Chapter 15

Emerging Functions for Driving Competitive Intelligence at Regional Level¹

According to Gonnot [GON 94], competitive intelligence (CI) offers a new way for the state to act in relation to businesses and offers new perspectives for the definition of development strategies of industries and service businesses. Consisting of research, the use and the protection of economic information, “CI aims to establish a new ‘partnership’ between the State and businesses, a partnership made possible by breaking down barriers to the circulation of information”. This initiative is linked to the defense of national interests: “for the State, support for economic information is also an aspect of the defense of national interests, while preserving the principles of a liberal economy open to outside competition”. To assist and to structure this partnership between state and businesses, CI structures have been established little by little in France, beginning in the period 1997–2000. Clerc and Pautrat define CI structures as follows: “a national competitive intelligence structure is conceived as a combination of practices and knowledge for the production and interpretation of knowledge, developed at national level with the participation of different institutions (the State, administrations, businesses, universities, networks of chambers of commerce, professional unions, etc.). A structure of this kind is distinguished by three aims:

– to develop specific and specialized teaching to increase collective capacities for the interpretation and comprehension of environments. Organizations uniting members of professions linked to competitive intelligence (watchers, coordinators, analysts, marketing experts etc.) play a role in the diffusion and maintenance of knowledge;

– to produce knowledge suited to the issues of globalization and useful in fine-tuning individual or collective strategies (between the State and businesses, or between different businesses, for example);

– to implement influence actions supporting these strategies, based on the promotion of the national cultural, economic and political model” [CLE 99].

One key issue in each of these approaches is that of collective efficiency which must be created and reinforced not only through suitable and innovative governance and management but also through the establishment of innovative and robust organizations, processes, methods, technologies, and tools. Anticipation and rapid action in a context where time is of essence, mastery of complexity, the evaluation and deepening of knowledge, pooling resources and contents, accelerating innovation, accelerating individual learning, and optimization of watch are all conditions that, with others, constitute a basis for the success of clusters and regional CI apparatus. Whether in small, medium, or large businesses, universities, or territorial institutions concerned with reinforcing competitiveness and attractiveness, identity, cohesion and social links, context and shared reference points, and trust become essential “activators” for the flow of knowledge, the source of innovation, and the value creation. These values must respond to issues of delocalization of companies, the globalization of markets, reduction in industry and the opening and extension (release) of Europe, factors which raise questions for public authorities concerned with French industry, its visibility in global markets, its competitiveness and durability, and the attractiveness of the territory. One of the essential aims of the establishment of such systems is to render an attractive territory.

In this chapter, we provide a definition for these structures, which we limit to regional structures for CI (dispositifs régionaux d’intelligence économique, DRIE) and competitiveness clusters. These are systems that lead to networking of competences and knowledge as much as resources, promoting innovation and value creation in the context of a growing global “economy of knowledge”. We have studied these entities through the means of a national survey carried out between 2005 and 2008. Based on our results and on-the-ground observations, we propose a definition of a new profession useful for piloting CI structures: that of coordinator.

15.1. Regional systems for CI

Among the organizations we consider as being CI structures, we find the DRIE. These have the particularity of facilitating exchanges of knowledge and competences (theoretical and practical knowledge) in a given territory, between public and private sector actors. CI is not exclusively used by large groups as a means of organizing their economic defense. It should be within reach of all companies participating in the creation of national wealth and the maintenance and creation of jobs. One of the strong points of the coordinator, the actor necessary for the implementation of this kind of structure, is to act as a relay point between these two entities (public/private) and to create not just a shared vocabulary, but a climate of trust. Among the responsibilities attached to this post, we find the protection of knowledge, the anticipation of relevant markets, the defense of interests, etc.

15.1.1. History

In the 1994 Plan report, H. Martre already spoke of CI structures: “Businesses are now forced to adjust their strategies based on a new reading grid, taking into account the growing complexity of the realities of competition on different global, national and local stages. The effectiveness of such an approach is based on the use of competitive intelligence systems, which institute strategic information management as a major lever serving economic performance and employment”.

In March 1995, R. Pautrat sent a letter to a number of prefects in the Midi-Pyrénées and Rhône-Alpes regions of France to inform them of the Prime Minister’s agreement to the constitution “of an effective CI structure”, continuing the work begun by the Plan Commission, and to announce the forthcoming launch of pilot operations. He requested that they welcome Philippe Caduc and Philippe Clerc¹ who were to present projects and experiments to launch in their regions and départements (counties). These projects were “based on actions to raise awareness of competitive intelligence in businesses, training in management of networks and information streams, influence strategies and technological watch”. These initiatives applied propositions for a single access point, necessary for the company, and the development of collaborative CI platforms.

Regional CI programs were then launched from 1997. The intention was no longer to bring together central administrations, national politicians, and representatives of large companies, but to unite regional actors involved in economic development and the diffusion of public information linked with the company: devolved state services, services linked to territorial collectives, universities, engineering schools or research centers, professional syndicates and employers’ unions, technopoles, regional associations, and some well-installed businesses. Among these regional actors, chambers of commerce and industry are placed in a central position as their status² and position within regions gives them a ready-made role as intermediaries between businesses and public powers. Thus, following the first Assises organized in the Basse-Normandie region, other regions followed suit. The Centre region launched its regional program³ during Assises held at Tours on October 23, 1998 and the Franche-Comté region [WER 99] launched a similar program on March 12, 1999 in Besançon. CI thus made its entry into state-region planning contracts (CPER).

Six years later, in his report (p. 90), [CAR 03] stated that: “in state-region planning contracts from 2000 to 2006, almost all of the chapters concerning economic development and attractiveness express the intention, more or less clearly defined, to make use of competitive intelligence structures.

