All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CAT Exam  >  CAT Questions  >  Directions: The passage below is followed by ... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.
Competitive intelligence, or CI for short, is all about collating information about your competitors, analyzing it and using the results to formulate plans and strategies to gain the competitive edge in the marketplace. Sadly, many people confuse this with spying or other cloak and dagger activities. Nothing could be further from the truth. Competitive intelligence uses legal and ethical methods in obtaining the information - anything else is not acceptable. Data must come from the public domain but this is not limited to published articles alone, indeed much information can come from interviewing people with experience or knowledge of the target companies. What is not acceptable is bugging, overhearing conversations behind closed doors or even attempting to gain trade secrets. Coca-Cola's secret formula for example is a trade secret and no faithful CI practitioner would over attempt to discover it, but then Pepsi does not need to know what the formula is in order to compete effectively. CI practitioners abide by a strict code of ethics and these are far tighter than any legal constraints. If a method sounds in the least bit shady it's not one that they would adopt.
So where does the information come from? Information becomes available for a large number of reasons: financial information due to legal obligations and (in the case of public limited companies) duty to shareholders; product information to promote the company etc. This data emerges in from the annual reports, marketing material, applications for patents the list goes on. You must first have an understanding of why information becomes available, then think about where it might be obtained and then you can begin to work out how to obtain it. It's important to realize that information is very rarely held by only a few people. Normally the same information will be shared across a great number of sources and/or people. This is called the "information chain", and understanding it and following it is vital to the CI process. For example competitor prices are not only known by the company doing the selling but by the customers that have bought the product or service, so instead of trying to get the information from the competitor, try to get it from those that the competitor has already given it to! The information chain can be quite complex. Usually, actually obtaining the information is easy, it is thinking about where to get it from that is the difficult part. This can involve deep discussions in house and lateral thinking is a prized asset to have in this industry.
Often the person who holds the information seems quite far removed from the heart of the matter - a company security guard for example. It is such people who not only have the knowledge, but they don't know how valuable it is and therefore don't mind divulging it. Interviewing to obtain information is a skill in itself, being too keen makes an interviewee very defensive and careful about their answers. One approach is to treat the most important question as the least significant; a question that it seems you wouldn't be bothered if it weren't answered. Long pauses also yield fantastic results as people don't like silence and will fill in the gap, though this requires much self-constraint.
Not all information comes from first party (or primary) sources, Indeed, not only is it sometimes quicker and easier to obtain from published (or secondary) sources where possible but it is also essential to conduct such searches before attempting to interview for further information. Company reports hold huge amounts of financial information about a company and they are available to anyone, for a small fee. But this is raw data and the accountants who drew them up usually hide sensitive information very well. A good CI practitioner is able to dissect these accounts, sorting through all the available data to produce some valuable analysed results. The rule of thumb is to start at the back and work to the front since much of the interesting data is in the "œnotes" section. 
Results don't always present themselves as a single definitive answer that is available from one or more sources (but always the same answer). Rather like a jigsaw puzzle, pieces must be gathered together, inspected to see where they each fit, until finally the bigger picture is revealed.
Competitive intelligence is at its best when the results are used proactively. For example before committing large amounts of capital to a new development or research project, companies engage CI professionals. Being told that they will be beaten to market since the competitors are much further down the line, can save companies small fortunes and divert efforts to areas where they will be first to market. 
In conclusion there is not much information on a competitor that can't be obtained or calculated. Companies seem quite happy to spend many thousands of pounds "œpoaching" people from their competitors to gain information (which in itself can raise legal issues). They are then committed to employing that person in future years thereby increasing the expense year on year after the initial value of the information gained has worn off. Companies seem unaware that for a fraction of the price they could have had the same information supplied using methods that are both legal and ethical competitive intelligence.
Q. Which of the following is not an ethical part of the CI gathering process?
  • a)
    Extracting unpublished data about the other company.
  • b)
    Obtaining the trade secrets of the other company.
  • c)
    Interviewing employees of the other company.
