Debunking the 'academic abstinence' myth of CI

By: John Prescott

SCIP members, log in to download this item.
Not a member? Join SCIP or purchase this item.

The widely held belief that business schools are not teaching competitive intelligence concepts is a myth. Only if you define teaching CI in the narrow sense of a formal course for which students register could you conclude that business schools neglect CI.

Most universities currently offer a broad range of CI-related courses. With a little creativity universities are positioned to offer business majors in CI -- they need only to add a prerequisite Foundations of CI course and then leverage the broad range of CI-related courses that already exist. Thus, the cost of implementing a CI major in business schools is primarily political rather than economic.

CI professionals will be pleasantly surprised by my thesis while my academic colleagues will express skepticism. To debunk the CI "academic abstinence" myth, I'll use as a case example the University of Pittsburgh's Joseph M. Katz Graduate School of Business (the "Katz School") where I teach, along with existing curricula in other parts of my university as evidence. First, I'll show that many CI concepts are being taught within the core set of required courses at graduate schools of business. Next, using a set of electives offered at the Katz School, I'll show that it's possible to develop a major in CI. Additionally, by leveraging the unique capabilities of a university, the limitations inherent in a business school's curriculum as it relates to developing CI skills can be overcome.

Having validated my thesis, I will turn my attention to the variety of ways in which I have taught CI over my 17 years at the Katz School. My purpose is to illustrate that CI courses can be delivered in a variety of formats. A set of recommendations is then proposed that create incentives for CI practitioners and academics to become more involved in the development of CI teaching materials.