Competitive Intelligence
Part of Competitive sales intelligence
Recording competitor information from reliable sources
Use a claim record that preserves the exact source, date, offer scope, uncertainty and owner behind competitor information.
Record competitor information as a claim tied to a source, date and exact scope. “Competitor A has no export” is unsafe to reuse if nobody can tell which product, edition or evidence it refers to. Another person should be able to inspect the basis of a note before repeating it to a buyer.
Capture the source before the conclusion
Begin with the buyer question that makes the information relevant. Save the exact page or authorised response, its publisher, the date inspected and the passage that addresses the question. Record the product, edition, market, configuration and effective date where stated. A copied line or screenshot without its surrounding conditions may distort the source.
Record field / What to enter
- Claim under review
- One proposition precise enough to check.
- Source and access date
- Exact document or response, publisher and date inspected.
- Applies to
- The offer and conditions actually covered by the evidence.
- Source type
- Provider material, authorised answer, buyer account or unverified report.
- Conclusion and limit
- What the source establishes and what remains open.
- Owner and trigger
- Who will recheck the claim and what should prompt review.
Preserve a buyer's account as an account of their experience, not a general provider finding. Treat an anonymous comment or colleague's recollection as a research lead. A provider page can support what it expressly says, but silence on that page cannot establish that a capability is absent.
Respect information boundaries
Use material the organisation is authorised to receive and retain. A buyer may be permitted to discuss a competing offer, but permission to place its proposal in a shared intelligence library should not be assumed.
Check applicable confidentiality terms and the organisation's handling route before distributing sensitive material. A non-disclosure agreement is generally used to secure confidentiality, and whether one applies depends on the actual agreement; IP Australia advises getting a signed NDA before telling or showing someone else your ideas, inventions, designs, plant breeding secrets, recipes, business methods or processes.
Do not seek a rival's non-public pricing intentions or plans through direct exchange. The ACCC takes reports about possible anti-competitive communication and cooperation among businesses, and it investigates possible anti-competitive contracts, arrangements, understandings and concerted practices.
If a note includes personal information, check the applicable privacy obligations and collect only what is needed. APP 3 outlines when an APP entity may collect solicited personal information, and requires collection by lawful and fair means and from the individual concerned unless that is unreasonable or impracticable, with a data minimisation approach.
Compliance considerations when recording competitor data
- NDA required before sharing ideas or inventions
- Yes – IP Australia recommends signed NDAs
- ACCC investigates anti-competitive cooperation
- Yes – includes contracts, arrangements and concerted practices
- Personal info collection under APP 3
- Must be lawful, fair and minimised
Write a bounded conclusion
Suppose a fictional buyer asks whether an export includes approval timestamps. A sound record might say: “The reviewed document describes a standard export but does not specify that field. Availability for the proposed edition remains unconfirmed.” It would not say “no timestamp export”. The next action is to obtain an answer for the exact edition and workflow.
Mark the record usable within its stated scope, needing verification or superseded. Recheck its source before a consequential comparison and when a relevant change appears. The record works when a representative can trace the statement, see its limit and know what to ask next.