The competitive intelligence measures set out in the CPERs correspond, for certain regions, to the pursuit of programs already begun under the previous contract. This was notably the case for the Basse-Normandie and Centre regions. For the majority, however, these programs or actions were either partly or completely new. The most widely envisaged concrete interventions involved awareness, training and advice seminars, and the implementation of collective competitive, technological and regulatory watch actions. Just over half of the CPERs considered make more or less explicit reference to these two types of action. On the other hand, fewer contracts included strategic watch approaches aimed at an increase in the added value of the territory. In this respect, the CPER of the Lorraine region represents one of the most successful examples of a territorial valorization approach”.⁴

Other initiatives based on the same model have been developed at European level. This is the case with STRATegic Intelligence and Innovative Clusters (STRATINC), a European project carried out within the framework of the INTERREG IIIC program (2003–2006), which aimed to boost the competitiveness of territories, local businesses, and industrial clusters by reinforcing strategic intelligence and prospecting, allowing them to manage innovation and face the challenges of globalization.

Thus, the CI approach, now led by the state, would doubtless not have taken concrete form without the action carried out over several years by “pioneers” who promoted the diffusion of CI practices within businesses and the creation of CI structures on the initiative of prefectures of pilot regions such as Basse-Normandie, the Nord-Pas-de-Calais, or Lorraine. In this, conciliar and professional networks played a central and historical role by their participation in the implementation of territorial intelligence approaches in these pilot regions, comprising aspects such as economic security, the protection of industrial knowledge and assets, and support to the competitive potential of host companies and territories.

15.1.2. Definition of regional systems for CI

Starting out as a national approach, CI necessarily extends to operational approaches at regional level. Business prosperity does not only concern large groups but also concern — and especially — small and medium businesses and industries that make up a major part of the economic fabric of France. The primary aim and vocation of CI are therefore to promote local development, ensuring the relevance of territorial intelligence.

These approaches and structures have several aims: to produce and share knowledge among the socioeconomic actors of a territory, to protect knowledge, and to create networks linking not only private sector decision makers but also, and especially, between private and public sector actors. This comes down to improving understanding between the two entities, with mutual enrichment through sharing experiences, working together, and pooling competences to increase the potential attractiveness and competitiveness of their region. In this way, these structures and approaches promote a new model for regional economic development, providing the region with means of anticipation which give local decision makers the capacity to develop new activities, thus creating jobs and wealth for the area.

Regional structures, placed under the responsibility of prefects, have two main orientations:

– competition: anticipation and accompaniment of economic transformations;

– economic security: concerns the management of scientific and technological assets and the identification and treatment of threats to businesses.

The approach taken is as follows:

– definition of a strategic perimeter at regional level, or in other terms, establish or update a map of businesses concerned;

– provide training in, and raise awareness of, CI: train individuals in competition issues, knowledge sharing and asset protection, directing decision makers toward competent structures in each of the given domains;

– establish state-business networks and networks between businesses to improve the circulation of useful information among economic actors.

15.1.3. System actors

Most state service provision at regional and departmental level is carried out in direct connection with businesses, and in this way, it plays a relevant role in the territorial application of CI: SGAR, fiscal services, DRCE, DRIRE, DRCCRF, DIREN, etc. Other establishments or agencies also maintain regular contracts, including the ADIT, INSEE, OSEO, etc.

Thus, we may distinguish between major groups of actors contributing to knowledge sharing within a region:

– Public:

– Private: small and medium businesses and industries.

15.2. Competitiveness clusters

Clusters are, by nature, structures for networking knowledge and competences, with the aim — among other things — of bringing together research and businesses to create products and processes which may be developed and commercialized, potentially on an international level. This type of structure allows small companies to gain a foothold in the market and allows research projects to contribute in a concrete and applicable manner to the industrial sector. We consider this form of organization, and the associated approach, to be a form of CI structure which benefits a territory (including businesses, laboratories, and universities).

In the context of globalization and heightened competition, the presence of specific competences and knowledge is an essential vector, both for attracting investors and for developing the internal capacities of a territory. This factor defines levels of economic attractiveness which are very unequal depending on local contexts. A certain number of regions have announced international ambitions, thanks to a dense distribution of resources and high-tech or very specialist companies. In terms of competition, competitiveness creates new qualitative demands that companies must satisfy in terms of organization, training, and research. The competitiveness of an industry is based mainly on “immaterial investments” in the domain of human resources, product quality, or the valorization of scientific and technological experience. Moreover, the competitiveness of a national economy is a function of the development of its industry, taking account of international exchanges linked to industrial products and the importance of productivity gains. However, since the mid-1980s, these parameters no longer seem sufficient to explain the economic superiority of one country over another. To adapt, companies would benefit from means and advantages accorded by governments. Although the internal management of competition must be handled by businesses themselves, the engagement of the collectivity is a powerful and indispensable motor for external forms of competition. Based on this realization, the French government launched a call for proposals for the development of clusters (www.competitivite.gouv.fr; see also http://polescompet.canalblog.com/).

15.2.1. What is a cluster?

On September 14, 2004, the interdepartmental committe on planning and development of the land (Comité interministériel de l’aménagement et du développement du territoire, CIADT) characterized a cluster as the combination, in a territory, of:

– three ingredients (businesses, training centers, and research units) involved in a partnership approach with the aim of creating synergies based on shared and innovative projects, with the critical mass needed for international visibility;

– three deciding factors (partnership, R&D projects, and international visibility).

Thus, the main aims of competitiveness clusters “are to reinforce the competitiveness of the national territory, dynamize economic development, create or maintain industrial jobs and attract investment and competences at European and global level”⁵ [LER 05].

Two main types of cluster have been defined:

– essentially technological clusters (importance of research activities and strength of interactions between research centers and businesses, working on the development of a technological domain);

– essentially industrial clusters (concentration of businesses with more “applied” R&D activities, closer to immediate markets).

15.2.2. The contribution of CI to clusters

The French state aims to help businesses to comprehend essential technologies to develop and master using a reference document covering 40 “key technologies”, created in 2006 following two prior studies carried out in 1995 and 2000. We note that, in this new generation, the “way in” is not only technological; organizational and economic aspects are also covered.

