for murder, or taking the law into his own hands, Phinehas is praised, the plague stops - and Phinehas is granted a covenant of peace.

The Jewish Rabbis spent a lot of time on this story - discussing what was meant by it and what was meant by the covenant of peace. They also raised questions on leadership and what it involved.

Re-reading this story (the weekly reading in synagogues this week) set me thinking about all the above issues - what is leadership?

• Is leadership managing others and controling them?
• Is it the ability to be decisive - like Phinehas - and take actions which might be unpopular, damning the consequences?
• Or is it something else?

A lot of this thought has also been tied in with recent events in London. How do you fight terrorism? What do you do with a suspect who runs? (As happened last Thursday, when an innocent man was shot dead - in a Phinehas like act by the police. He'd been linked to one of the bombers, although the link appears coincidental, and when ordered to stop, he ran. He was also wearing a quilted jacket on a hot day. The police thought that this hid a suicide bomb belt, and rather than risk shooting his torso and setting off a possible bomb belt, or allowing him to set it off, they shot to kill).

Mistakes may be made - but in fighting terrorism the leader needs to be prepared to take positive action, even if this is unpopular. Appeasement and other approaches to avoiding an unpleasant decision are not really options as they only sort things out in the short-term - deferring the problem until later. (Think of Chamberlain, the pre-WW2 British Prime Minister who followed a policy of appeasement with Adolf Hitler - letting Hitler carve up a bit more of Europe, and proclaiming peace in our time, while giving Hitler a chance to arm up).

Terrorism is a plague! (Blaming it on the Iraq war, the situation in Palestine/Israel, and so on is just such appeasement in my view. Otherwise how do you explain the weekend bombing in Egypt, or last week's bombs in Turkey - both unrelated to the Iraq and Palestine issues.) I believe that the only approach is to hit hard at the terrorists and not give them a chance to group up. Obviously you also use other approaches to try and stop people joining the terrorist movements - and without clarity and a willingness to emphasise this is wrong some people will continue to be brainwashed into believing that setting off bombs on buses, trains or in shopping malls is an acceptable way of reaching heaven or achieving political aims. Perhaps this is what the Bible is trying to say when it talks about the covenant of peace. That it is only through strong and decisive actions that will we be able to defeat such plagues and gain peace?

There is leadership story told about Presidents Bush and Clinton.

When President Clinton turned over the reins of government to George W Bush the public and political pundits were all quite surprised how short the two of them met to discuss transition issues. In a recent exclusive, it was revealed what Clinton discussed with Bush.

It appears that Clinton handed Bush three envelopes, each consecutively numbered from 1 to 3. Clinton told Bush that his father, George Bush Senior, had provided him with the same briefing and the same three envelopes, as had all Presidents done from the time of George Washington.

"When things get tough," said Clinton, "open the envelope marked Number 1 and follow the instructions. If things get worse, open the second envelope. And, when things get really impossible, open the third. Do not," emphasized Clinton, "open these envelopes under any other circumstances" The envelopes were passed on to a new era of leadership and the two shook hands and took their leaves.

Bush, being an intensely curious and impatient man and one who is frequently up at all hours of the night, became rather curious as to the contents of the envelopes opened the first. He read "Blame your predecessor." His curiosity piqued, he opened the second. "Blame the Senate." He then tore open the third. It read "Prepare three envelopes."

Competitive Strategies - the dog fight!

Sometimes selecting the right strategy is not straightforward. You have to think laterally.

People talk about competitive strategy - and how important it is for the business to have an effective competitive strategy. In fact, this is a redundant use of words. If a strategy is not effective, then it is not competitive, and vice versa (i.e. if it is competitive, then it will be effective). So why not just say that businesses need effective strategies.

The following story comes to mind in the context of designing an effective strategy that will beat the competition. (It is also timely, considering the recent London atrocity - still in the news of course). There are five lessons from the story:

1. You need to know what you are up against (so do a full SWOT analysis)
2. You need to ensure that you have all the facts
3. You need to be wary of assumptions - just because you think you know what something is, does not always mean that that is what it is!
4. Never underestimate your opponent - they could have a more effective strategy than you have
5. Sometimes, to win requires lateral thought. The obvious or standard approach will not win out.

It is now the year 2010. Around 2007, the US and the Al-Quaida network realised that if they continued their fight they would someday end up destroying the world. So they sat down and decided to settle the whole dispute with a dogfight. The negotiators agreed that each would take five years to develop the best fighting dog they could. The dog that won the fight would earn its owner the right to rule the world. The losing side would have to lay down its arms.

Al Quaida found the biggest, meanest Dobermans and Rottweilers in the world. They bred them together and then crossed their offspring with the meanest Siberian wolves. They selected only the biggest, strongest puppy from each litter, killed all the other puppies and fed the lone dog all of the milk. They used steroids and trainers in their quest for the perfect killing machine, until, after the five years were up, they had a dog that needed iron prison bars on his cage. Only the trainers could handle this beast.

