Journal of Intelligence Studies in Business Vol. 13 No. 1 (2023) pp. 6–29 
Open Access: Freely available at: http://jisib.com/ 

    

Competitive Intelligence Maturity Models: Systematic 

Review, Unified Model and Implementation Frameworks 
 

Luis Madureira*

NOVA Information Management School, Portugal 

lmadureira@novaims.unl.pt 

 

Aleš Popovič 

School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia 

ales.popovic@neoma-bs.fr 

 

Mauro Castelli 

NOVA Information Management School, Portugal; School of Economics and Business, 

University of Ljubljana, Slovenia 

mcastelli@novaims.unl.pt 

 

Received 4 February 2023 Accepted 22 March 2023 

 

ABSTRACT Competitive Intelligence (CI) is vital for sustaining the performance of 

organisations in an increasingly volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) world. 

However, the impact of CI on performance is proportional to its maturity level. The article aims 

to review and integrate the existing literature on Competitive Intelligence Maturity Models 

(CIMMs) to provide a go-to framework for setting up, assessing, and developing CI. The CIMMs 

were sourced from scholarly databases, registers, the social web, and using backwards and 

forward searches. All the CIMMs respecting the characterisation criteria were included in the 

study. A scientific and empirically validated definition of CI guided the integration and 

synthesis of the fourteen selected CIMMs. The primary outcome is a proposed unified CIMM 

(UCIMM) covering all the CI dimensions and aspects in tandem with the respective 

implementation guidance frameworks. The proposed UCIMM and implementation frameworks 

effectuate the guidance needed to set up, assess, and develop the CI practice and theory and, 

ultimately, the performance of organisations. 

 

KEYWORDS: Maturity Model; Maturity Levels; Framework; CI Function; CI System; 

Implementation Roadmap; CI Practice; Organizational Performance 

 

1. INTRODUCTION 

 
CI is “the process and forward-looking practices 

used in producing knowledge on the competitive 

environment to improve organisational 

performance” (Madureira et al., 2021a, 2021b). The 

maturity of the CI practice is positively correlated 

with being a learning organisation  (Senge, 2006). 

A learning organisation addresses future decision-

 
* Corresponding author 

making proactively, effectively, and efficiently. 

Within the contingency theory (Fiedler, 1964; 

Vroom & Yetton, 1973), organisations use 

decision-making to achieve a strategic fit with their 

competitive environment (Duncan & Weiss, 1979). 

The better the decision-making, the greater the fit 

and the organisational performance (Eisenhardt, 

1989). Therefore, CI maturity is both an antecedent 

and a proxy for organisational performance. 

mailto:lmadureira@novaims.unl.pt
mailto:ales.popovic@neoma-bs.fr
mailto:mcastelli@novaims.unl.pt


 7 

In the current zeitgeist of a VUCA world with an 

exponentially increasing speed of change (Bennett 

& Lemoine, 2014), obtaining and maintaining the 

strategic fit to sustain top performance is the 

ultimate challenge. CI is thus vital to navigating 

highly challenging environments, remaining 

competitive (Harkleroad, 1998; Hedin, 2005; 

Vedder & Guynes, 2001), and ensuring the superior 

performance of organisations (Yap et al., 2018, 

2013; Yap & Rashid, 2011). The problem arises in 

maintaining a CI maturity level that allows 

organisations to deal with change. Kahaner (1997) 

has long identified the critical change drivers as the 

increasing business pace, information overload, 

more aggressive and global competition, 

geopolitical changes, and rapid technological 

change. Nassim Taleb (2007) provided further 

insight into their volatility and unpredictability. 

Recent academic and business research 

corroborates and reinforces the severity of the 

impact on both organisations and the CI practice 

(Heppes & Du Toit, 2009; Calof et al., 2017; M-

Brain et al., 2019; Klue & SCIP, 2021; ACI & 

Gilad, 2022; Crayon & SCIP, 2022). As a result, CI 

evolves up to the average maturity level (Hedin et 

al., 2014; Heppes & Du Toit, 2009; M-Brain et al., 

2019). Organisations must be able to address these 

impacts in setting up, assessing, adapting, and 

developing the CI maturity level to obtain top 

performance. Therefore, the CIMM, consisting of 

several archetypal levels of achievement across the 

different dimensions and aspects, is a critical 

assessment and guidance tool supporting the CI 

practice evolutionary path.  

Previous literature consists of tens of CIMMs. The 

development approaches for these models range 

from identifying best practices (APQC et al., 2004; 

Calof, 1998; J. P. Herring & Leavitt, 2011; Marceau 

& Sawka, 1999) to assessing cutting-edge CI 

functions (CIF), programs (CIP), or systems (CIS) 

(Heppes & Du Toit, 2009). Academic investigations 

(Calof, 1998; Oubrich et al., 2018), executive 

opinion (Marceau & Sawka, 1999), practitioners’ 

self-assessments (Comai & Prescott, 2007), and CI 

experts’ professional judgment vendor-sponsored 

studies (M-Brain et al., 2019) have been the formats 

of choice in evaluating the professional status and 

developmental progress of the CI practice. 

Benchmarking versus an independently established 

model (Hedin et al., 2014) and case studies are the 

most frequently used methods (J. P. Herring & 

Leavitt, 2011). However, CI dimensions and 

descriptors, as well as the maturity levels used, vary 

considerably. Most importantly, MMs are not 

exhaustive regarding the CI dimensions and aspects. 

As a result, given the broad range of existing 

CIMMs, it is incredibly challenging to compare and 

identify the relevant model to use for improving 

practice or scientific research. Furthermore, no 

CIMM fully aligns with the conceptual definition of 

CI, its longitudinal evolution over time, or its full 

array of dimensions and aspects. These difficulties 

profoundly impact the scientific development of the 

CI practice, especially in smaller and less mature 

organisations. Thus, researching a unified scientific 

CIMM (UCIMM) is extremely important for 

effective practical guidance to address the 

conflicting interests of academics, executives, 

practitioners, and vendors. 

This study aims to fill this gap by performing a 

systematic literature review – using an explicit, 

systematic method for identifying, analysing, 

integrating, and synthesising the findings of prior 

research – contributing to the conceptualisation of 

CIMM research. This conceptualisation will allow 

for integrating relevant descriptors across all 

dimensions and levels of maturity into a holistic go-

to UCIMM. The expected empirical contributions 

from such a unified model are the significant 

improvement of decision-making quality and the 

consequent business performance, the 

implementation guidance for the effectuation of the 

CI practice or function, and the increased 

productivity of CI professionals. Furthermore, the 

grounding of this theory development exercise in 

sound theoretical and empirical evidence will 

highlight critical gaps and paths to exploit while 

dismissing outdated, irrelevant and duplicate 

research (Webster & Watson, 2002). Our systematic 

review based on scientific, commercial and grey 

literature is expected to deliver on this objective. 

The following section details the 

systematic literature review procedure 

according to the PRISMA statement (Page, 

McKenzie, et al., 2021). Results will then be 

critically analysed and discussed, and a 

UCIMM will be proposed in the sections that 

follow. Finally, we conclude with implications 

and recommendations for application and 

further research avenues for this topic and the 

CI field. 
 

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 

 
To identify and characterise the relevant CIMMs 

published in the last three decades, we conducted 

the systematic review as outlined in table 1: 

 

 



8 

 
Table 1. Overview of the literature review based on PRISMA, Cooper and Webster & Watson Guidance (Cooper, 1988; Page, 

Moher, et al., 2021; Webster & Watson, 2002) 

 

Item Description 

Scope Focus on CIMMs as research outcomes and practices or applications from all types of literature. However, only 
CIMMs that meet the MM characterisation are within scope (cf. Section 3.2).  

Goals 
Identify, synthesise, and integrate existing CIMMs into a unified holistic CIMM (UCIMM) to support the 

development of a common linguistic framework covering all CI dimensions per the 5Ps (Madureira et al., 

2021a). 

Perspective Espousal of position in demonstrating the value of integrating existing CIMMs with the 5Ps of CI. 

Coverage Exhaustive as it intends to be “comprehensive in the presentation of works relevant to the topic” (CIMMs). 

Organisation Historical in combination with CIMMs content analysis (Cooper, 1988). 

Audience CI scholars, CI practitioners, CI vendors, business executives, policymakers 

Time frame CIMMs literature published after 1980. 

Conceptualisation CI, MM, CIMM (cf. Section 2). 

Search strategy Combination and proximity of the search terms “maturity model” and “competitive intelligence” to ensure the 
exhaustiveness as mentioned above. 

Sources Database (DB), registers, CI journals (i.e., CIR and JISIB), and social web as we expect to find CIMMs from 
practitioner and commercial sources.  

Procedure 

Data was collected, analysed, synthesised and integrated by a single author to avoid reviewer bias for 

approximately one year between January and December 2022. 

DB search: Google Scholar, ScienceDirect (Scopus), AB/Inform (Proquest), JSTOR, Emerald Publishing, 

EBSCO (Business Source Ultimate). 

Specific CI Journals: Competitive Intelligence Review. 

Registry search: SCIP.org (Strategic and Competitive Intelligence Professionals). 

Social web search: use Google Search to identify leading practitioner and commercial literature [i.e., CI vendors 

(services and technology/software) CIMMs].  

These sources cover journals, books, conference proceedings, and practitioner sources (Brocke et al., 2009). 

Backwards and forward search: reviewing the citations found in articles from the first step; “to identify articles 

citing the key articles identified in the previous steps" (Webster & Watson, 2002). 

All steps: examine at least titles, abstracts, and introductions in order to evaluate only relevant sources (Brocke 

et al., 2009). 

Outcome 

The anticipated outcome is an identification of the main CIMMs, their dimensions, and their aspects. We 

followed the guidance of Cooper (1988) to “combine organisations, […] by addressing works historically 

within a given conceptual framework.” The chosen framework is the 5Ps (dimensions and descriptors) from the 

CI unified view and modular definition (Madureira et al., 2021a). To the best of our knowledge, still “no 

classification system for CIMMs exists to date.” Therefore, for the content analysis of the MMs, we use a 

concept-centric approach based on so-called concept matrices (Webster & Watson, 2002). 

 

2.1. Definition of Key Variables and Study Boundaries 

2.1.1. Competitive Intelligence 

Until recently, the definition of CI was not 

consensual and changed over time, as the 

previous five universal definitions 

demonstrate (Bartes, 2014; Breakspear, 

2013; Brody, 2008; Marcial, 2018; Pellissier 

& Nenzhelele, 2013). However, Madureira et 

al. (2021a) developed a unified view and 

modular definition, the only empirically 

validated one (Madureira et al., 2021b). 