To understand these complex questions, a large number of small companies need methodological accompaniment. Once again, small businesses must take their place in a cooperative framework to gain access, through shared platforms, to watch tools suited to their activity. This is an important aspect of competitiveness clusters, which should, among other things, allow the identification and diffusion of good practice in CI.

Clusters are the result of an association among research, training, and industry at territorial level. This new articulation shows the contribution made by CI at regional level. We should remember that CI, in a region, is seen as a veritable territorial development policy, allowing analysis of markets in a territory and detection of the associated threats and opportunities.

CI is also the creation of network actor strategies with the aim of creating, directing, and motivating links created between actors to serve as a common project. Thus, the ambitions of competitiveness clusters are clearly strategic, in that they promote regional CI.

The distribution of the 71 projects across all regions may be seen as a political aim on the part of France to strengthen each territory, using networks of actors mobilized along common aims of competitiveness and attractiveness. Competitiveness clusters are centered on the notion of networks: inter-company networks (small companies and large groups), public/private sector networks (companies, local organizations, research), and networks including businesses, research centers, and training organizations; the aim is that all partners will collaborate on projects of technological cooperation to improve competitiveness.

The approach taken by clusters demonstrates similar ambitions and the same cultures as CI. Innovation, pooling, surveillance, anticipation, and networking are all shared aims. The VigIE letter of March 2007 [AUF 07] includes a dossier on CI in clusters: “according to the first feedback collected, it seems that a number of clusters do not yet have a real competitive intelligence approach, although all are considering the possibility. Interns have, on occasion, made attempts. But there is a lack of real human and financial means for the development of this strategic function. Among the reasons cited, we find the slow takeoff of clusters, but also the difficulty for companies of pooling strategic functions. The “coopetition” (cooperation-competition) which clusters wish to develop to increase the competitiveness of our territories has met with a cool reception from small businesses. Larger groups, at times the driving force behind these clusters, often have their own CI services and do not see the need to share this with the network. Nevertheless, a few initiatives have emerged”.

Lintignat [LIN 07], director of KPMG, states in the February 2007 edition of RIE that “almost one in two actors considers competitive watch to be insufficient in their cluster. It is the lack of dedicated human resources and the absence of method which limit access to competitive watch techniques. The cost is seen as considerable, and the tools badly known […]; few ‘pooled’ actions exist for the moment”.

Following these approaches, the government proposes to allocate 2 million euros per year to facilitate the development of a watch and CI system suited to the main economic, technological, and commercial issues available to all competitiveness clusters, allowing them to develop specific information tools.

15.2.3. Evaluation of centers

In December 2006, KPMG⁶ produced a short, first overview of competitiveness clusters in France, based on a series of interviews with actors, which indicates a number of “teething problems” and recommends concentration on good practices for rapid progress. The advice and audit bureau noted six main points:

– International strategy and competitive watch are insufficiently mastered.

– While inter-company partnerships and those with research units have been well integrated, those involving training are not yet at this point. KPMG noted, in particular, the lack of presence of business schools within clusters.

– Success will be measured by turnover and the development of new, and especially international, markets. On the other hand, actors do not consider job creation or territorial impact as high priority aims of clusters.

– After a year of operation, businesses feel insufficiently involved in clusters and fairly distanced from academic actors; they consider the economic results to be “very insignificant”.

– Companies are reluctant to cooperate in the domain of innovation, whereas the effects of cooperation constitute “one of the key advantages of a cluster”.

– Points for improvement: appropriation of strategy, rapidity of instruction of assistants, relationships between actors, and international communications.

Several key factors for the success of clusters have been identified: industry/research/training cooperation, the launch of projects on the market, reactiveness, critical size, the quality of governance, financial engineering and intellectual property, and marketing. Indicators for success have been defined for following four axes: the creation of projects with high economic value, real federation of actors, employment levels, and economic performance.

Nevertheless, participants remain optimistic about the applications of the concept and 50% of the 158 companies, institutions, and research actors questioned considering that clusters should increase their international visibility.

A second evaluation was carried out between November 2007 and June 2008 by the Boston Consulting Group and CM International. This evaluation covered both the national approach and a detailed evaluation of each of the 71 clusters. It was passed on a broad approach of interviews and information collection with all the competitiveness clusters and with actors involved in the approach (state, collectivities, companies, research institutions, universities, etc.) and French and international public policy experts concerned with the field of innovation and competition.

At national level, the report discusses five clear priorities for action:

– Consolidate and render durable the positive dynamics of cooperation surrounding innovation-based cooperation created from 2005 by competitiveness clusters.

– Increase the responsibility of actors in competitiveness clusters, evolving toward a logic of contractualization and a posteriori control, in a simplified local environment (state and territorial collectivities).

– Reaffirm the state’s engagement in competitiveness clusters and develop the dimension of strategic piloting of the approach.

– Maintain finance for collaborative R&D projects and pursue the optimization of finance circuits in projects by reinforcing their global coherence.

– Integrate the policy of competitiveness clusters more firmly in all research and innovation support practices.

15.2.4. Review of the first phase of cluster support: 2006–2008

Since 2005, 455 R&D projects have benefitted from public finance of a total of 929 million euros, 620 million euros of which came from the state. These projects represent more than 2.8 billion euros of R&D expenditure and involve almost 10,000 researchers. Moreover, in 2006 and 2007, 1,343 projects received assistance from state agencies (ANR and Oséo-AII) to the tune of 770 million euros.

At international level, almost 4 million euros was attributed by the direction générale des entreprises (DGE) in 2006 and 2007 for international cluster development, of which 2.35 million euros was to promote the accompaniment of international partnerships of small companies involved in clusters. Fourteen projects were accepted, half of which were destined to promote the participation of businesses involved in competitiveness clusters in European clusters.