  • d)
    Using advanced techniques to uncover sensitive data hidden in company reports.
  • e)
    All of these are ethical
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Competitive intelligence, or CI for short, is all about collating information about your competitors, analyzing it and using the results to formulate plans and strategies to gain the competitive edge in the marketplace. Sadly, many people confuse this with spying or other cloak and dagger activities. Nothing could be further from the truth. Competitive intelligence uses legal and ethical methods in obtaining the information - anything else is not acceptable. Data must come from the public domain but this is not limited to published articles alone, indeed much information can come from interviewing people with experience or knowledge of the target companies. What is not acceptable is bugging, overhearing conversations behind closed doors or even attempting to gain trade secrets. Coca-Colas secret formula for example is a trade secret and no faithful CI practitioner would over attempt to discover it, but then Pepsi does not need to know what the formula is in order to compete effectively. CI practitioners abide by a strict code of ethics and these are far tighter than any legal constraints. If a method sounds in the least bit shady its not one that they would adopt.So where does the information come from? Information becomes available for a large number of reasons: financial information due to legal obligations and (in the case of public limited companies) duty to shareholders; product information to promote the company etc. This data emerges in from the annual reports, marketing material, applications for patents the list goes on. You must first have an understanding of why information becomes available, then think about where it might be obtained and then you can begin to work out how to obtain it. Its important to realize that information is very rarely held by only a few people. Normally the same information will be shared across a great number of sources and/or people. This is called the "information chain", and understanding it and following it is vital to the CI process. For example competitor prices are not only known by the company doing the selling but by the customers that have bought the product or service, so instead of trying to get the information from the competitor, try to get it from those that the competitor has already given it to! The information chain can be quite complex. Usually, actually obtaining the information is easy, it is thinking about where to get it from that is the difficult part. This can involve deep discussions in house and lateral thinking is a prized asset to have in this industry.Often the person who holds the information seems quite far removed from the heart of the matter - a company security guard for example. It is such people who not only have the knowledge, but they dont know how valuable it is and therefore dont mind divulging it. Interviewing to obtain information is a skill in itself, being too keen makes an interviewee very defensive and careful about their answers. One approach is to treat the most important question as the least significant; a question that it seems you wouldnt be bothered if it werent answered. Long pauses also yield fantastic results as people dont like silence and will fill in the gap, though this requires much self-constraint.Not all information comes from first party (or primary) sources, Indeed, not only is it sometimes quicker and easier to obtain from published (or secondary) sources where possible but it is also essential to conduct such searches before attempting to interview for further information. Company reports hold huge amounts of financial information about a company and they are available to anyone, for a small fee. But this is raw data and the accountants who drew them up usually hide sensitive information very well. A good CI practitioner is able to dissect these accounts, sorting through all the available data to produce some valuable analysed results. The rule of thumb is to start at the back and work to the front since much of the interesting data is in the "œnotes" section.Results dont always present themselves as a single definitive answer that is available from one or more sources (but always the same answer). Rather like a jigsaw puzzle, pieces must be gathered together, inspected to see where they each fit, until finally the bigger picture is revealed.Competitive intelligence is at its best when the results are used proactively. For example before committing large amounts of capital to a new development or research project, companies engage CI professionals. Being told that they will be beaten to market since the competitors are much further down the line, can save companies small fortunes and divert efforts to areas where they will be first to market.In conclusion there is not much information on a competitor that cant be obtained or calculated. Companies seem quite happy to spend many thousands of pounds "œpoaching" people from their competitors to gain information (which in itself can raise legal issues). They are then committed to employing that person in future years thereby increasing the expense year on year after the initial value of the information gained has worn off. Companies seem unaware that for a fraction of the price they could have had the same information supplied using methods that are both legal and ethical competitive intelligence.Q.Which of the following are prerequisites for a career in CI gathering?