Furthermore, this definition provides the 

5Ps – the core defining dimensions and 

respective descriptors – which may be used 

as a proxy for assessing the 

comprehensiveness of a CIMM. As such, we 

will use this working definition alongside its 

visual abstract as the guide for comparing 

and integrating the different CIMMs 

analysed in the literature review. 

 

 

 

 



 9 

 
2.1.2. Maturity Models 

Maturity is “the state, fact, or period of being 

mature” (Oxford English Dictionary, 

2022a). As such, it implies the existence of an 

evolutionary process to achieve the desired 

end-state. A model is a simplified 

representation of reality used as an example 

to follow or imitate (Oxford English 

Dictionary, 2022b). A Maturity Model (MM) 

details the evolution levels (also known as 

stages or phases) of maturity across several 

structuring dimensions and their respective 

aspects. Levels have differentiating 

descriptors providing the purpose and 

detailed characterisation of each 

level. Dimensions are areas of capability that 

structure the object of the model. Each 

dimension is subsequently structured into 

several aspects (also known as elements, 

activities, or measures) for each level (Bruin 

et al., 2005; Fraser et al., 2002). MMs serve 

as guide rails to the set-up and development 

path to achieve the targeted maturity level 

(Fraser et al., 2002). Lahrmann & Marx 

(2010) characterised MMs as shown in 

Figure 1. 
 

 

Figure 1. Fundamental characterisation of MMs (Lahrmann & Marx, 2010, tbl. 1) 

In this regard, we will base our study on a few 

considerations. First, De Bruin et al. (2005) 

guidance suggests that dimensions should be 

exhaustive and distinct. Second, MMs have single 

or multiple dimensions but can also be hierarchical. 

Hierarchical MMs are more complex and require a 

formal architecture of measures (Lahrmann & 

Marx, 2010). Third, staged MM models require 

compliance with all the dimensions (Fraser et al., 

2002), the specified goals and critical practices to 

reach the aimed level. Fourth, although we 

acknowledge the different MM audiences, this 

paper aims to provide industry-agnostic maturity 

recommendations. Finally, the maturity level 

assessment can be qualitative using descriptions or 

quantitative using Likert-like scales (Fraser et al., 

2002).

 

2.1.3. Competitive Intelligence 
Maturity Model 

CI maturity relates to the process of thoroughly 

developing its practice across all dimensions for 

each level of the model. This maturity can be 

computed in levels (staged model) or configurations 

(continuous model). Considering the previous sub-

sections, the CIMM guides both the effectuation, 

the maturity assessment, and the improvement of 

the CI practice. Thus, CI maturity indicates the level 

of development for each of the 5Ps (dimensions) 

and respective descriptors for a predefined 

audience, organisation, industry, or country. 

Notable, CIMMs allow economic agents to assess, 

understand, and improve their performance. Finally, 

given that CI is multidisciplinary, the CIMM is a 

broader-scoped umbrella maturity model. As such, 

this study considers only CIMMs, not Business 

Intelligence, Market Intelligence, Data 

Management, Social Intelligence, or Capability 

Maturity Models (CMMs), as those would be 

specific and not representative of the overall CI 

concept. 

 

3. The CIMMs STATE OF THE ART  

3.1. Literature Search Results 
 

The search focused on six scholarly 

databases (DB), one register (SCIP.org), one 

specific journal (Competitive Intelligence 

Review), the Social Web, and Citation 

Searching (i.e., snowballing). We screened all 

the results except for Google Scholar and 

Google Search, where we stopped at the 

saturation point, i.e., no more showing of 



10 

 
relevant or duplicate CIMMs. We successfully 

retrieved all the 38 records sought and 

screened for relevant CIMMs matching the 

scope (cf. Table 1) and MM characterisation (cf. 

Figure 1). Snowballing – backward and 

forward search – allows us to identify five 

additional records. Scholarly DBs and registers 

allowed us to elite eight reports while other 

methods identified six further. The outcome 

was fourteen reports included in this study 

(Figure 2).

 

Figure 2. PRISMA 2020 flow diagram used for the systematic review (Page, Moher, et al., 2021) 

3.2. Overview of the selected CIMMs 

The overview goes beyond the criteria from Section 

2-1 by adding supporting scientific or empirical 

evidence and the motive supporting the 

development of the CIMM (Table 2). We included 

a further detailed characterisation in Annex 2. A 

CIMM is developed every year and a half in the 

defined 1980-2022 timeframe denoting the 

longitudinal importance of the topic. The CIMMs 

have 4,1 levels (computed for staged maturity 

principle) and 6,4 dimensions on average. They are 

primarily qualitative, based on case studies or 

surveys, and focused on assessing and improving 

the CI function or programmes. Only one CIMM 

(M-Brain et al., 2019) is motivated by increasing the 

performance of organisations, which is the ultimate 

purpose of CI (Madureira et al., 2021a, 2021b). 

Table 2. Detailed characterisation of included CIMMs (developed by the authors) 

(Authors, 

Year) 

Citation 

Name of the CIMM Dimensions 
Maturity  

Principle 

Number Of  

Audiences 

Assessment  

Approach 

Study / 

Report 
Motivation 

(Calof, 

1998)  

Competitive 

Intelligence Quotient  

(CIQ) 

Multi-

dimensional: 4 

Continuous 

to Maturity 

(WCCI) 

Multiple Qualitative Report Economic Policy 

(Marceau 

& Sawka, 

1999)  

World-Class CI 

Program in Telecoms  

(WCCIP-T) 

Multi-

dimensional: 5 
Continuous 

Single 

(Telecom) 
Qualitative 

Study of 

Telecoms 

practices 

CI Program 

development 

framework 

(Prescott, 

1999)  

Action-Oriented CI 

Program 

(AOCIP) 

Multi-

dimensional:  

5 + 5 

Staged:  

4 

Multiple: 

Proposal 

Management 

Professionals 

focus 

Qualitative 

Report based 

on APQC 

1997 Best 

Practices 

study 

Improve CI 

effectiveness 

  
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
 

 
 
  
 
 
  
 

  
 
  
 
 
 

                                                         

                        

                         

                                

                  

              

                           

                  

                                         

                  

                                 

                                      

    

                

         

                

         

                            

        

                     

       

                                

        

                 

                              

                              

       

                               

        

                                               

                        

                 

                     

                          

                            

        

                     

       

                                

        

                 

                             



 11 

(West, 

2001)  

CI Stages of 

Development 

(CISoD) 

Multi-

dimensional: 4 

Staged:  

3 

Multiple: 

European 

focus 

Qualitative Report 
CI usage 

development 

(APQC et 

al., 2004)  

FIICH Model 

(FIICH) 

Multi-

dimensional: 5 

+ 21 

Staged:  

4 
Multiple Qualitative 

Study of CI 

best practices 

Guide CI efforts 

leveraging empirical 

best practices 

(J. P. 

Herring & 

Leavitt, 

2011) 

CI Maturity Matrix 

(CIMMx) 

Multi-

dimensional: 5 

Staged:  

5 
Multiple Qualitative Case Study 

Implement and 

develop CI best 

practices 

(Comai & 

Prescott, 

2007)  

World Class CI 

(WCCI) 

Hierarchical:  

9 + 48 

Continuous:  

1-5 
Multiple 

Mixed. 

Mostly 

Quantitative 

Study 

Identify the 

Dimensions, Level 

and Drivers for 

WCCI 

(Singh et 

al., 2008)  

Roadmap for 

Enduring CI Success 

(RECIS) 

Multi-

dimensional: 

11 

Staged:  

4 

Multiple. 

Additional 

focus on 

Pharma 

Qualitative 

Study based 

on 

Worldwide 

CI Survey 

Ensure CI success 

(Heppes & 

Du Toit, 

2009) 

CI Function Maturity 

Level (CIFML) 

Multi-

dimensional: 8 

Staged:  

3 

Single 

(Banking) 
Qualitative Case Study 

Establish the CIF 

maturity level within 

a South African retail 

bank 

(J. P. 

Herring & 

Leavitt, 

2011) 

World-Class CI 

Program Roadmap 

(WCCIPR) 

Multi-

dimensional: 4 

Staged:  

3 
Multiple Qualitative Report 

Show CIF evolution 

and promote 

Organisational 

Learning 

 (Hedin et 

al., 2014) 

World Class MI 

Roadmap (WCMIR) 

Multi-

dimensional: 6 

Staged: 

 5 
Multiple 

Mixed. 

Mostly 

Quantitative 

Report based 

on own 

global survey 

Guide the 

development of the 

CI function 

(Oubrich 

et al., 

2018) 

Competitive 

Intelligence Maturity 

Model (CIMM-M) 

Multi-

dimensional: 6 

Staged: 

 3 

Multiple. 

Focused on 

Morocco. 

Mixed. 

Mostly 

Quantitative 

Report based 

on own local 

survey 

Identify the purpose 

and propose a CIMM 

to assess Morocco CI 

practices 

(M-Brain 

et al., 

2019) 

M-Brain - World-

Class Intelligence 

Framework 

(WCIF) 

Multi-

dimensional: 9 

Staged: 

 5 
Multiple 

Mixed. 

Mostly 

Quantitative 

Report based 

on own 

global survey 

Help organisations 

improve business 

performance 

(Alvares 

et al., 

2020) 

Organisational 

Intelligence Maturity 

Model (OIMM) 

Hierarchical:  

2 + 17 

Staged: 

6 
Multiple Qualitative Report 

Understand, 

implement, improve, 

benchmark or self-

assess IM, KM, or CI 

models. 

 

3.3. CIMMs benchmark vis-à-vis the CI 
5Ps and descriptors 

We analysed and compared the content of the 

selected CIMMs vis-a-vis the dimensions (5Ps) and 

descriptors of the CI unified view and modular 

definition scientifically validated by Madureira et 

al. (2021a, 2021b). As such, the visual abstract of 

the paper (Madureira et al., 2021a) provided a 

standardised meta-model (Lahrmann & Marx, 

2010) for content analysis (conceptualisation, 

codebook creation, coding, refinement, and 

reliability check), guaranteeing the scientific rigour 

of the classification process (Neuendorf, 2019). 

Furthermore, the Webster & Watson (2002) 

conceptual-centric approach allows for the 

comparison between the CIMM’s meta-model 

(dimensions and aspects) and the 5Ps (Purpose, 

Purview, Practices, Process, and Product) and 

underlying descriptors – Table 3. In its preparation, 

we paid particular attention to three potential issues. 