15.2.5. Launch of the second phase of cluster support: 2009–2011

Following evaluation of the first phase of cluster policy, the French president indicated in June 2008 that government support for competitiveness clusters would be maintained for a second period of 3 years (2009–2011), with a budget of 1.5 billion euros.

On September 24, 2008, the prime minister announced new directions to be taken in cluster policy, and the broad outline of this second phase, called “clusters 2.0”.

During the fourth national day for competitiveness clusters, held at Bercy on October 1, 2008, the different approaches for the implementation of this new policy were detailed, based around three main axes:

– Reinforce the coordination and leadership of clusters, notably through the creation of “performance contracts”.

– Implement new means of finance, particularly for innovation platforms.

– Develop the growth and innovation ecosystem of each cluster, notably by encouraging the use of private sector finance.

In the short term, competitiveness clusters benefitted from measures protecting the revenues of small businesses and industries, with guarantees given as to the confidentiality of their competences in relation to other partners involved in the approach and to external risks.

15.3. Survey of CI systems

This survey was developed with the aim of obtaining a clearer vision of CI structures established within regions (DRIES and clusters) and to better understand their approach to CI. The three main orientations of the survey were CI actions, actors, and tools used. Our panel was selected based on the age of the approach, its general function, and its visibility in France or, in other terms, notoriety (the approach works, is durable, and applies to a large and diverse panel of socioeconomic actors). We also wished to compare structures operating in different ways due to their status, origins, and public. These interviews were carried out between 2005 and 2008, by email and telephone, and each lasted around one and a half hours. This was added to by reading articles, press releases, and the Web sites of various organisms. The structures concerned can be divided into three groups: DRIEs, pôles de compétitivité (competitiveness clusters recognized by the French state), and other clusters of businesses and associated networks.

The first group concerns DRIEs, regional CI approaches. This group includes COGITO, DECiLOR, and IE BN. COGITO⁷, in the Alsace region, aims to assist businesses in carrying out CI, to support the creation of collective watch platforms, and to encourage the use of consultancy firms. The DECiLOR structure⁸, in Lorraine, consists of making the whole business support system (CRITT, technical centers, technological centers, council chambers, university establishments, private consultants, etc.) integrate CI methods and tools. It has the particularity of being structured according to different fields. The regional CI portal of the Basse-Normandie region⁹ raises awareness of CI, creates exchange networks between public and private actors, identifies key technologies for the regions, and aims to valorize the territory in relation, for example, to scientific and technical competences.

The second group concerns competitiveness clusters (pôles de compétitivité). Examples include SYSTEM@TIC and Véhicule du futur. SYSTEM@TIC¹⁰ aims to consolidate the leadership of major participants to anchor their R&D activities durable in the Ile-de-France region, to contribute to the emergence of new companies, and to the development of small technology companies so as to reinforce the attractiveness of the Ile-de-France in the digital domain. The Véhicule du futur¹¹ cluster aims to increase the international visibility of the territory of Franche-Comté, raise awareness of its contribution, and propose and implement solutions at European level in the field of vehicle manufacture and future means of mobility. It thus aims to “mesh” the competences present in the territory in the transport and automobile sectors.

Finally, we find the category of business clusters and associated networks, represented by AERIADES (an aerospace cluster in Lorraine) and OPERA. AERIADES¹² seeks to promote a regional offer in the aeronautics and space sectors using regional actors in research, industry, and training. The industrial aim is to make competences and capabilities converge using a shared network, to exploit complementarities to respond to invitations to tender for full system equipment. The OPERA¹³ collective intelligence network offers a frame of reference and a space for exchange on the management of organizational processes through the identification, sharing, and construction of good practice based on a network of industrialists, consultants, and academics in the Rhône-Alpes region. The actions of the process network are based on monthly workshops with expert presentations, and termly training actions led by experts to facilitate benchmarking within the group. The results of our survey are presented in Table 15.1.

15.3.1. Results of the survey

15.3.2. Comments

The “watch” column corresponds to the watch process as a service provided (from need analysis to the provision of information, via collection, processing, validation, and qualification). The “awareness” column includes three main components of CI, including watch, which we will limit in this case to information retrieval (IR). Decision makers and other CI actors will essentially be made aware of means of collecting information (tools and methods for retrieving information from different supports). Cooperation assistance is seen in the form of exchange networks between businesses involved in or exterior to the structure. Finally, protection includes the security dimension of information structures.

We note that one of the main missions of these structures is the development of collaboration between companies, the constitution of networks, to facilitate knowledge exchange between these companies and across the territory (between the public and private sectors). Raising awareness of information seeking and retrieval and of asset protection is also an essential mission. Influence and knowledge management aspects, however, are not always taken into account; only the DECILOR structure includes them, and this is a recent development. We also note that watch is not offered as a service by all structures; half of these structures consider that watch is not the direct role of their organization. They limit themselves to raising awareness and to accompaniment without going as far as offering watch services. To do this, they position themselves as intermediaries, directing those requiring watch activities (decision makers in small companies) toward organizations offering watch services (ARIST, CCI, private firms, etc.). At DECiLOR, watch services remain by far and away the main focus, with the central objective of providing small companies with personalized watch services and the fields covered with collective watch. However, the structure tends to more global services, integrating the RELIE network¹⁴, namely advice, raising awareness, and cooperation. Finally, the majority of these structures play a role providing advice and accompaniment to companies.

Towards the actions (shares) led within the poles and clusters, we note that the most important concern coordination, cooperation, accompaniment, and protection (which we will limit, for the moment, to economic security aspects). We also note that, in most recent actions, the part played by influence or communications actions is much larger than that seen in DRIEs. Watch is, first and foremost, sectorial. SYSTEM@TIC very occasionally offers personalized watch on specific studies. The capitalization dimension is hardly taken into account, but this is work in progress. Watch actions are not part of the dominant activities of clusters. Where they do exist, they mostly concern sectorial, so collective, watch. This observation leads us to the following conclusion: the watcher is not the unique and essential resource person in this type of configuration, and, often, coordination and leadership actions are left to the delegate/administrator/correspondent of the structure (DRIE or cluster). If the watcher was indispensable to all CI actions, then his/her actions could not be subcontracted or reduced to the strict minimum (occasional information seeking). Consequently, other CI actors than the watcher may take a place in CI actions, as the simple watch aspect is not necessarily inseparable from a CI structure.