Answer the question based on the passage given below.People with higher intelligence test scores in childhood and early adulthood tend to live longer. This result has been found among people from Australia, Denmark, England and Wales, Scotland, Sweden, and the United States. In fact, it has been found within every population that has been studied. Indeed, the impact of intelligence on mortality rivals well-known risk factors for illness and death, such as high blood pressure, being overweight, high blood glucose, and high cholesterol. Its effect is almost as important as that of smoking. Differences in human intelligence have environmental and genetic causes. An intelligence test score in early life ispartly a record of what the environment has wrought on the brain and the rest of the body up to that time. Babies who have lower birth weights, for example, are more prone to chronic illnesses later in life. They also have, on average, slightly lower intelligence. But tests of whether birth weight might explain some of the link between intelligence and mortality have found no connection. Parents occupations are also related to their childs intelligence and later risk of illness: children from more privileged backgrounds tend to have higher intelligence and better health, and to live longer. However, there is no convincing evidence that parental background explains the link between higher intelligence and longer life. Other researchers have viewed intelligence test scores as possibly more than just an indicator of an efficient brain. After all, the brain is just one organ of the body, so people whose brains work well in early life may also have other organs and systems that are more efficient than others. But this system integrity idea is somewhat vague and difficult to test. The best we have done to date has been to examine whether peoples reaction speeds are related to intelligence and to mortality. They are. Reaction-time tests involve little thinking, and merely ask people to respond as fast as they can to simple stimuli. People who react faster have, on average, higher intelligence scores and live longer. But we need to think of better measures of the bodys integrity to test this idea more fully.A third potential explanation is that intelligence is about good decision-making. Every day, as we live our lives, we make decisions about our health: what, when, and how much to eat; how much exercise to take; how to look after ourselves if we have an illness; and so forth. Therefore, the reason that intelligence and death are linked might be that people with higher intelligence in childhood make better decisions about health, and have healthier behaviors. As adults, they tend to have better diets, exercise more, gain less weight, have fewer hangovers, and so on. So far, so good. But we do not yet have the full story. There have not been any studies with data on childhood intelligence, lots of subsequent data on adult health behaviors, and then a long-term follow-up for deaths. And only such a study could tell us whether it is these healthy behaviors that explain the link between intelligence and death. A fourth type of explanation is that people with higher intelligence in childhood tend to attain better educational qualifications, work in more professional jobs, have higher incomes, and live in more affluent areas. These variables are related to living longer, too. So, perhaps thats it: higher intelligence buys people into safer and more health-friendly environments. Certainly, in some studies, social class in adulthood seems to explain a lot of the link between intelligence and death. The problem is that this explanation is statistical. We are still not sure whether, say, education and occupation explain the effect of intelligence on health, or whether they are, in effect, merely surrogate measures of intelligence. Researchers have also searched for clues about the intelligence- mortality link in specific types of death. This has been revealing. Lower intelligence in early life is associated with a greater likelihood of dying from, for example, cardiovascular disease, accidents, suicide, and homicide. The evidence for cancer is less certain. As we have come across these specific findings, we have realized that each link might need a different explanation.Finally, we know that how intelligent we are and how long we shall live are caused by both environmental and genetic influences. There are experimental designs, using twins, that can find out the extent to which intelligence and mortality are linked because they share environmental and genetic influences. Among the most informative exercises we can undertake in cognitive epidemiology is to obtain a large group of twins on whom there is data on early-life intelligence and who were tracked for a long time to find out who had died. We havent yetcome across a large enough group of twins with such data. Finding one is a priority. The ultimate aim of this research is to find out what intelligent people have and do that enables them to live longer. Once we know that, we will be able to share and apply that knowledge with the aim of achieving optimal health for all.Q.Which of the following would the author agree with?