First, synonymy – different names for the same 

dimension/aspect. Second, polysemy – same name 

but meaning different dimensions/aspects. Last, 

homonymy – similar names suggesting similar 

dimension/aspect but effectively meaning different 

dimensions/aspects. Additionally, we needed to 

make several assumptions:  

• the tools and techniques can refer to the Process 
or the Product dimensions – e.g., Analysis of 

Competing Hypothesis (ACH) can either refer to 

the technique used in the process of analysis or 

the product of such analysis, the CI deliverable; 

• that we correctly empathised with the meaning 
the author intended to convey from reading the 

original article; 

• that some CIMM dimensions need to be split 
(hence appearing in two or more columns in 

table 3 below) for two reasons: 

1) CIMMs included aspects that correspond 



12 

 
to different benchmarked dimensions 

(Madureira et al., 2021a) – e.g., the 

”strategic significance” dimension from 

Comai & Prescott (2007) has aspects of 

three of the 5Ps, Purpose (usage in 

strategy development), Purview (focus on 

the strategic scope), and Practices (CI is 

included in the corporate strategy 

statement); 

2) they refer to various dimensions or aspects 
in different maturity levels. 

 

Table 3. Integration and benchmark of included CIMMs vis-à-vis the Unified View and Modular Definition of CI (Madureira et 

al., 2021a) 

(Authors, 

Year) 

Citation 

Name of the 

CIMM  

CI Dimensions and (aspects) 
Model Maturity 

Levels 
Purpose Purview Practices Process Product 

(Calof, 

1998)  

Competitive 

Intelligence 

Quotient  

(CIQ) 

 Activities (scope) 
Style 

Resources 

Activities 
(reporting, 

sources) 

Tools 
1. Infancy 
2. Maturity/World 

Class 

(Marceau & 

Sawka, 

1999)  

World-Class CI 

Program in 

Telecoms  

(WCCIP-T) 

Decision-support 
(opportunities) 

Culture (early 

warning) 

 

Process (interface, 
location) 

Culture (info 

sharing) 

Process (key 
activities, 

interface) 

Decision-support 
(options) 

Technology 

(storage) 

Decision-support 

(portfolio, tools 
techniques) 

Technology 

(infrastructure)  
 

World Class 

(continuous) 

(Prescott, 

1999)  

Action-

Oriented CI 

Program 

(AOCIP) 

Focus  

Location & 

structure 

(personnel) 
ethics 

Location & 

structure 

(network) 
Projects 

Products (TAR) 

1. Gathering 
2. Industry & 

competitor analysis 

3. Strategic decision 
making 

4. Core capability 

(West, 2001)  

CI Stages of 

Development 

(CISoD) 

Applications 
(anticipation) 

 

Organisation 

Applications 

(curiosity) 

Data Collection CI Systems 

1. Aware 

2. Sensitive 

3. Intelligent 

(APQC et 

al., 2004)  

FIICH Model  

(FIICH) 

Change 
(performance) 

Focus (goals & 

objectives) 

 

Implement 
Institutionalise 

Change 

(behaviour) 

Hone 

Change (process)  
 

1. Prestart-up 
2. Start-up 

3. Established 

4. World Class 

(J. P. 

Herring & 

Leavitt, 

2011) 

CI Maturity 

Matrix 

(CIMMx) 

Processes 

(aligned) 
 

Teams 
Tools (Training) 

Processes (culture, 

ethics, legal) 

Processes 

(gathering, cyclic) 

Techniques (KITs, 
Sources, 

Analytical) 

Products 
Tools 

(Techniques, 

tools) 

1. Ad-hoc 

2. Emerging 

3. Defined 
4. Institutional 

5. Optimised 

(Comai & 

Prescott, 

2007)  

World Class CI 

(WCCI) 

Strategic 

significance 

CI in SBU 
(vision) 

Project selection 
Strategic 

significance 

Human resources 

Evolution 

Governance 
Culture  

Process (protocol) 

Resources 
(financial) 

Projects 
Process (sub-

processes)  

CI in SBU 
(procedure, 

governance) 

CI in SBU 

(portfolio) 

Resources 
(system, software) 

1. Not started 

2. Some progress 
3. Still a lot to do 

4. Nearly achieved 

5. Fully achieved 

(Singh et al., 

2008)  

Roadmap for 

Enduring CI 

Success 

(RECIS) 

  

People 
Analysis 

(capability) 

Professionalism 
Organisational 

structure  
Roles & 

responsibilities 

Awareness 
Value perception 

Processes  
Research 

Analysis (insight) 

Technology 

1. Stick fetching 
2. Pilot 

3. Proficient 
4. World Class 



 13 

(Authors, 

Year) 

Citation 

Name of the 

CIMM  

CI Dimensions and (aspects) 
Model Maturity 

Levels 
Purpose Purview Practices Process Product 

(Heppes & 

Du Toit, 

2009) 

CI Function 

Maturity Level  

(CIFML) 

Relationship w/ 
management 

(strategy, early 

warning, 
opportunities) 

Deliverables 

(strategy) 

 

Relationship w/ 

management (C-
suite) 

Staffing 

Skills & training 
 

Relationship w/ 

management 
(decision) 

Capabilities 

Analytical 
products 

Sources of 

Information 
Info requirements 

Deliverables 

1. Early stage 

2. Mid-level 
3. World Class 

(J. P. 

Herring & 

Leavitt, 

2011) 

World-Class CI 

Program 

Roadmap  

(WCCIPR) 

Policies (mission, 

alignment) 

Uses (strategic 
planning, strategy, 

benchmark) 

Methods (early 
warning, threats) 

 

 

Professional 

development 

Policies 
(governance, 

mission) 

People 
Users (training) 

Methods (future 

studies) 
Uses (long-range 

planning) 

Processes (CCI) 
Procedures (KITs) 

Methods (sub-

processes) 
Users (networks) 

Sources 

  

Users & uses 
(products) 

Methods 

(products, expert 
systems, software) 

Processes (value 

added) 

1. Developmental 

2. Professionalisation 
3. Optimisation 

 (Hedin et 

al., 2014) 

World Class 

MI Roadmap  

(WCMIR) 

Scope (purpose) 

Scope (macro, 

meso, user 
groups) 

Organisation 

Culture 

Process 

Tools (templates, 
techniques) 

Deliverables 

Tools (CI system) 

1. Firefighters 

2. Beginners 

3. Coordinator  
4. Directors 

5. Futurists 

(Oubrich et 

al., 2018) 

Competitive 

Intelligence 

Maturity Model 

 (CIMM-M) 

Impact 
Relationship w/ 
management 

(functions) 

Resources 

Structure 

Strategy & culture 
 

System  

Analytical 
Deliverables 

Capabilities 

CI Use 
Relationship w/ 

management 

(actionable) 

 
1. Early stage 
2. Mid-level  

3. World Class 

(M-Brain et 

al., 2019) 

M-Brain - 

World-Class 

Intelligence 

Framework 

(WCIF) 

Leadership 

Scope (strategic 

objectives, 
opportunities, 

early warning) 

Scope (external 

environment) 

Organisation 

Culture 

Management 
Scope (forward-

looking) 

Process 

Stakeholders 
Digitalization 

Deliverables 

Tools 

1. Informal 

2. Basic 

3. Intermediate 
4. Advanced 

5. World Class 

(Alvares et 

al., 2020) 

Organisational 

Intelligence 

Maturity Model 

(OIMM) 

  

Org. learning 

(capability) 

Org. capabilities 
Org. memory 

(capability) 

Spaces 
Info. policy  

Culture 

Individual Vision 
Env. scanning 

(practice) 

Env. scanning 

(process) 
Storage, search, 

recovery  

Sharing & re-
usage  

Usability (use) 

Org. memory 
(storage) 

Security 

Org learning 

(process) 

Knowledge value 
Knowledge and 

info processes 

Intel. reports 
Usability (system) 

Technology 

 

1. Initial 

2. Intermediate 
3. Advanced 

CIMMs w/ 

dimension  
  11 5 14 14 12 

 

Average Levels: 3,9 

 
Total 

Benchmarked 

Aspects: 33 

Dimension 

Alignment 
% 78,6% 35,7% 100% 100% 85,7% 

Aspects 

average 

alignment 

% 30,0% 11,9% 42,9% 33,8% 31,3% 

(Madureira 
et al., 2021a) 

Competitive 

Intelligence 

Unified and 
Modular 

Definition 

(adapted from 
Visual Abstract 

for 

benchmarking)  

Performance 

Decision (specific 

goals,  
competitive 

advantage, 

early warning) 

Competitive 

environment 

External (macro, 
meso, micro)  

Internal (org. 

functions) 

Org. practices 
Capabilities 

(individual, 

organisational, 
structure, policies, 

mindset, culture) 

Orientation (time 
horizon) 

Activities 

Procedure 
(processes, 

characteristics) 

Knowledge 
Nature 

(augmented, 

machine, human)  
Outcome 

(knowledge 

management, 
characteristics) 

 



14 

 

4. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS 

The following sub-sections detail the findings 

from the integration and benchmarking 

exercise from the previous section. We start 

at the dimensional level and then go deeper 

into the aspects. Finally, we discuss the 

CIMMs, the implications of the findings, our 

recommendations for implementation and 

the limitations of the study.    

4.1. Dimensions level 

An evident gap in the results is that, as with 

any strategy (Rumelt, 2012, 2022), the 

underlying reason for the CI efforts should be 

the starting consideration. However, despite 

the need for CI practitioners to start with the 

end in mind, the CI Purpose dimension is the 

second least addressed in identified CIMMs. 

A second finding is that only five CIMMs 

include the CI Purview dimension and 

aspects. The scope is critical for the CI 

practice as it defines the focus and conditions 

the effectiveness of the activities. It is 

impossible to develop intelligence for the 

entire CI scope. In an information-

overloaded world, CI professionals must 

trade off the amount of Big Data (Laney, 

2001) processed vis-à-vis the (lack of) 

computing power and the available 

headspace. The considerable stream of 

research on Key Intelligence Topics (KITs) is 

proof of the importance and guidance on this 

topic (J. Herring, 2008; J. P. Herring & 

Leavitt, 2011).  