Finally, the fundamental difference which exists between DRIEs and clusters and which explains our results is that DRIEs offer CI actions, whereas clusters make use of CI in the course of their own actions. We carried out another survey in late 2008– early 2009¹⁵ among the 71 French pôles de compétivité and the five organizations of this type found in Belgium. Our results are based on the analysis of a panel of 49 clusters, with information obtained by email and via cluster Web sites. Figure 15.1 shows the services offered by these centers.

We see that 12 types of services are offered at least nine times (representing ~18% of the panel of 49). Among these service types, the watch-benchmarking service arrives in first place, and four others are offered more than 20 times: workgroup coordination, assistance in developing business plans or seeking finance, awareness and management of intellectual property, and coordination of business networks.

15.4. The role of coordinator

Following the evaluation of CI structures, surveys, and on-the-ground observation between 2003 and 2008, we identified weaknesses and needs¹⁶ at various levels. We were able to observe the weaknesses remaining in the CI approach integrated into these structures. These weaknesses are the result of essential needs not covered by structures, which have not found a response from CI actors, either through a lack of time, resources, or experience or due to choices made upstream of these structures based on a political environment which may have since developed.

These observations have made us aware of the importance of proposing a new position necessary for piloting approaches involving relations between the public bodies and the private sector. This type of structure requires new operatives (inexistent until now), able to understand the two entities and their issues, to create a common language, and to coordinate the different CI projects developed with the participation of small businesses and state services.

We have chosen the title of “coordinator” for this post, but the title is not fixed and could easily be replaced by “CI delegate” or “CI project coordinator”. Our choice of the term “coordinator” aims to show the dimension of coordination of actors and the leadership role involved in the position. We will now provide a more precise definition of the roles and competences of this individual and his/her influence on other actors involved in a CI approach.

15.4.1. Roles and activities of the coordinator

15.4.1.1. Ten strategic roles of the coordinator

The coordinator must fulfill 10 (non-fixed) strategic roles in conformity with, and dependent on, dimensions of CI. These strategic roles assist in the process of organizational learning which targets the development of organizational competences and the emergence of innovative projects, all of which leads to the effective conduct of the CI process.

1) Synthesizer: the coordinator acts as a channel for communications and information sources; with access to several internal and external information sources, he/she is responsible for interpreting information, giving it strategic meaning and thus added value, then sharing this information. He/she thus integrates this new information into existing thought, adding to the knowledge base shared by all actors in the process and influencing shared strategic understanding in the organization.

2) Facilitator: the facilitator assists the adaptation of process actors through concrete encouragement toward creativity, the execution of projects enabling organizational learning, and the development of new skills.

3) Manager (of skills): the manager aims to increase the repertoire of organizational competences, either by providing new competences to the organization or by using existing competences in a different way. To do this, the coordinator may use a forward-looking jobs and skills management policy to make professions more attractive, reduce absenteeism, solve problems of badly executed work, restart motivation, reduce staff turnover (one of the weak points highlighted in the DECiLOR structure, with a high rate of departure among infomediaries), adjust effectives to the needs of developments in the approach (readjust depending on the evolution of needs, professions, and the sector in general), and establish a training plan. A manager intervenes at several levels. The manager operates in connection with the exterior (as spokesperson, a representative of the organization, creating a link between the organization and the environment); he/she also interacts with information (diffusion, relay, and capture) and decision (distribution of resources depending on aims) and, finally, interacts with individuals and groups as a leader, coordinator, adviser, trainer, evaluator, etc. Thus, the manager has an influence on tasks, relationships, and organization.

4) Controller (direction, evaluation): to ensure that activities are carried out and that goals are attained.

5) Coordinator (organization, regulation, liaison, and networking): “coordinating” means that operations are in interaction, that is, activities are mutually interdependent¹⁷. Coordination allows avoidance of conflicts where there is overlap between the competences of different actors, whether within structures or “on the ground”; it is a specific approach allowing methodical and progressive structuring of a future approach. Coordination consists of “articulating” tasks. The coordinator organizes the context of work based on organizational aims. Moreover, he/she acts as a liaison agent by creating and maintaining networks of contacts (it is important to maintain good relations with other socioeconomic actors, to facilitate the exchange of information essential to good supervision of operations). The coordinator also plays a role as a relay point within these networks, maintaining equilibrium in the process (between public and private sector actors) and continuity in operations, creating bridges between actors and their different roles. As regulator, the coordinator maintains the group, with attention to time constraints, but does not intervene at basic level, avoiding giving personal opinions or attempting to manipulate the group.

6) Mediator (moderator, communicator): the mediator does not take sides. He/she accompanies the reflection of both parties, allowing them to reach an agreement. While the mediator must deal with problems arising, for example, in the course of operations, work conflicts or interpersonal relations, in certain situations he/she must also act as a mediator with different authorities within the organization or with different external pressure groups. Occupying a central position between public authorities, public and private decision makers, and CI actors, the coordinator communicates information, decisions, and projects from one level to another according to circumstances. To be effective in mediation (and in transmitting knowledge), the individual must respond to two demands:

– be sufficiently reassuring for both partners; that is, belong to both spaces;

– provide enrichment of meaning for both partners; relationships are important in the process of development and progress.

The mediator obliges each party to listen to the other, using reformulation techniques. The mediator obtains the input of “silent” partners, promoting participation and interactions. We may also speak of information mediation, the fruit of social interactions transmitted through a tool.

Finally, there are three psychological “truths” which the mediator must account for and manage within a workgroup context, the interactions of which play the role of a regulation system. These “truths” are: (1) the need to act, (2) interest in the designated task, and (3) the respect of the individual.