Answer the question based on the passage given below.People with higher intelligence test scores in childhood and early adulthood tend to live longer. This result has been found among people from Australia, Denmark, England and Wales, Scotland, Sweden, and the United States. In fact, it has been found within every population that has been studied. Indeed, the impact of intelligence on mortality rivals well-known risk factors for illness and death, such as high blood pressure, being overweight, high blood glucose, and high cholesterol. Its effect is almost as important as that of smoking. Differences in human intelligence have environmental and genetic causes. An intelligence test score in early life ispartly a record of what the environment has wrought on the brain and the rest of the body up to that time. Babies who have lower birth weights, for example, are more prone to chronic illnesses later in life. They also have, on average, slightly lower intelligence. But tests of whether birth weight might explain some of the link between intelligence and mortality have found no connection. Parents occupations are also related to their childs intelligence and later risk of illness: children from more privileged backgrounds tend to have higher intelligence and better health, and to live longer. However, there is no convincing evidence that parental background explains the link between higher intelligence and longer life. Other researchers have viewed intelligence test scores as possibly more than just an indicator of an efficient brain. After all, the brain is just one organ of the body, so people whose brains work well in early life may also have other organs and systems that are more efficient than others. But this system integrity idea is somewhat vague and difficult to test. The best we have done to date has been to examine whether peoples reaction speeds are related to intelligence and to mortality. They are. Reaction-time tests involve little thinking, and merely ask people to respond as fast as they can to simple stimuli. People who react faster have, on average, higher intelligence scores and live longer. But we need to think of better measures of the bodys integrity to test this idea more fully.A third potential explanation is that intelligence is about good decision-making. Every day, as we live our lives, we make decisions about our health: what, when, and how much to eat; how much exercise to take; how to look after ourselves if we have an illness; and so forth. Therefore, the reason that intelligence and death are linked might be that people with higher intelligence in childhood make better decisions about health, and have healthier behaviors. As adults, they tend to have better diets, exercise more, gain less weight, have fewer hangovers, and so on. So far, so good. But we do not yet have the full story. There have not been any studies with data on childhood intelligence, lots of subsequent data on adult health behaviors, and then a long-term follow-up for deaths. And only such a study could tell us whether it is these healthy behaviors that explain the link between intelligence and death. A fourth type of explanation is that people with higher intelligence in childhood tend to attain better educational qualifications, work in more professional jobs, have higher incomes, and live in more affluent areas. These variables are related to living longer, too. So, perhaps thats it: higher intelligence buys people into safer and more health-friendly environments. Certainly, in some studies, social class in adulthood seems to explain a lot of the link between intelligence and death. The problem is that this explanation is statistical. We are still not sure whether, say, education and occupation explain the effect of intelligence on health, or whether they are, in effect, merely surrogate measures of intelligence. Researchers have also searched for clues about the intelligence- mortality link in specific types of death. This has been revealing. Lower intelligence in early life is associated with a greater likelihood of dying from, for example, cardiovascular disease, accidents, suicide, and homicide. The evidence for cancer is less certain. As we have come across these specific findings, we have realized that each link might need a different explanation.Finally, we know that how intelligent we are and how long we shall live are caused by both environmental and genetic influences. There are experimental designs, using twins, that can find out the extent to which intelligence and mortality are linked because they share environmental and genetic influences. Among the most informative exercises we can undertake in cognitive epidemiology is to obtain a large group of twins on whom there is data on early-life intelligence and who were tracked for a long time to find out who had died. We havent yetcome across a large enough group of twins with such data. Finding one is a priority. The ultimate aim of this research is to find out what intelligent people have and do that enables them to live longer. Once we know that, we will be able to share and apply that knowledge with the aim of achieving optimal health for all.Q.Which of the following, if true, would conclusively undermine the authors stand and recommendations for future research?