Surprisingly, all CIMMs address CI 

Practices despite being the least mentioned 

dimension in the 816 definitions used in 

developing the benchmarked definition 

(Madureira et al., 2021a). The importance of 

the CI Practices for the CIMM is evident 

since it materialises the concept. The 

Practices and Process dimensions form the 

core of the CI model, reinforcing each other 

in implementing CI effectively. The CI 

function location in the organisational 

structure (Calof, 1998; Comai & Prescott, 

2007; J. P. Herring & Leavitt, 2011; Marceau 

& Sawka, 1999; Singh et al., 2008), the 

policies (namely the importance of respecting 

the legal and ethical aspects (J. P. Herring & 

Leavitt, 2011; Prescott, 1999), the 

capabilities of the organisation and the 

individual (Alvares et al., 2020; Comai & 

Prescott, 2007; Oubrich et al., 2018), the 

mindsets (APQC et al., 2004; Calof, 1998; 

Comai & Prescott, 2007; West, 2001), and the 

culture of intelligence (Alvares et al., 2020; 

Hedin et al., 2014; M-Brain et al., 2019; 

Oubrich et al., 2018), are the most appointed 

key success factors in the CIMMs for the 

development and evolution of CI (Adamala & 

Cidrin, 2011; Nasri & Zarai, 2013; M-Brain 

et al., 2019; Marceau & Sawka, 1999). 

There is no surprise, though, in the complete 

alignment between the CIMMs and the CI 

Process dimension, given that it provides the 

blueprint for the CI activities performed and 

overall output.  

The lower level of alignment (85,7%) towards 

the CI Product dimension is somehow more 

problematic given the importance the quality 

of CI has on decision-making, which in turn 

profoundly impacts the performance of 

organisations.  

4.2. Aspects level  

An in-depth analysis of the aspects (and sub-

aspects) evidence a high synonymy, 

polysemy, and homonymy. Navigating the 

meaning of the aspects across CIMMs is 

extremely difficult given its number, the 

diverse nomenclature used, and the 

longitudinal evolution of the CI construct 

(Prescott, 1999). It is almost impossible to 

benchmark the maturity level between CI 

functions, programs, organisations, 

industries or countries using different 

CIMMs. Therefore, there is a clear need for a 

unified reference model with standardised 

nomenclature of dimensions and aspects.  

Another important finding is the different 

levels of the thoroughness of the CIMMs 

regarding the aspects. On average, for any 

given dimension, the CIMMs do not address 

half of the aspects of the unified view of CI. 

Again, this reinforces the need for a holistic 

go-to CIMM with a solid scientific base that 

executives and academics can rely upon in 

theory and praxis.  

4.3. CIMMs 

A significant finding is that only one CIMM 

covers the 5Ps. This insight highlights the 

relevance of this study, addressing the 

research gap for a go-to CIMM of reference 



 15 

and delivering on the expected contributions. 

Moreover, by benchmarking the best of 

theoretical and empirical CIMM knowledge 

vis-a-vis a unified and scientifically 

validated definition of CI (Madureira et al., 

2021a, 2021b), we bring a solid foundation 

and scientific rigour to the CI practice, the 

broad-spectrum CI audiences, and the 

related disciplines. The findings also 

contribute to establishing CI science, as an 

integrated scientifically developed UCIMM 

will make the practice more scientific, 

repeatable, and comparable between 

organisations and industries. On top, none of 

the literature from the included CIMMs 

refers to the order of implementation of the 

5Ps. Nor are the criteria for dimension 

selection, exceptions for best practices, or 

findings from case studies and empirical 

surveys. The level of arbitrariness can be 

considerable and dependent on the scope – 

specific country, industry, or organisation 

under analysis. 

Overall, the findings highlight the essential 

contributions of the study. Firstly, all the 

dimensions and aspects included in the 

CIMMs fit within the CI unified view and 

modular definition (Madureira et al., 2021a). 

Nevertheless, there are still descriptors of 

the CI definition not addressed by aspects in 

any of the maturity models studied. 

Consequently, integrating the missing 

aspects into a CIMM will guarantee that 

professionals do not oversee any critical 

aspect and a sound grounding in CI theory. 

Secondly, there is the need for a more 

manageable CIMM. Assessing more than 

five dimensions can be burdensome for 

practitioners in a more pragmatic business 

setting. Conveying the results to the top 

management is also made more difficult as 

the number of dimensions increases. This 

miscommunication with top management 

can endanger the allocation of further 

needed resources for CI, endangering its 

development. As such, the hierarchical 

structuring of all the aspects into five 

dimensions seems to be a valuable empirical 

and theoretical contribution. Therefore, 

given previous CIMM shortcomings, we 

propose a unified CIMM in the next section. 

4.4. Integration of CIMMs into a 
proposed UCIM 

We used the Capability Maturity Model 

Integration (CMMI) developed by the 

Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie 

Mellon University to integrate the CIMMs 

(ISACA, 2022). This process and behavioural 

model, designed to improve the performance 

of organisations, share the exact purpose of 

CI (Madureira et al., 2021b), hence our 

preferred choice. The model aims to combine 

multiple business maturity models into one 

framework, thus additionally addressing the 

challenge identified in Section 4-3. A model 

is a tool for streamlining process 

improvement by developing measurable 

benchmarks and creating a structure for 

encouraging productive, efficient behaviour 

throughout the organisation, functions, and 

projects. Therefore, it leverages the 

established standards for vetting vendors 

and suppliers, identifying and resolving 

process issues, and minimising risk while 

building a corporate culture that supports 

the new integrated model. In addition, the 

maturity and capability levels of an 

organisation provide a way to characterise 

its capability and performance.  

4.4.1. Maturity Levels (ML) 

MLs represent a staged path for the 

organisation to improve the performance and 

processes efforts based on predefined 

dimensions and aspects. Within each ML, 

the dimensions and aspects also provide a 

path to performance improvement. Each ML 

increments the previous by adding new 

functionality or increased rigour. The goal is 

to raise the maturity of the organisation to 

the highest ML. Once reached, organisations 

should focus on maintenance and regular 

improvements, a learning organisation.  

The journey starts at ML0 – Incomplete – 

where CI work may or may not get 

completed. CI goals are not established, and 

the processes are partly formed or do not 

meet the needs of the organisation. In ML1 – 

Initial – CI processes are viewed as 

unpredictable and reactive. CI work gets 

completed, but it is often delayed or over 

budget. This is the worst level for an 

organisation facing an unpredictable 

environment that increases risk and 

inefficiency. In ML2 – Managed – 



16 

 
organisations achieve the project 

management level. Projects are planned, 

executed, measured, and assessed, but many 

issues remain unaddressed. In ML3 – 

Defined – organisations are more proactive 

than reactive. A set of organisational policies 

and standards guide projects, programs, and 

portfolios. Organisations know their 

shortcomings, how to overcome them and the 

objectives for improvement. In ML4 – 

Measured – the organisation starts to 

measure and control the business, working 

off quantitative data to determine 

predictable processes aligned with 

stakeholder needs. The organisation 

manages risk with insight-driven process 

deficiencies. Lastly, in ML5 – Optimised – 

the organisation processes are stable, 

flexible, and agile. The learning organisation 

status is achieved with continuous 

improvement and responding to changes or 

other opportunities in an innovative and 

agile way. ML4 and ML5 are considered high 

maturity and stakeholder and customer-

centric. 

4.4.2. Capability Levels (CL) 

CLs are used to evaluate the CI process 

improvement and performance of the 

organisation. They bring structure to the 

process and performance improvement. Each 

CL builds on the last, in the same fashion as 

MLs, for appraising an organisation. The 

CLs range from CL0 – Incomplete – with 

inconsistent performance and incomplete 

approach to achieving the intent of CI. In 

CL1 – Initial - organisations address 

performance issues in specific activities, but 

there is not a complete CI practice in place. 

Cl2 – Managed – there is a complete set of 

procedures that result in CI practice 

improvement. Finally, in CL3 – Defined – the 

focus is on achieving project and 

organisational performance objectives with 

clear organisational standards for managing 

CI projects. 

4.4.3. Dimensions and Aspects 

Based on the finding from Section 4-3 that 

some aspects are present but do not 

thoroughly cover all the relevant descriptors 

from Madureira et al. (Madureira et al., 

2021a), we focused on adding the missing 

aspects to the UCIMM. Furthermore, given 

that the 5Ps and their descriptors are 

empirically proven, the outcome is a 

hierarchical catalogue (cf. Figure 3) of 

mutually exclusive CI maturity dimensions 

covering all aspects replicating the 

benchmarked visual abstract (Madureira et 

al., 2021a). 

 

 

Figure 3. UCIMM hierarchical meta-model – dimensions, aspects, and sub-aspects (adapted by the authors) 

4.4.4. The proposed UCIMM 

The UCIMM proposed comprises five levels of 

maturity, three levels of capability, five dimensions, 

eight aspects, and sixteen sub-aspects. The UCIMM 

is multi-dimensional, hierarchical, staged, primarily 

qualitative and built on the integration of previous 

studies.  

 

 

      

        

           

     

            

         

       
                            

          

        

           

                

        
                              

                       

           

        

        
         

     
            

            

         

       
                        

           

            

         
                        

            

            

       
                      

         

           

           
      

       
      

       

                 
         

          

       



 17 

 

 

Table 4. The UCIMM (prepared by the authors building on Madureira et al. unified view of CI (Madureira et al., 2021a) 

Name of the 

CIMM  

CI Dimensions and (aspects) 
Model Maturity 

Levels 
Purpose Purview Practices Process Product 

Unified 

Competitive 

Intelligence 

Maturity Model 

(UCIMM) 

Performance 
Decision (specific 

goals,  

competitive 
advantage, 

early warning) 

Competitive 
environment 

External (macro, 

meso, micro)  
Internal (org. 

functions) 

Org. practices 

Capabilities 
(individual, 

organisational, 

structure, policies, 
mindset, culture) 

Orientation (time 

horizon) 

Activities 

Procedure 

(processes, 
characteristics) 

Knowledge 

Nature (augmented, 

machine, human)  
Outcome 

(knowledge 

management, 
characteristics) 

Proposed 

Maturity Levels 

0. Incomplete 

1. Initial 

2. Managed 
3. Defined 

4. Measured 

5. Optimised 

Following, we propose four integrated graphical 

visualisations (Figures 4-7) and their explanation to 

guide and help CI professionals implement the 

UCIMM in practice. 

4.4.5. CI Purpose 

CI aims to create value by addressing its stakeholder 

needs in a unique and superior way vis-a-vis its 

competitors. As such, organisations must 

continuously make decisions to adapt to the 

evolving context and stakeholder needs and wants. 

Stakeholder centricity is pivotal to guaranteeing that 

the value created is superior to the value provided 

by competitor organisations at any time. Optimised 

CI organisations support specific strategic, tactical, 

and operational decisions, help develop competitive 

advantages and provide early warning to decision-

makers. Thus, the critical constructs are adaptation, 

agility, and anticipation. 