7) Advisor: this role requires the coordinator to have the necessary experience to render their judgment on a subject credible and to be able to support and justify their opinion and the conclusions of their interventions. The coordinator thus provides an objective vision of the situation of a company, benefits from a wide range of experience (new approaches, etc.), creates a dynamic where internal resources cannot or will not mobilize themselves sufficiently (hierarchy, sympathy or adhesion issues, etc.), and provides knowledge and techniques not mastered internally. The coordinator proposes methodologies for managing information and expertise. A strong audit dimension is also present.

8) Trainer (awareness): the coordinator must master the necessary communications and pedagogic technologies for strong transmission of knowledge, possess knowledge of the CI structure and approach as a whole, and be able to base his/her actions on a coherent theoretical base. The coordinator can then train targets in CI, providing basic tools and methods for the integration of good information management practices, identification and use of the corresponding technical tools, and organization of decision structures. At the conclusion of this objective, targets owe be capable of defining in a autonomous way or with a help, their information and knowledge management strategy, watch domains and profiles, improvements in information management and to clarify the role they may play in the structure.

9) Security guarantor (protection): by implementing procedures (with the person responsible for the information system, if one exists) and ensuring their application, providing warning of risks, coordinating shared actions among those in charge of IS security and users (watchers, decision makers, etc.). In addition to this, the coordinator should have a global vision of information assets and be aware of the potential risks of security breaches. As a trusted individual, the coordinator must also raise awareness of information and knowledge protection (information and intellectual assets) as a whole, not just through tools, for all actors involved in a CI approach.

10) Leader: the abilities of the leader are based on his/her own expertise, mediation capacities, and the ability to detect motivation in group members (for group participation). The leader aims to avoid strong oppositions and overly quick consensus decisions which may “kill” a debate. The leader created and leads debates and may also seek to enter into contact with other networks. This leadership role involves a number of tasks:

– Promotion: the leader must promote the structure in which he/she is involved to other socioeconomic actors.

– Conviction: the leader must influence the behavior of actors to create cooperation.

– Creation of a dynamic: by making actors the “engine” of a CI approach. For this, regular motivation is required.

– Communication: communicating ceaselessly with individuals with very different activities, hierarchical positions, cultures, professional jargon (public/private), etc., the leader must find a common language and ensure comprehension between group members. In a pragmatic way, communication is an integral part of raising awareness and must allow identification, readability, and visibility of regional CI actions.

– Coordination: see role no. 5.

The leader creates procedures, guarantees the right function of the CI structure, leads networks, supports actors involved in the CI activity in terms of methods and organization, and ensures the coherence of work produced.

These 10 strategic roles are linked to change: understanding the need for change, preparing for change, promoting change, and, finally, implanting change, improving organizational performance while promoting learning and the development of new skills.

Table 15.2 provides a synthesis of these roles and activities.

The collective level corresponds to a set (or group) of decision makers. Individual level refers to the direct intervention of the coordinator with a decision maker. The aspects of CI are CI actions developed within a CI structure. These aspects are not all found in every CI structure, meaning that the coordinator will not necessarily need to fulfill the 10 different roles listed above.

Table 15.2. Classification of roles of the coordinator in different aspects of CI

Aspects of CI	Role at collective level	Role at individual level
Watch	4) Controller 5) Coordinator 8) Trainer 9) Security guarantor 10) Leader	1) Synthesizer 7) Advisor 9) Security guarantor
Capitalization	2) Facilitator 3) Manager 4) Controller 5) Coordinator 6) Mediator 8) Trainer 9) Security guarantor 10) Leader	7) Advisor
Protection	4) Controller 10) Leader	2) Facilitator 7) Advisor
Influence	7) Advisor	6) Mediator 7) Advisor

Based on this table, we can summarize the roles of the coordinator as follows; the coordinator is responsible for mediation between all actors in a CI structure and interacts with the structure as a whole (IS and actors). He/she coordinates, supervises, controls, and monitors operations. He/she is responsible for the implementation if CI awareness and training activities and also offers possibilities for inter-company meetings, to dynamize the network and pool the competences of the companies involved. Finally, as the central person in the structure, he/she has a global and precise vision of the sector(s) of activity and/or the territory covered, not just at regional but at national or international level, allowing him/her to predict the evolution of the structure.

Thus, the coordinator acts as a relay point, linking companies which may have the same type of information needs or encounter similar information problems and thus creating relationships. He/she also acts as a link between companies and public authorities. This new mission was born of our observations within the different fields involved in regional CI structures. We noted that companies within the same network do not necessarily “know” each other, or at best lack precise knowledge of the activities of others, information which could provide them with answers to questions concerning the development of their sector and of their abilities. We also noticed a level of incomprehension between different structures involved in approaches due to the absence of a common language.

The aim of these three central functions (coordination-leadership-mediation) is to create synergy and good dynamics within a group, ensuring that members of structures pool certain knowledge and competences to be more competitive within their territory and in global markets and ensuring that actors from both spheres (public and private) understand each other and are able to collaborate on federated projects.

15.4.2. Competences of the coordinator

Based on the needs we have identified and the type of CI personnel involved in a CI structure, we will now establish a list of desirable knowledge and skills for a coordinator. This is, however, an “ideal” list, in which we have chosen to highlight the competences needed for effective management of a CI structure. However, some of these attributes are not essential but might be advantageous depending on context, the domain, the needs of decision makers, existing experience, etc. Moreover, these competences and roles vary depending on the CI action developed by the structure. Given that the presence of all types of action is rare, the coordinator does not need to possess all the skills or competences listed.

In terms of skills, we look for the capacity to implement information cycles, the CI process, and the watch process and the ability to use information seeking methods, benchmarking, prospection, etc. The coordinator should know and use information systems and integrated tools (portals, motors/directories, databases, watch agents, collaborative tools, knowledge management tools, etc.).