Answer the question based on the passage given below.People with higher intelligence test scores in childhood and early adulthood tend to live longer. This result has been found among people from Australia, Denmark, England and Wales, Scotland, Sweden, and the United States. In fact, it has been found within every population that has been studied. Indeed, the impact of intelligence on mortality rivals well-known risk factors for illness and death, such as high blood pressure, being overweight, high blood glucose, and high cholesterol. Its effect is almost as important as that of smoking. Differences in human intelligence have environmental and genetic causes. An intelligence test score in early life ispartly a record of what the environment has wrought on the brain and the rest of the body up to that time. Babies who have lower birth weights, for example, are more prone to chronic illnesses later in life. They also have, on average, slightly lower intelligence. But tests of whether birth weight might explain some of the link between intelligence and mortality have found no connection. Parents occupations are also related to their childs intelligence and later risk of illness: children from more privileged backgrounds tend to have higher intelligence and better health, and to live longer. However, there is no convincing evidence that parental background explains the link between higher intelligence and longer life. Other researchers have viewed intelligence test scores as possibly more than just an indicator of an efficient brain. After all, the brain is just one organ of the body, so people whose brains work well in early life may also have other organs and systems that are more efficient than others. But this system integrity idea is somewhat vague and difficult to test. The best we have done to date has been to examine whether peoples reaction speeds are related to intelligence and to mortality. They are. Reaction-time tests involve little thinking, and merely ask people to respond as fast as they can to simple stimuli. People who react faster have, on average, higher intelligence scores and live longer. But we need to think of better measures of the bodys integrity to test this idea more fully.A third potential explanation is that intelligence is about good decision-making. Every day, as we live our lives, we make decisions about our health: what, when, and how much to eat; how much exercise to take; how to look after ourselves if we have an illness; and so forth. Therefore, the reason that intelligence and death are linked might be that people with higher intelligence in childhood make better decisions about health, and have healthier behaviors. As adults, they tend to have better diets, exercise more, gain less weight, have fewer hangovers, and so on. So far, so good. But we do not yet have the full story. There have not been any studies with data on childhood intelligence, lots of subsequent data on adult health behaviors, and then a long-term follow-up for deaths. And only such a study could tell us whether it is these healthy behaviors that explain the link between intelligence and death. A fourth type of explanation is that people with higher intelligence in childhood tend to attain better educational qualifications, work in more professional jobs, have higher incomes, and live in more affluent areas. These variables are related to living longer, too. So, perhaps thats it: higher intelligence buys people into safer and more health-friendly environments. Certainly, in some studies, social class in adulthood seems to explain a lot of the link between intelligence and death. The problem is that this explanation is statistical. We are still not sure whether, say, education and occupation explain the effect of intelligence on health, or whether they are, in effect, merely surrogate measures of intelligence. Researchers have also searched for clues about the intelligence- mortality link in specific types of death. This has been revealing. Lower intelligence in early life is associated with a greater likelihood of dying from, for example, cardiovascular disease, accidents, suicide, and homicide. The evidence for cancer is less certain. As we have come across these specific findings, we have realized that each link might need a different explanation.Finally, we know that how intelligent we are and how long we shall live are caused by both environmental and genetic influences. There are experimental designs, using twins, that can find out the extent to which intelligence and mortality are linked because they share environmental and genetic influences. Among the most informative exercises we can undertake in cognitive epidemiology is to obtain a large group of twins on whom there is data on early-life intelligence and who were tracked for a long time to find out who had died. We havent yetcome across a large enough group of twins with such data. Finding one is a priority. The ultimate aim of this research is to find out what intelligent people have and do that enables them to live longer. Once we know that, we will be able to share and apply that knowledge with the aim of achieving optimal health for all.Q.Which of the following is correct according to the passage?