 

 

Figure 4. CI Purpose (developed by the authors) 

 

4.4.6. CI Purview 

The scope of CI is the entire competitive 

environment (Figure 5). It encompasses the macro 

forces (macro-environment – outer arrows), the 

market forces (meso-environment – dashed 

triangle), the industry forces (microenvironment – 

industry (Porter, 2008)), and the internal 

environment (inside the organisation – players). 

Therefore, given its wide dimension, aligning the 

scope addressed by the CI function with the purpose 

of the organisation is paramount. Most notably 

matching the scope to the maturity level of the CI 

competencies. An eventual mismatch affects the 

quality of CI, leading to sub-standard decisions and 

ultimately jeopardising the overall performance. 

Therefore, the CI practice must start small and 

increase the scope as its resources and competencies 

develop. 

 

     I  TI  

 alue Proposition,

 fferings   

Capabilities

C MPETIT  

 alue Proposition ,

 fferings   

Capabilities

 T  E    E 

 eeds,  ants

C  TE T

Macro , Meso . Micro Environment



18 

 
 

 

 

 
Figure 5. CI Purview (developed by the authors) 

 

4.4.7. CI Practices and Process 

The Core CI Model results from integrating 

the CI Practices and Process dimensions. 

Process-wise, learning organisations 

continuously adapt and improve their 

processes, tools, and techniques to support 

high-quality decision-making. The activities 

in the middle concentric circle (Figure 6) are 

guided by the CI procedure and executed 

with project management proficiency. The CI 

practice (and performed activities) depends 

on soft and hard factors: the place it occupies 

in the organisational structure, the policies 

that guide its execution, the mindsets, and 

the intelligence culture. The time orientation 

also impacts CI activities. Understanding 

the past is not enough; understanding the 

present may not be possible without 

considering the past, and anticipating the 

future is impossible without previous time 

horizons. Organisations optimising CI are 

forward-looking, integrating the different 

time horizons synergically to create a new 

official future (Wilkinson & Kupers, 2013). 

In a nutshell, CI needs to be an established 

support activity within the value chain of the 

organisation. 

 

  C TI  

(Country, Market , Channel, 

Physical,  nline)

I    T   

(Product    ervice)

P   E  

( rganisation   Competitors)

C    ME 

(Consumer, Customer)

P  ITIC 

EC   MIC 

TEC       

E  I   ME T

  CI   E   

Planning,  irection

   esearch

 tructure   
Policies

 rgani ational 
Culture

Capabilities

Mindset

 ata   
Information 
Processing

Information 
 nalysis

 eedback, 
Measurement   

 nowledge 
Protection

Intelligence 
Communication   

 torage

Present

 sage    ecision  
Making

 ata   
Information  ccess

Intelligence  eeds

 ITs    I s



 19 

 

 

Figure 6. Core CI Model: Practices and Process (developed by the authors) 

4.4.8. CI Product 

The output of CI outcome is a set of artefacts 

(deliverables, systems, or projects) produced for a 

given purpose, within a specific scope, through a 

systematic process, and a defined set of practices. 

Given the need for anticipation, organisations must 

act on quality intelligence – meaning the actionable 

insights will be verified true (converted into 

knowledge) or allow for creating an official future 

(Wilkinson & Kupers, 2013). Despite knowledge 

being the desired output, if an organisation waits for 

the insights to be verified true (e.g., a merger 

between two competitors), it will lose its 

opportunity to influence the competitive outcome. 

As such, CI has no value if the decision-makers 

receive factual truths. They need actionable 

insights. 

Moreover, the CI functions will derive learnings 

from using such intelligence and converting them 

into wisdom. The knowledge and wisdom of today 

are the data points of tomorrow, allowing CI 

practitioners to develop new higher-order 

intelligence. An increasingly important factor is the 

augmentation of artificial intelligence by CI 

professionals to guarantee reduced time to insight 

and overall timeliness of deliverables. Therefore, 

the CI function must not limit itself to data science 

or information management and should leverage 

knowledge management to become a learning 

organisation (Alvares et al., 2020). 

 

 
 

Figure 7. CI Product (developed by the authors) 

 
4.5. Limitations and future research 

We purposely limited the study to CIMMs and 

excluded models focusing on CI subdomains, such 

as Business Intelligence MMs, Artificial 

Intelligence MMs, or Capability MMs. The specific 

models can thus be integrated for a more thorough 

and granular assessment, guidelines, and 

evolutionary path. Namely, AIMMs can be a fruitful 

and valuable research avenue, given the need for 

guidance in this newer field within CI. Another 

research path is the empirical validation of the 

proposed model, the UCIMM. To this end, 

developing a scientifically validated scale would be 

essential. 

5. CONCLUSION 

The study successfully addressed the need to 

develop a UCIMM for effective practical guidance 

addressing the conflicting interests of academics, 

executives, practitioners, and vendors. This study 

adds to existing theory by synthesising the current 

CIMMs literature, serving as a future reference for 

all CI stakeholders. More prominently, it expands 

CI theory with the first ever integrated CIMM based 

on a scientific and empirically validated definition 

of CI. Furthermore, it contributes to practice by 

identifying gaps in existing CIMMs dimensions and 

aspects, providing a thorough and scientifically 

sound UCIMM. The model allows practitioners to 

pinpoint and address the areas they need to improve. 

  T 

( ignals    ymbols)

I    M TI  

(Processed  ata)

 I   I  T   
I  I  T   

   E I  T

( nderstanding)

I TE  I E CE

( ctionable Insight)

     E  E

( erified True)

 I   M

(Best  ecision)

 E  ECTI  
 E   I  

     E  E
M    EME T

I TE  CTI   
     E  E 

C E TI  

I TE  I E CE 
      I 

   T E I 

P  CE  I  



20 

 
The accompanying frameworks support a better 

assessment, implementation, and development of 

the CI practice in organisations, navigating the 

adverse impacts of continuous change. Higher 

quality CI – timely, actionable, accurate, relevant 

(TAR) (Prescott, 1999) – should result in better 

decision-making and improved performance of 

organisations. On becoming a reference model, the 

UCIMM will save time while guiding the 

effectuation of CI construct and practice, functions, 

systems and programmes in surpassing the average 

and reaching the world-class optimised level of 

maturity. 

 

6. DECLARATIONS 

6.1. Author Contributions 

Conceptualisation, LM, AP, and MC; 

methodology, LM; formal analysis, LM; 

investigation, LM; resources, LM; data 

curation, LM; writing—original draft 

preparation, LM; writing—review and 

editing, LM, AP, and MC; visualisation, LM; 

supervision, AP, and MC; project 

administration, LM, AP, and MC; funding 

acquisition, AP and MC. All authors have 

read and agreed to the published version of 

the manuscript. 

6.2. Funding 

The authors disclosed receipt of the following 

financial support for the research, 

authorship, and/or publication of this article: 

This work was supported by the Slovenian 

Research Agency (research core funding) 

[P5–0410]. This work was supported by 

national funds through FCT (Fundação para 

a Ciência e a Tecnologia), under the project 

UIDB/04152/2020 - Centro de Investigação 

em Gestão de Informação (MagIC)/NOVA 

IMS. 

6.3. Conflicts of Interest 

The authors declare that there is no conflict 

of interest regarding the publication of this 

manuscript. In addition, the ethical issues, 

including plagiarism, informed consent, 

misconduct, data fabrication and/or 

falsification, double publication and/or 

submission, and redundancies have been 

completely observed by the authors. 

 

 

REFERENCES 
ACI, & Gilad, B. (2022). 2022 CIP

TM
 Survey - A 

Changing Role Bodes Well (p. 16) [Survey]. 

Academy of Competitive Intelligence. 

Adamala, S., & Cidrin, L. (2011). Key Success 

Factors in Business Intelligence. Journal of 

Intelligence Studies in Business, 1(1), 107–127. 

https://doi.org/10.37380/jisib.v1i1.19 

Alvares, L. M. A. de R., Itaborahy, A. L. C., & 

Machado, R. P. M. (2020). Modelo de 

Maturidade em Inteligência  rgani acional: 

uma visão integrada à gestão da informação, 

gestão do conhecimento e inteligência 

competitiva. Informação & Sociedade: Estudos, 

30(4), 1–21. 

https://doi.org/10.22478/ufpb.1809-

4783.2020v30n4.57352 

APQC, Hasanali, F., Leavitt, P., & Lemons, D. 

(2004). Competitive Intelligence: A Guide for 

Your Journey to Best-Practice Processes. Amer 

Productivity Center. 

Bartes, F. (2014). Defining a Basis for the New 

Concept of Competitive Intelligence. Acta 

Universitatis Agriculturae Et Silviculturae 

Mendelianae Brunensis, 62(6), 1233–1242. 

https://doi.org/10.11118/actaun201462061233 

Bennett, N., & Lemoine, J. (2014). What a 

Difference a Word Makes: Understanding 

Threats to Performance in a VUCA World. 

Business Horizons, 57, 311–317. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2014.01.001 

Breakspear, A. (2013). A New Definition of 

Intelligence. Intelligence and National Security, 

28(5), 678–693. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/02684527.2012.699285 

Brocke, J., Simons, A., Niehaves, B., Niehaves, B., 

Reimer, K., Plattfaut, R., & Cleven, A. (2009). 

Reconstructing the Giant: On the Importance of 

Rigour in Documenting the Literature Search 

Process. ECIS 2009 Proceedings, 161. 

https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2009/161/ 

Brody, R. (2008). Issues in Defining Competitive 

Intelligence: An Exploration. IEEE Engineering 

Management Review, 36(3), 3–16. IEEE. 

https://doi.org/10.1109/emr.2008.4648884 

Bruin, T. de, Freeze, R., Kulkarni, U., & Rosemann, 

M. (2005). Understanding the Main Phases of 

Developing a Maturity Assessment Model. ACIS 



 21 

2005 Proceedings, 109. 

https://aisel.aisnet.org/acis2005/109 

Calof, J. (1998). Increasing your CIQ: the 

competitive intelligence edge. Economic and 

Technology Development Journal of Canada, 

Art 22/98, 103–108. 

Calof, J., Sewdass, N., & Arcos, R. (2017). 

Competitive Intelligence: A 10-year Global 

Development. Competitive Intelligence 

Magazine, 20(2), 21–26. 

Comai, A., & Prescott, J. E. (2007). Workbook: 

World-Class Competitive Intelligence Function 

(E. Ediciones, Ed.; 1st ed.). Emecom Ediciones. 

Cooper, H. M. (1988). Organising Knowledge 

Syntheses: A Taxonomy of Literature Reviews. 

Knowledge in Society, 1(1), 104–126. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03177550 

Crayon, & SCIP. (2022). 2022 State of Competitive 

Intelligence (State of Competitive Intelligence, 

p. 44) [Survey]. Crayon. 