In terms of knowledge, the coordinator should have a general knowledge of CI structures (their organization and modus operandi) and of the local network (or fabric) — actors, operations, finance, policies, sectors of activity, etc. The daily activities of the coordinator also require general knowledge of law (as it relates to information and communications), knowledge management, quality procedures, innovation, business knowledge, project management (cost, time, human, and material resources), tendering (specifications), crisis communication and risk management, etc. All of these knowledge are required by the fact that the CI process and the context of a CI structure (region, actors with different statuses, multiple needs, etc.) demand a global vision of the surrounding environment. Thus, in a territorial framework, this means taking account of parameters of various forms, including legislative, commercial, and security aspects.

The coordinator must also understand the working of public authorities: their principles, operations, etc. Among the list of essential skills, some are mundane, for example, those linked to judicial, economic, or methodological aspects (dossier creation, establishment of business cooperation); others may be seen as complementary, for example, those linked to the management of human and information networks. This last point is where the role of coordinator takes on its fullest meaning. This role involves the organization of human resources (pooling means, capitalization of experience, federating initiatives, etc.), but also of information (optimization of watch practices and circulation of information by the establishment of rules and “good practice guides”). The principle is to allow actors from the public and private sectors, working on shared projects, to share and pool knowledge and to have access to all information necessary for their projects, information which must be “proportionally” held by both parties. The coordinator plays a role of moderator in this case, ensuring that each party “opens up” equally for the benefit of the project by the regular provision of information needed for success.

The coordinator must be able to direct organizations toward service providers in accordance with their needs, toward state support, particularly in terms of finance (or toward other sources of finance, at local level or from the European Community, requiring knowledge and monitoring of different types of finance proposed by the EC and to monitor calls to tender (PCRD, Interreg, etc., depending on the sectors involved), etc.). The coordinator must maintain a directory of contacts likely to respond to varying types of request linked to the needs of public or private sector actors to ensure operations run smoothly.

We have also created a non-exhaustive list of desirable aptitudes in a coordinator: open-mindedness, curiosity, teaching skills, ability to synthesize, faculties of adaptation, sense of management and organization, etc.

This profession is, in some ways, similar to one in a completely different domain, that of GP: the doctor is able to diagnose a patient and direct them toward a specialist for treatment of their specific problem. The GP has a global vision of diseases which may affect a patient but cannot, by any means, cure all of them. His/her essential role lies in the capacity to identify the problem and find the right person to respond to it.

We do, however, still need responses to some aspects of this new profession:

– Status of the new staff member. We are not yet in a position to say who might be responsible for recruiting for this position and, consequently, what the status of the coordinator would be. The political orientations of different regions, for example, may have an effect on this type of position, if the position is dependent on public bodies.

– Experience. Given the multiple aspects of this new profession, a certain level of experience is desirable. However, the creation of a new position, with new needs, new constraints, new issues, and new organizations, means that it would be difficult to find candidates with experience in this type of configuration. We would suggest, nevertheless, that the person chosen should have a certain level of experience in the dominant aspects (orientations and tendencies) of the structure. For example, if the structure focuses on watch and economic security, the new staff member should have a minimum of experience in these domains.

– Knowledge of the local fabric. The individual concerned should ideally have knowledge of the region in which the structure is located. Nevertheless, this raises questions as to the limits we apply to the knowledge itself: does the candidate need to possess historical, cultural, and political knowledge of the region?

– Public/private gap. This type of structure, federating state services and small businesses/industries, demands thorough knowledge of the workings of these organizations and their “politics”. In short, the new worker must master the administrative vocabulary and “spirit” of public powers along with the vocabulary and “character” of private partners (paying attention to double messages often due to relatively heavy hierarchical structures). Moreover, as a mediator and a figure of trust, the coordinator must be able to dose and moderate the contributions of each party, establish cooperation, and manage behavior which may be ambivalent (paying attention to overly ambitious individuals), as the stakes involved are certain to be radically different. Essentially, the coordinator must be able to show both parties (public/private) that the approach is equally advantageous to both groups and that neither party will suffer. This demands a certain strength of character which is difficult to formalize and evaluate during recruitment.

– Cost. We are not in a position to measure the real cost associated with the creation of this post: salary, operational costs, cost of training, and who should be responsible for these costs (this is linked to the status problem).

– Budgetary management. We have not taken this aspect into account. We feel that the coordinator should have a specific budget for management of their activity, but in a public or semi-public context, this may not be possible. The response to this question is unlikely to be found before status questions have been resolved.

– Development perspectives of the coordinator in relation to the CI approach. Does the coordinator become a “prisoner” of the position, or, building on knowledge and experience gained in the function, will it be possible to transfer to similar positions in domains other than CI? This question is also important as development prospects are a subject of negotiation during the recruitment of qualified personnel.

15.5. Conclusion

The coordinator therefore operates on three levels:

– The human level (individual and collective, private and public) to manage CI actors (and their relationships) and competences within a CI structure, and by providing advice and expertise to actors.

– The information level, capturing signals from outside the structure, analyzing, and centralizing them in preparation for capitalization. Through the role of communicator, the coordinator acts as the “nerve center” of their organization, providing validated and qualified information and checking information provided by third parties.

– The organizational level, by managing the structuration of actors and tasks, ensuring interactions, and coordinating exchange networks.

This approach provides a first response to the development of CI professions according to needs felt by decision makers federated within organizations (the principle of DRIEs and clusters) and according to the evolution of these organizations themselves, as some are still very recent.

It also gives us a perspective on a profession based on the reinforcement of increasingly clear and necessary links between public powers and the private sector around federating projects in which CI occupies an important place.

This study looked first and foremost at the French model, but we feel that it may be applied to other areas, particularly abroad, as clusters and centers of competition are, by their very nature, organizations with an international aspect and do not only operate using French models and mechanisms.