When the day of the big fight arrived, the US showed up with a strange animal: It was a nine-foot-long Dachshund. Everyone felt sorry for the US. No one else thought this weird animal stood a chance against the growling beast in the Al Quaida camp. The bookmakers predicted Al Quaida would win in less than a minute. The cages were opened. The Dachshund waddled toward the center of the ring. The Al Quaida dog leapt from his cage and charged the giant wiener-dog. As he got to within an inch of the US dog, the Dachshund opened its jaws and swallowed the Al Quaida beast in one bite. There was nothing left but a small bit of fur from the killer dog's tail. Al Quaida approached the US, shaking their heads in disbelief. "We do not understand. Our top scientists and breeders worked for five years with the meanest, biggest Dobermans and Rottweilers. They developed a killing machine." "Really?" the US replied. "We had our top plastic surgeons working for five years to make a Florida alligator look like a Dachshund!"

Moonwatching - Google goes out of this world!

Just visited Google, and saw that today (20 July, 2005) is the 36th anniversary of man landing on the moon - the first extra-terrestial tourist walkabout.

Take a look at the moon map - and for another example of Google's humour zoom in on the map (I can't bring myself to call it ElGoog!). The result is really cheesy! (http://moon.google.com). (And of course this is another reason why Google is pre-eminent in the search engine world. Google is a great example of a company that encourages lateral thought - so that all staff think differently and rather than fall into a rut of mediocrity, continually try and come up with new ideas. Some may be oddball, some objectionable, but many will help enhance our web experiences. That is what marks a great company: a company that is satisfied with itself - while at the same time willing to push the frontiers of what is possible, without fear that eccentricities and failures will be penalised).

It seems strange to think that man first landed on the moon so long ago. I was still at school but remember the occasion vividly. It was an example of all that is best in mankind. Adventure, bravery, challenge, daring, excitement, fearlessness.... yes I could cover the whole A-Z! Yet by 1972 the dream was fading - and moon trips stopped.

The world today is completely different to that of 1969 with its hopes of peace, as symbolised by the One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind speech as Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin disembarked from the lunar module. Just think about how different the world is today: no more cold war, the fall of the Soviet Union, medical advances that were dreams back in 1969, instant communication (mobile, Internet) - the average computer in 1969 was probably less powerful than the credit card sized calculator given away as a freebie at many of today's trade shows. Yet - the promise of peace is still as elusive; the world may seem smaller, but the cold war was replaced with other ideologies that still separate us from recognising that we are all part of a global community living on the only planet we know that can support human life.

London Calling

The London bombings shocked the world - perhaps more than they shocked most Londoners. It is not as if Londoners are not worried about terrorism on their front door - they are. Rather, it is that we've seen it before. The IRA frequently bombed London and security alerts, when everybody was asked to vacate a train or a bus were not uncommon.

What is difference is the nature of the enemy. The IRA might have hated the British government, but they didn't hate the British people. Generally there was a warning - allowing for people to be evacuated. The current enemy doesn't care if people die - in fact, the higher the body count the better. After all, most will be infidels - perhaps a few Zionists (aka Jews) will die which makes it even better. And any followers of Allah will have achieved martyrdom, whether they liked it or not - whether they leave grieving spouses and orphans. And if they did not want to die a martyr's death then they were not true followers of Islam and so deserved to die as heretics.

It is easy to dehumanise the perpetrators of such terrorism - to say that they are inhuman, animals, beasts and so on. However this makes us like the enemy - as it is only be defining another human being as "non-human" or sub-human that such atrocities can occur. And yes - the enemy does view everybody else as not equivalent to their elevated "holy" status. We are infidels, monkeys, doomed - so it is valid to help us on our way.

So, defeating such an enemy has to be two-fold: intelligence to catch and lock away the terrorists accompanied by actions to ensure that their communities are educated in human values. And their communities also include those in the Middle-East that allow crimes like Darfur to continue, or the dehumanisation of women (as in Saudia where women are banned from many things men expect - driving cars for instance), and the lack of choice of all the peoples. Democracy will help - but education is also needed. So that all see our shared humanity and stop defining people as "the other".

As for Intelligence - which will be one focus of this blog in future. The IRA once said that the UK government needed to be lucky 100% of the time, while they only needed luck once! The same applies today. The London bombings were an intelligence failure in that the terrorists were not stopped. But in reality, to be 100% successful would have had other consequences - as to ensure 100% intelligence would have meant that we would be living in a police state without any of the freedoms we value, and which were attacked so wickedly on Thursday, 7th July.

The same applies for competitive intelligence - you cannot get 100% intelligence without an unreasonably high cost. Which is why companies and organisations need to have contingencies for when the unthinkable does occur. Contingency planning should be part of CI - as you cannot predict when something will happen with total confidence. Frederick the Great once said: It is pardonable to be defeated, but never to be surprised. The aim of intelligence should be to anticipate and not be surprised when something happens - even if it was not possible to prevent.

This was London on July 7th, 2005. Londoners were not surprised - what happened was expected. We did not know when, how or where. But we did know what we would do straight afterwards - and that is what we did. Which is why the stock market recovered so quickly, and everybody was back at work on Monday.