Duncan, R. W., & Weiss, A. (1979). Organisational 

Learning: Implications for Organisational 

Design. Research in Organisational Behaviour: 

An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and 

Critical Reviews, 1, 75–123. 

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Making Fast Strategic 

Decisions in High-Velocity Environments. 

Academy of Management Journal, 32(3), 543–

576. https://doi.org/10.5465/256434 

Fiedler, Fred. E. (1964). A Contingency Model of 

Leadership Effectiveness. In Advances in 

Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 

149–190). Elsevier. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60051-

9 

Fraser, P., Moultrie, J., & Gregory, M. (2002). The 

Use of Maturity Models/Grids as a Tool in 

Assessing Product Development Capability. 

2022 IEEE International Engineering 

Management Conference, 18-20 August, 1, 244–

249 vol.1. 

https://doi.org/10.1109/IEMC.2002.1038431 

Harkleroad, D. (1998). Ostriches and Eagles II. 

Competitive Intelligence Review, 9(1), 13–19. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-

6386(199801/03)9:1<13::AID-CIR4>3.0.CO;2-

S 

Hedin, H. (2005). Competitive Intelligence in Large 

Companies – Global Study (White Paper No. 4; 

Global Study, pp. 1–38). Global Intelligence 

Alliance. 

Hedin, H., Hirvensalo, I., & Vaarnas, M. (2014). 

The Handbook of Market Intelligence: 

Understand, Compete and Grow in Global 

Markets (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 

Heppes, D., & Du Toit, A. S. (2009). Level of 

Maturity of the Competitive Intelligence 

Function: Case Study of a Retail Bank in South 

Africa. Aslib Journal of Information 

Management, 61(1), 48–66. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/00012530910932285 

Herring, J. (2008). Defining Competitive 

Intelligence Needs: The Role of Key Intelligence 

Topics. In Starting a Competitive Intelligence 

Function: A SCIP Best Practices Guide (1st ed., 

Vol. 1, pp. 33–42). Competitive Intelligence 

Foundation. 

Herring, J. P., & Leavitt, J. A. (2011). The Roadmap 

to a World-Class Competitive Intelligence 

Program. Competitive Intelligence Magazine, 

14(1), 9–28. SCIP.org. 

ISACA. (2022). CMMI Levels of Capability and 

Performance. 

https://cmmiinstitute.com/learning/appraisals/le

vels 

Kahaner, L. (1997). Competitive Intelligence: How 

to Gather, Analyse, and Use Information to 

Move Your Business to the Top (1st ed.). Simon 

& Schuster - Touchstone. 

Klue, & SCIP. (2021). The 2021 Competitive 

Enablement Report - What do Stakeholders 

Really Think About Your Competitive Programs 

(p. 41) [Survey]. Klue + SCIP. 

Lahrmann, G., & Marx, F. (2010). Systematisation 

of Maturity Model Extensions. In R. Winter, J. 

L. Zhao, & S. Aier (Eds.), DESRIST 2010 (Vol. 

6105, pp. 522–525). Springer. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13335-0_36 

Laney, D. (2001). 3D Data Management: 

Controlling Data Volume, Velocity, and Variety. 

META Group Research Note, 6(70), 1–4. 

Madureira, L., Popovic, A., & Castelli, M. (2021a). 

Competitive intelligence: a unified view and 

modular definition. Technological Forecasting 

and Social Change, 173(December 121086), 1–

17. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121086 

Madureira, L., Popovic, A., & Castelli, M. (2021b). 

Competitive intelligence empirical construct 

validation using expert in-depth interviews 

study. 2021 IEEE International Conference on 

Technology Management, Operations and 

Decisions, 1–6. 



22 

 
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICTMOD52902.2021.9

739422 

Marceau, S., & Sawka, K. (1999). Developing a 

 orld‐Class CI Program in Telecoms. 

Competitive Intelligence Review, 10(4), 30–40. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-

6386(199934)10:4<30::AID-CIR6>3.0.CO;2-H 

Marcial, E. C. (2018). Initial Proposal of a General 

Theory of Competitive Intelligence [Proposta 

Inicial  e  ma Teoria  eral  a Inteligência 

Competitiva]. Ciência Da Informação, 45(3), 

59–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.22478/ufpb.1981-

0695.2018v13n1.39268 

M-Brain, Drieman, J., & Makinen, S. (2019). 

Global Intelligence Survey 2019 (p. 32) [Survey 

& White Paper]. M-Brain. 

Nasri, W., & Zarai, M. (2013). Key Success Factors 

for Developing Competitive Intelligence in 

Organisation. American Journal of Business and 

Management, 2(3), 239–244. 

https://doi.org/10.11634/216796061302397 

Neuendorf, K. A. (2019). Content Analysis and 

Thematic Analysis. In P. Brough (Ed.), 

Advanced Research Methods for Applied 

Psychology: Design, Analysis and Reporting 

(1st ed., pp. 211–223). Routledge. 

Oubrich, M., Hakmaoui, A., Bierwolf, R., & 

Haddani, M. (2018). Development of a 

Competitive Intelligence Maturity Model: 

Insights from Moroccan Companies. Journal of 

Intelligence Studies in Business, 8(1), 25–36. 

https://doi.org/10.37380/jisib.v8i1.303 

Oxford English Dictionary. (2022a). Maturity. In 

Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford Languages 

and Google). Oxford University Press. 

https://www.oed.com/ 

Oxford English Dictionary. (2022b). Model. In 

Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford Languages 

and Google). Oxford University Press. 

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., 

Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., 

Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., 

Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., 

 rimshaw, J. M.,  róbjartsson,  .,  alu, M. M., 

Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., 

Mc onald,  ., … Moher,  . (2021). The 

PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated 

Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. 

Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 89. 

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4 

Page, M. J., Moher, D., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., 

Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., 

Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, 

 .,  lanville, J.,  rimshaw, J. M.,  róbjartsson, 

A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-

 ilson, E., Mc onald,  ., … Mc en ie, J. E. 

(2021). PRISMA 2020 Explanation and 

Elaboration: Updated Guidance and Exemplars 

for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ, 

372(160), 1–36. 

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160 

Pellissier, R., & Nenzhelele, T. E. (2013). Towards 

a Universal Definition of Competitive 

Intelligence. South African Journal of 

Information Management, 15(2), 1–7. 

https://doi.org/10.4102/sajim.v15i2.559 

Porter, M. E. (2008). The Five Competitive Forces 

That Shape Strategy. Harvard Business Review, 

86(1), 25–40. 

Prescott, J. E. (1999). The Evolution of Competitive 

Intelligence - Designing a Process for Action. 

Proposal Management (Journal of the 

Association of Proposal Management 

Professionals), Spring, 37–52. 

Rumelt, R. P. (2012). Good Strategy/Bad Strategy: 

The Difference and Why It Matters (799615; 1st 

ed.). Crown Business. 

Rumelt, R. P. (2022, June 23). Build a Strategy that 

Addresses Your Gnarliest Challenges. Harvard 

Business Review. https://hbr.org/2022/06/build-

a-strategy-that-addresses-your-gnarliest-

challenges 

Senge, P. M. (2006). The Fifth Discipline: The Art 

& Practice of The Learning Organisation 

(Revised and Updated). Doubleday. 

Singh, A., Fuld, L., & Beurgschens, A. (2008). A 

Roadmap for Ensuring Success. In Starting a 

Competitive Intelligence Function (pp. 263–

276). Competitive Intelligence Foundation; 

SCIP.org. scip.org/cifoundation/ 

Taleb, N. N. (2007). The Black Swan: The Impact of 

the Highly Improbable (Vol. 2). Random House, 

Inc. 

Vedder, R. G., & Guynes, C. S. (2001). A Study of 

Competitive Intelligence Practices in 

Organisations. Journal of Computer Information 

Systems, 41(2), 36–39. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2002.116469

89 

Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership 

and Decision-Making (1st ed.). University of 

Pittsburgh Press. 

Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analysing the 



 23 

Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a 

Literature Review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2.3), xiii–

xxiii. 

https://misq.umn.edu/misq/downloads/downloa

d/editorial/176/ 

West, C. (2001). Competitive Intelligence (1st ed.). 

Springer. 

Wilkinson, A., & Kupers, R. (2013). Living in the 

Futures - How Scenario Planning Changed 

Corporate Strategy. Harvard Business Review, 

May, 2–11. 

Yap, C. S., Cheng, B. L., Mohamad Hussain, N., & 

Ahmad, R. (2018). Innovativeness, Market 

Intelligence Practices, and Firm Performance of 

Small- and Medium-Sized Tour Operators. 

Tourism & Hospitality Research, 18(2), 143–

151. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/1467358416636931 

Yap, C. S., & Rashid, M. Z. A. (2011). Competitive 

Intelligence Practices and Firm Performance. 

Libri: International Journal of Libraries & 

Information Services, 61(3), 175–189. 

https://doi.org/10.1515/libr.2011.015 

Yap, C. S., Rashid, M. Z. A., & Sapuan, D. A. 

(2013). Strategic Uncertainty and Firm 

Performance: The Mediating Role of 

Competitive Intelligence Practices. Journal of 

Information & Knowledge Management, 12(04), 

1350028-1–14. 

https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219649213500287 

 

ANNEXES 

Annex 1: PRISMA Checklist 

Table 3. PRISMA 2020 Checklist (Page, McKenzie, et al., 2021) 

Section and 

Topic 

Item 

# 
Checklist item 

Location 

where item 

is reported 

Title  

  Title 1 Identify the report as a systematic review. Page 1, line 1 

Abstract  

  Abstract 2 See the PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts checklist. 
Page 1, lines 

4-15 

Introduction  

  Rationale 3 Describe the rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge. 
Page 1-2, lines 

45-13 

  Objectives 4 
Provide an explicit statement of the objective(s) or question(s) the review 

addresses. 

Page 2, lines 

14-23  

Methods  

  Eligibility 

criteria 
5 

Specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review and how studies 

were grouped for the syntheses. 

Page 2, line 

32 - 

Table 1 

  Information 

sources 
6 

Specify all databases, registers, websites, organizations, reference lists and 

other sources searched or consulted to identify studies. Specify the date 

when each source was last searched or consulted. 

Page 2, line 

32 - 

Table 1 

  Search strategy 7 
Present the full search strategies for all databases, registers, and websites, 

including any filters and limits used. 

Page 2, line 

32 - 

Table 1 

  Selection process 8 

Specify the methods used to decide whether a study met the inclusion 

criteria of the review, including how many reviewers screened each record 

and each report retrieved, whether they worked independently, and, if 

applicable, details of automation tools used in the process. 