15.6. Bibliography

[AMB 08] AMBASSADE DE FRANCE EN ALLEMAGNE (FRENCH EMBASSY IN GERMANY), La politique des clusters en France et en Allemagne: Pôles de compétitivité, Kompetenznetze allemands et clusters bavarois — Coopération franco-allemande entre clusters d’innovation, 2008, available online at www.wissenschaft-frankreich.de.

[AUF 07] AUFORT S., “L’intelligence économique dans les poles”, VigIE, pp. 8–10, March 2007.

[BOU 06] BOUABDALLAH K., THOLONIAT A., “Pôle de compétitivité et Intelligence économique territoriale: contours et enjeux d’une nouvelle politique industrielle territorial”, Actes du 8^e Forum Européen IES 2006 Intelligence économique, Veille et Innovation, Nice, France, pp. 8–10, 2006.

[BOU 08a] BOURRET C., “Eléments pour une approche de l’Intelligence Territoriale comme système de synergie de projets locaux pour développer une identité collective”, Projectics, no. 2008/1, De Boeck University, pp. 79–92, 2008.

[BOU 08b] BOUZON A., MEYER V., La communication des organisations, entre recherche et action, L’Harmattan, Paris, 2008.

[CAP 03] CAPPELIN R., “Territorial knowledge management: towards a metrics of cognitive dimension of agglomeration economies”, International Journal of Technology Management, vol. 26, no. 2/3/4, pp. 303–325, 2003.

[CAR 03] Carayon B., Intelligence économique, compétitivité et cohésion sociale, La Documentation française, Paris, France, 2003.

[COL 05] COLLETIS G., “Entreprises et territoires: proximités et développement local”, Entreprises, réseaux et territoires, 22 March 2005.

[CLE 99] CLERC P., PAUTRAT C., Intelligence économique, Encyclopédie de la gestion et du management (E.G.M), Dalloz, Paris, 1999.

[GON 94] GONNOT J.M., “Eléments pour l’allocution d’ouverture du colloque sur l’intelligence économique”, Actes du colloque “L’intelligence économique, l’information au service de la compétitivité”, Assemblée nationale, Paris, France, pp. 7–8, 30 June 1994.

[GOR 07] GORIA S., KNAUF A., “Composite picture to help to study and to define a regional economic intelligence device”, The Fifth Annual International Conference of Territorial Intelligence, CAENTI, Huelva, Spain, pp. 148–164, 2007.

[GOR 09] GORIA S., KNAUF A., “Présentation d’une étude fonctionnelle de diverses formes d’intelligences territoriales mises en œuvre par les pôles de compétitivité”, Pôles de compétitivité et développement économique régional, Liège, Belgium, March 2009.

[KNA 07] KNAUF A., Caractérisation des rôles du coordinateur-animateur, émergence d’un acteur nécessaire à la mise en pratique d’un dispositif régional d’intelligence économique, Doctoral thesis in ICT, University of Nancy 2, Nancy, October 2007.

[KNA 08] KNAUF A., GORIA S., “Spécification des métiers et compétences impliqués dans le dispositif d’intelligence économique: identification d’un métier émergent pour le pilotage et l’animation des actions dédiées à l’intelligence économique en region”, in FRANÇOIS L. (ed.), Intelligence territoriale — L’intelligence économique appliquée au territoire, Lavoisier, Paris, pp. 71–86, 2008.

[LER 05] LEROY F., “Pôles de compétitivité: de l’appel à projets à la labellisation”, Entreprises, réseaux et territoires, 22 March 2005.

[LIN 07] LINTIGNAT J., “Pôles de compétitivité: quel bilan?”, Regards sur l’intelligence économique, no. 18, January/February 2007.

[WER 99] WERNER E., “La Franche-Comté lance un programme ambitieux et original”, Technologies internationales, no. 52, pp. 42–44, March 1999.

---

¹ Chapter written by Audrey KNAUF.

1 Project executive on the Plan Commission within the workgroup presided by Henri Martre before being placed at the SGDN then, in 1997, responsible for working with the prefect of the Basse-Normandie département to implement one of the first regional CI systems.

2 Their status and missions are defined in a law of April 3, 1898 relating to chambers of commerce and consultation chambers of arts and manufacturing. They are public establishments with an administrative character. These institutions have a dual interprofessional role, both representative and consultative in relation to public powers. They also participate in the socioeconomic development of their area (teaching, information, creation, development, and management of public and commercial establishments). See Nouvion A.P., L’Institution des chambres de commerce, pouvoirs et contrepoids, Bibliothèque des sciences administratives, LGDJ, Paris, pp. 1–23, 1992.

3 Regional prefecture, Conseil régional du Centre, Secrétariat général aux affaires régionales, DRIRE, DRCE, CRCI, ANVAR, Trésorerie générale de la région Centre, Centre Tech, DRRT, DST, University of Orléans. The European Commission participated financially. See Intelligence économique en région Centre. Orientations pour un plan d’action régional, CRCI Centre, October 1998.

4 Source: DATAR, March 2000.

5 Fabrice Leroy is a project executive, member of the “poles de compétivité” workgroup, company direction, MINEFI.

6 Firm specializing in audit and management consultancy. KPMG, Les pôles de compétitivité français: Prometteurs mais des défauts de jeunesse à corriger, 2006.

7 With the participation of D. Munck, formerly responsible for COGITO.

8 With the participation of all members of the network (administrator, infomediaries, consultants, etc.) over 4 years.

9 With the participation of F. Chardin, responsible for the Basse-Normandie network.

10 With the participation of François CUNY, former permanent secretary, now head of relations with small businesses, www.systematic-paris-region.org/.

11 With the participation of B. Morgullis, general secretary, www.vehiculedufutur.com/.

12 With the participation of C. Jungers, general administrator of the cluster.

13 With the participation of Ludovic Guizzi, animator of the process network, www.oppra.net.

14 CI network for the Lorraine region.

15 The details of the survey are published in [GOR 09].

16 These weaknesses and needs are listed in [KNA 07].

17 Leplat, in [BOU 08a].