The following “real life case study” is especially dedicated to my central African students. I always tell them that, among the principles of a competent CI professional, there is one I borrowed from canonical Law because of its neutrality, its ethical and methodological value. It is the Latin maxim: “contra factum non valet argumentum.” I am not sure to refund it one day.
Yesterday afternoon, youngest of them, Jane, read the interesting comments my friend McEachin wrote on the article Competitive intelligence in the School of economic warfare… I published here on May 1, 2008; and she asked me “ why such a respected CI professional preferred a fantastic storytelling as argument to justify a charge, once published and ever proven, instead of analyzing all the facts?…” I exposed in my article. “Isn’t this a symptom of the Hollywood syndrome?”, she added. I acknowledge that the question embarrassed me; and I said: “Jane, you know… for a competitive intelligence analyse , as for the social science in general, one should be fast to observe and slow to judge.” Thanks to information collected legally, I know that Richard McEachin is a gentleman and will certainly answer to the question of this young student, about methods and ethics in Competitive Intelligence.
As far as I am concerned, I love America. And I agree with the majority of the theses of US strategists such as Alvin Toffler and Richard d’Aveni, that Mc Eachin forgot in his article while quoting me. In few months, I’ll attend a training session on strategy in Washington DC and I don’t think Mister McEachin wishes to receive me in USA like a Latin James Bond that I am not. Guy Gweth
Read the comment of McEachin on my article in Confidential Ressource.
May 10, 2008 at 8:06 pm
I have read the above comments and I think I created a slight problem with my use of language. This is not a case of Contra factum non valet argumentum (Arguments are no good against facts).
In the last paragraph I point-out “the terms Competitive Intelligence and Industrial Espionage mean different things to different people.” This was the point of my blog post.
I am not arguing for either the NA or the French conception of CI. The differences between the two exist, and have for centuries, based upon the development of their respective economies and cultures. You must realise that each side of the Atlantic will refer to the other in pejorative terms as is apparent in the material quoted in the JINSA article. This is the cut and thrust of those seeking advantage both domestically and abroad.
Complaining about, or arguing for either conception of CI is pointless. As practitioners, we must deal with the business landscape before us, understand it, and move forward with the task at hand. The practices of rivals are merely part of the business landscape that we must negotiate.
I happen to know that Mr. Gweth is not a secret agent and that he doesn’t introduce himself as Gweth, Guy Gweth. I’m also certain that his car doesn’t have an ejector seat.
Richard McEachin
http://www.ConfidentialResource.com
May 11, 2008 at 9:51 am
I also like cinema, but this time, my students think that I found somebody stronger than me. Thank you and cheer, dear Richard! Ps: I don’t have a car. I like to walk, especially in African forest!