Page 2, line 

32 - 

Table 1 

  Data collection 

process 
9 

Specify the methods used to collect data from reports, including how many 

reviewers collected data from each report, whether they worked 

independently, any processes for obtaining or confirming data from study 

investigators, and, if applicable, details of automation tools used in the 

process. 

Page 2, line 

32 - 

Table 1 

  Data items 

10a 

List and define all outcomes for which data were sought. Specify whether all 

results that were compatible with each outcome domain in each study were 

sought (e.g., for all measures, time points, analyses), and if not, the methods 

used to decide which results to collect. 

Page 5, line 6 - 

Table 2 

10b 

List and define all other variables for which data were sought (e.g., 

participant and intervention characteristics, funding sources). Describe any 

assumptions made about any missing or unclear information. 

Page 5, line 6 - 

Table 2 



24 

 

Section and 

Topic 

Item 

# 
Checklist item 

Location 

where item 

is reported 

  Study risk of 

bias assessment 
11 

Specify the methods used to assess risk of bias in the included studies, 

including details of the tool(s) used, how many reviewers assessed each 

study and whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of 

automation tools used in the process. 

Page 2, line 32 

- 

Table 1 

  Effect measures 12 
Specify for each outcome the effect measure(s) (e.g., risk ratio, mean 

difference) used in the synthesis or presentation of results. 

Page 6, line 27 

- Table 3 

  Synthesis 

methods 

13a 

Describe the processes used to decide which studies were eligible for each 

synthesis (e.g., tabulating the study intervention characteristics and 

comparing against the planned groups for each synthesis (item #5)). 

Pages 6, lines 

2-26 

13b 

Describe any methods required to prepare the data for presentation or 

synthesis, such as handling of missing summary statistics, or data 

conversions. 

Page 6, lines 

2-7 

13c 
Describe any methods used to tabulate or visually display results of 

individual studies and syntheses. 

Page 6, lines 

8-10 

13d 

Describe any methods used to synthesise results and provide a rationale for 

the choice(s). If meta-analysis was performed, describe the model(s), 

method(s) to identify the presence and extent of statistical heterogeneity, 

and software package(s) used. 

Page 6, lines 

2-7 

13e 
Describe any methods used to explore possible causes of heterogeneity 

among study results (e.g., subgroup analysis, meta-regression). 
Not applicable 

13f 
Describe any sensitivity analyses conducted to assess robustness of the 

synthesised results. 
Not applicable 

  Reporting bias 

assessment 
14 

Describe any methods used to assess risk of bias due to missing results in a 

synthesis (arising from reporting biases). 
Not applicable 

  Certainty 

assessment 
15 

Describe any methods used to assess certainty (or confidence) in the body of 

evidence for an outcome. 

Page 6, lines 

2-7 

Results  

  Study selection 

16a 

Describe the results of the search and selection process, from the number of 

records identified in the search to the number of studies included in the 

review, ideally using a flow diagram. 

Page 4, lines 

25-26 – Figure 

2 

16b 
Cite studies that might appear to meet the inclusion criteria, but which were 

excluded and explain why they were excluded. 

Page 4, lines 

25-26 – Figure 

2 

  Study 

characteristics 
17 Cite each included study and present its characteristics. 

Page 5, line 6 - 

Table 2 

  Risk of bias in 

studies 
18 Present assessments of risk of bias for each included study. 

Page 6, line 27 

- Table 3 

  Results of 

individual studies 
19 

For all outcomes, present, for each study: (a) summary statistics for each 

group (where appropriate) and (b) an effect estimates and its precision (e.g., 

confidence/credible interval), ideally using structured tables or plots. 

Page 6, line 27 

- Table 3 

  Results of 

syntheses 

20a 
For each synthesis, briefly summarise the characteristics and risk of bias 

among contributing studies. 

Page 6, lines 

10-26 

20b 

Present results of all statistical syntheses conducted. If meta-analysis was 

done, present for each the summary estimate and its precision (e.g., 

confidence/credible interval) and measures of statistical heterogeneity. If 

comparing groups, describe the direction of the effect. 

Page 6, line 27 

- Table 3 

20c 
Present results of all investigations of possible causes of heterogeneity 

among study results. 
Not applicable 

20d 
Present results of all sensitivity analyses conducted to assess the robustness 

of the synthesised results. 
Not applicable 

  Reporting biases 21 
Present assessments of risk of bias due to missing results (arising from 

reporting biases) for each synthesis assessed. 
Not applicable 

  Certainty of 

evidence 
22 

Present assessments of certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for 

each outcome assessed. 

Page 6, lines 

10-26 

Discussion  

  Discussion 

23a 
Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other 

evidence. 

Pages 8, lines 

3-6 

3b Discuss any limitations of the evidence included in the review. 
Pages 8, lines 

7-16 

23c Discuss any limitations of the review processes used. 

Page 6, lines 

10-26; Page 

13, lines 13-19 

23d Discuss implications of the results for practice, policy, and future research. 
Pages 8-13, 

lines 8-10 

Other 

information 
 



 25 

Section and 

Topic 

Item 

# 
Checklist item 

Location 

where item 

is reported 

  Registration and 

protocol 

24a 
Provide registration information for the review, including register name and 

registration number, or state that the review was not registered. 
Not registered 

24b 
Indicate where the review protocol can be accessed, or state that a protocol 

was not prepared. 
Not prepared 

24c 
Describe and explain any amendments to information provided at 

registration or in the protocol. 
Not Applicable 

  Support 25 
Describe sources of financial or non-financial support for the review, and the 

role of the funders or sponsors in the review. 

Page 19, lines 

9-14 

  Competing 

interests 
26 Declare any competing interests of review authors. 

Page 14, lines 

15-19 

  Availability of 

data, code, and 

other materials 

27 

Report which of the following are publicly available and where they can be 

found template data collection forms; data extracted from included studies; 

data used for all analyses; analytic code; any other materials used in the 

review. 

Pages 14-17, 

lines 21-24 

 

Annex 2: CIMMs Further Detailed Characterisation  

Table 4. Visualisation and Description of included CIMMs (developed by the authors) 

Citation CIMM Name Visualisation Description 

(Calof, 

1998) 

Competitive 

Intelligence 

Quotient 

(CIQ)  

CI is about skills development, process, and structural and cultural 

change. The CIQ is the maturity level resulting from advancing style, 

activities, resources, and tools from infancy to maturity/World Class 

CI (WCCI). Building a competitive organisation requires its leaders' 

clear commitment and involvement, usually taking at least five years 

of committed effort from senior management to create a WCCI 

capability. A CI competencies list (from SCIP) is offered to support 

the development of the practice. 

(Marceau 

& 

Sawka, 

1999) 

World-Class CI 

Program in 

Telecoms 

(WCCIP-T) 

 

The model presents five development planes as prerequisites and 

critical success factors to achieving a world-class CI: corporate 

culture (conducive to information sharing); straightforward interface 

(relationship and location of the CI within the organisation); 

relevance and extent of the CI portfolio of services; decision-making 

support (throughout the company); technical infrastructure 

(aggregation, organisation, and diffusion CI). The audience is the 

Telecom industry-leading global players, and critical stakeholders 

were the object of an interviews study for the development of the 

model. 

(Prescott, 

1999) 

Action-Oriented CI 

Program 

(AOCIP) 

 

This model is based on the analysis of the evolution of CI to identify 

its key dimensions and levels. The dimensions and aspects (ten) are 

based on identified main attributes and the Key Decision Areas from 

the Decision-Oriented Approach to Designing a CI Program. The 

latter is based on the 1997 study on CI best practices from APQC. 

The main objective is to improve the effectiveness of CI while 

presenting a business case for proposal management professionals. 

The model adds additional value by identifying key defining events 

and issues in the evolution of CI. 

(West, 

2001) 

CI Stages of 

Development 

(CISoD) 

 

The model assumes that organisations move through three stages of 

CI evolution across four dimensions: Data Collection, Applications, 

Organisation, and CI Systems. The model has three levels. First, 

Competitor Awareness - key competitors are known, some 

knowledge exists, the organisation rarely uses data for decision-

making, and there is no CI Systems in place). Second, Competitor-

sensitive - aware of competitive threats, relies exclusively on 

informal information flows, and there is still no structured 

intelligence program. Third, Competitor-intelligent - organisation 

anticipate competitive actions and events, dedicates serious 

resources, and has a specific location with the structure and systems 

to support the CI function. The model aims to understand the drivers 

and support the development of CI in Europe. The book offers 

further insight into the probability of using CI depending on the need 

for development capability and the ability to use it in practice. 



26 

 

Citation CIMM Name Visualisation Description 

(APQC 

et al., 

2004) 

FIICH Model 

(FIICH) 

 

The development of a CI program (CIP) proceeds through four 

stages: prestart-up, start-up, established, and world-class. Each stage 

of development has an identifiable set of critical activities or 

indicators that allows a company to know its level and transition 

activities to the next stage of the CI program development. The 

model is based on the premise that CIPs can be characterised by their 

stage of development and that identified external and internal factors 

may cause reversals to earlier stages — if not the failure of the CIP – 

must be examined. The model offers a methodology to evolve across 

dimensions into more advanced stages: Focus (clear set of goals and 

objectives); Implement (organisational culture); Institutionalise 

(incorporate CI practices); Change (modify processes, behaviours, 

and performance); Hone (dynamic, evolving, continuously 

improving activity). This empirical study provides a comprehensive 

understanding of what it takes to have a successful CI functional 

unit. Based on years of research of leading-edge organisations – 

supported by examples of best practices and tips from actual 

practitioners — it intends to guide readers in their own CI efforts. 

The study also aims to influence the academic community in 

researching the role of an intelligence function in decision-making 

theory. 

(J. P. 

Herring 

& 

Leavitt, 

2011) 

CI Maturity Matrix 

(CIMMx) 

 

The matrix is based on a six-month study of the core of the entire 

value chain processes to optimise the CI of the enterprise. A later 

benchmark in best practices determined that it was ineffective to 

continue to be ‘everything to all people.’ Consequently, the group re-

assessed its ion and audience and focused primarily on providing CI 

to support enterprise-wide strategic decisions and research new 

market potential. As a result, the author developed the CI Maturity 

Matrix in early 2006 to serve as a roadmap to achieve a CI process 

that provided more value to the enterprise. The matrix is five stages 

per five dimensions description of best practices to develop mature 

CI practices. 

(Comai 

& 

Prescott, 

2007) 

World Class CI 

(WCCI) 

 

The structure of the WCCI model identified nine dimensions 

subdivided into 48 aspects. The authors prepared a statement 

describing what the judges believe to be a world-class performance 

for each dimension and its accompanying aspects. The modes were 

defined so that their statements apply regardless of how the Cl 

function is organised in the Strategic Business Unit (SBU). The 

authors defined "world-class" not as "the best that currently exists" 

but as "the ultimate best that might be achieved”. The nine 

dimensions are: 1) Strategic Significance (recognised importance of 

Cl defining the scope and level of Cl activities); 2) CI in the 

Organisational Structure (clear operational vision between CI & the 

SBU); 3) CI Culture (organisational culture allows CI contribution to 

be maximised); 4) & 5) People and Physical resources (necessary for 

CI effective functioning); 6) CI Process (clearly defined and well 

established for gathering, validating, analysing, and storing CI); 7) 

CI project management (systems in place for selecting and 

prioritising CI projects); 8) Management Control (clear processes in 

place for top-level management control of Cl operations); 9) 

Evolution Of The CI Unit (clearly defined evolutionary strategy for 

how the Cl vision is to be achieved). The measurement scale to 

identify the development level is 1) We have not started this yet. 2) 

We have made some progress but still have a long way to go; 3) We 

have achieved a lot but still have a lot to do. 4) We have nearly 

achieved this but still have some work to do; 5) We have fully 

achieved this. The study aims to answer four research questions: 

What are the dimensions? What are the main dimensions? What are 

the milestones and relationships between them? What are the best 

ways to achieve WCCI? 



 27 

Citation CIMM Name Visualisation Description 

(Singh et 

al., 2008) 

Roadmap for 

Enduring CI 

Success 

(RECIS) 

 

The RECIS results from the evolution of two reports and a study to 

ensure the success of CI activities in an organisation. The Self-

Diagnostic Framework (SDF) (Singh & Beurgschens, 2006) provides 

value by describing the current stage of your program’s development 

per attribute (dimension). The column with the most checks is where 

the organisation is in terms of CI development level (stage). This 

tool is a starting point to begin the analysis of the CI capabilities of 

an organisation by determining at which level it is and defining how 

it can be improved. The survey and white paper from Fuld & Singh 

(2007) explored the critical success factors of CI Programs (CIPs) 

across the globe. Using the exact eleven dimensions and “ our 

Intelligence  tages” from the    , it developed a more scientific 

and more profound assessment of the state of the CI discipline. A 

roadmap emerged from the two-year study where 141 worldwide 

companies examined and assessed their intelligence efforts (Fuld & 

Singh, 2007). Capability attributes are the key building blocks to 

developing a fully operational intelligence and competent CI 

function capability. The phases of development are the milestones 

for developing your function. The aim is to accelerate CI 

improvement as an individual, a team, or a function.  

NOTE: This study was based on a self-assessment test submitted via 

a web survey. Fuld & Company did not interview or audit each 

respondent after submitting the survey. 

 

(Heppes 

& Du 

Toit, 

2009) 

CI Function 

Maturity Level 

(CIFML) 

 

Heppes identified the typical evolution of a world-class CI capability 

typically as spanning three significant stages; 1) Early-stage 

(providing facts and creating CI awareness | less than 1,5 years of 

operation); 2) Mid-level capability (identifying trends and 

implications from gathered data, within an emerging partnership 

with CI users | operational between 1,5 - 3 years); 3) World-class (CI 

regarded as a key component of company strategy | more than three 

operating years). These stages evolve across seven dimensions: 1) CI 

Function (CIF) deliverables and capabilities; 2) analytical products; 

3) Relationship with management; 4) staffing of CI function; 5) CI 

skills; 6) sources of information. The overall aim is to establish the 

level of maturity of the CI function. This study focused on 

identifying the maturity level of CI for a South African retail bank. 

(J. P. 

Herring 

& 

Leavitt, 

2011) 

World-Class CI 

Program Roadmap 

(WCCIPR) 

 

The roadmap shows where the CI Program (CIP) is now, the vision 

of where the organisation wants it to be, and the steps needed to get 

there. The roadmap organises a CIP in three-time stages: 1) 

developmental (first 1-2 years), 2) professionalisation (3-5 years), 

and 3) optimisation (6+ years). The Developmental Stage is critical 

to building a world-class professional program (WCCIP) from the 

onset. All dimensions must be identified and put in place over the 

first two years to develop a strong foundation. The 

Professionalisation Stage requires formidable effort to enhance the 

collection and analysis methods while advancing intelligence 

policies and procedures requires experienced intelligence expertise. 

Once these essential functions and processes are established, the next 

set of tasks is to professionalise those operations and the individuals 

who produce and apply the intelligence. The Optimisation Stage is 

the final stage in becoming a WCCIP. The real challenge is to 

maintain the level of organisational performance for years 

afterwards. The SCIP-IRI study found that the average age of world-

class programs was about eight years. The vertical axis contains the 

four functional dimensions that form the core of all CI programs: 1) 

users and uses; 2) people and their professional development; 3) 

sources and methods; 4) the policies, processes, and procedures that 

bring the program altogether and ensure it runs smoothly. Following 

is a descriptive discussion of the twelve boxes on the Herring-Leavitt 

World-Class CI Program Roadmap. The choice of a roadmap 

framework for the WCCI model shows the evolution of the world-

class process over time and, most significantly, promotes 

organisational learning. 

                         

                 

                       
        

                           

               

                   

                             

                  

                                                         

                  

                                                               

                                                      

            

                                                          

                   
                      

                             

                               

                                 

                             

                                      

                                                    

                                          

                  

          

                            

                                      

                         

                                       

                                   

                           

          

                                  

                                     

                                               

                                                                                

         

                                                                                                                                 

                    

        
                                                   

             

              

                   

              

            

                    

         

    

                                                

                               

                             

                                    

                                      

                                                        

                                                  

            

                                                 

                                             

               

                                                      

        

          

            

           

                                           

         

                                

                                                 

                                                         

      

                                                        

           

                                  

                                                

            

                                                  

           

                                       

           

       

                                                          

                            

                                  

                                         

                                          

                                  

                               

                                    

                                       

                                                        

                           

                                                      

        

                                     

         

         

   

         

                                                       

                                         

                                                     

                                   

                                         

                                             

                                                        

      

                                   

                                                

          

                                                           



28 

 

Citation CIMM Name Visualisation Description 

(Hedin et 

al., 2014) 

World Class MI 

Roadmap 

(WCMIR) 

 

The World Class Market Intelligence Roadmap (WCMIR) 

incorporates intelligence development into an evolutionary process. 

The authors identified five levels of growth from the start to the 

world-class level and six key success factors (KSF) that move the 

program through those growth levels. The role of the CI manager is 

different for each of the five levels of the intelligence evolution 

roadmap. The same applies to all six Key Success Factors (KSF): the 

further the program advances through the various levels, the more 

sophisticated process it needs. Combining the six KSFs with the five 

stages creates a 30-box matrix. Each box describes a KSF relevant to 

each of the development steps. To grow the CI function, 

organisations need to implement the appropriate measures. 

Reviewing the development roadmap, one can identify the present 

status and what is necessary to move CI up a level. The roadmap can 

also help determine the CI function’s future objectives.  ver time, 

most CI functions should reach the intermediate level, where the 

basic intelligence processes are in place. However, several specific 

issues arise at that level and must be addressed before the 

organisation can move toward the advanced and world-class levels. 

The framework is based on research conducted during 2005- 2008 

with 700 companies, and their input has been used to verify the 

roadmap concept. In addition, many companies have empirically 

tested the concept. 

(Oubrich 

et al., 

2018) 

Competitive 

Intelligence 

Maturity Model 

(CIMM-M) 

 

The maturity model proposed is based on a comprehensive review of 

recent literature. The objectives of this study are threefold: 1) 

determine the significant purposes of a CIMM, 2) identify the CI 

dimensions and levels of maturity, and 3) evaluate Moroccan CI 

practices. The conceptual framework articulates the CI dimensions 

and three maturity levels. The six CI dimensions are CI Culture; CI 

deliverables; CI sourcing; CI cycle; CI investment in resources; CI 

users; and CI application). Implementing these dimensions 

determines the position across three levels: early, mid, and world-

class. The model was tested through an empirical study conducted in 

the Moroccan context. The results show that most Moroccan 

companies are in the early stage of CI, using environment scanning 

in a not-so-intense competitive environment allowing for the absence 

of a CI structure. However, most of these Moroccan companies are 

not able to cope with changes in the business environment as CI 

systems and processes are implemented on an irregular basis. 

(M-Brain 

et al., 

2019) 

M-Brain - World-

Class Intelligence 

Framework 

(WCIF) 
 

M-Brain´s Intelligence Framework (M-BIF) expands the Hedin et al. 

WCMIR to help organisations achieve three benefits: better and 

faster decisions, time and cost savings, and organisational learning 

and new ideas. This is achieved by a systematic strategic market and 

competitive intelligence operation. Results are measured against and 

plotted on the matrix of nine Key Success Factors of an intelligence 

organisation (KSF) against five increasing levels of CI 

professionalism. The M-BIF framework distinguishes five maturity 

levels from Level 1 - beginners or “firefighters” - to the most 

advanced  evel 5, the “futurists” and  orld Class intelligence 

organisations. The supporting survey gives the international CI 

community a good picture of the global average and world-class 

intelligence functions. In addition, the results offer in-depth 

information about the size of intelligence teams, their place within 

the organisation, available budget, number of stakeholders and 

contributors to intelligence (for co-creation) and much more. In 

concrete terms, the survey results are used by many companies to 

benchmark, set aspirational goals and develop roadmaps with 

implementation plans. 

(Alvares 

et al., 

2020) 

Organisational 

Intelligence 

Maturity Model 

(OIMM) 

 

The Organisational Intelligence Maturity Model (OIMM) presents 

the condition of dependence between information management (IM), 

knowledge management (KM), and CI to demonstrate that IM and 

KM are associated with the CI maturity level. The results from 

exploratory qualitative research based on a literature review show 

that IM is the foundation for KM, which, in its turn, supports and 

enables CI. This confirms that the maturity level as a series of one-

dimensional linear stages is also applicable to the organisational 

intelligence expanded model. The result is a matrix of 2 categories 

and 17 dimensions across the three stages (IM, KM, and CI) and six 



 29 

Citation CIMM Name Visualisation Description 

levels (Non-Managed/Individual, Structuring/Group, 

Formative/Integration, Effective/Creation, Analytical/Network, and 

Proactive/Full). The study aims to explain business development 

relative to the progression from IM to KM and CI maturity levels to 

understand, implement, improve, benchmark or self-assess IM, KM, 

or CI models.