Answer the question based on the passage given below.People with higher intelligence test scores in childhood and early adulthood tend to live longer. This result has been found among people from Australia, Denmark, England and Wales, Scotland, Sweden, and the United States. In fact, it has been found within every population that has been studied. Indeed, the impact of intelligence on mortality rivals well-known risk factors for illness and death, such as high blood pressure, being overweight, high blood glucose, and high cholesterol. Its effect is almost as important as that of smoking. Differences in human intelligence have environmental and genetic causes. An intelligence test score in early life ispartly a record of what the environment has wrought on the brain and the rest of the body up to that time. Babies who have lower birth weights, for example, are more prone to chronic illnesses later in life. They also have, on average, slightly lower intelligence. But tests of whether birth weight might explain some of the link between intelligence and mortality have found no connection. Parents occupations are also related to their childs intelligence and later risk of illness: children from more privileged backgrounds tend to have higher intelligence and better health, and to live longer. However, there is no convincing evidence that parental background explains the link between higher intelligence and longer life. Other researchers have viewed intelligence test scores as possibly more than just an indicator of an efficient brain. After all, the brain is just one organ of the body, so people whose brains work well in early life may also have other organs and systems that are more efficient than others. But this system integrity idea is somewhat vague and difficult to test. The best we have done to date has been to examine whether peoples reaction speeds are related to intelligence and to mortality. They are. Reaction-time tests involve little thinking, and merely ask people to respond as fast as they can to simple stimuli. People who react faster have, on average, higher intelligence scores and live longer. But we need to think of better measures of the bodys integrity to test this idea more fully.A third potential explanation is that intelligence is about good decision-making. Every day, as we live our lives, we make decisions about our health: what, when, and how much to eat; how much exercise to take; how to look after ourselves if we have an illness; and so forth. Therefore, the reason that intelligence and death are linked might be that people with higher intelligence in childhood make better decisions about health, and have healthier behaviors. As adults, they tend to have better diets, exercise more, gain less weight, have fewer hangovers, and so on. So far, so good. But we do not yet have the full story. There have not been any studies with data on childhood intelligence, lots of subsequent data on adult health behaviors, and then a long-term follow-up for deaths. And only such a study could tell us whether it is these healthy behaviors that explain the link between intelligence and death. A fourth type of explanation is that people with higher intelligence in childhood tend to attain better educational qualifications, work in more professional jobs, have higher incomes, and live in more affluent areas. These variables are related to living longer, too. So, perhaps thats it: higher intelligence buys people into safer and more health-friendly environments. Certainly, in some studies, social class in adulthood seems to explain a lot of the link between intelligence and death. The problem is that this explanation is statistical. We are still not sure whether, say, education and occupation explain the effect of intelligence on health, or whether they are, in effect, merely surrogate measures of intelligence. Researchers have also searched for clues about the intelligence- mortality link in specific types of death. This has been revealing. Lower intelligence in early life is associated with a greater likelihood of dying from, for example, cardiovascular disease, accidents, suicide, and homicide. The evidence for cancer is less certain. As we have come across these specific findings, we have realized that each link might need a different explanation.Finally, we know that how intelligent we are and how long we shall live are caused by both environmental and genetic influences. There are experimental designs, using twins, that can find out the extent to which intelligence and mortality are linked because they share environmental and genetic influences. Among the most informative exercises we can undertake in cognitive epidemiology is to obtain a large group of twins on whom there is data on early-life intelligence and who were tracked for a long time to find out who had died. We havent yetcome across a large enough group of twins with such data. Finding one is a priority. The ultimate aim of this research is to find out what intelligent people have and do that enables them to live longer. Once we know that, we will be able to share and apply that knowledge with the aim of achieving optimal health for all.Q.Why does the author mention the need for further studies involving twins?I. Twins have similar genetic and environmental factors influencing them.II.To ascertain the effects on genetic and environmental make-up.III.To establish a link between what causes intelligent people to live longer.

Top Courses for CATView all

Top Courses for CAT

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Competitive intelligence, or CI for short, is all about collating information about your competitors, analyzing it and using the results to formulate plans and strategies to gain the competitive edge in the marketplace. Sadly, many people confuse this with spying or other cloak and dagger activities. Nothing could be further from the truth. Competitive intelligence uses legal and ethical methods in obtaining the information - anything else is not acceptable. Data must come from the public domain but this is not limited to published articles alone, indeed much information can come from interviewing people with experience or knowledge of the target companies. What is not acceptable is bugging, overhearing conversations behind closed doors or even attempting to gain trade secrets. Coca-Colas secret formula for example is a trade secret and no faithful CI practitioner would over attempt to discover it, but then Pepsi does not need to know what the formula is in order to compete effectively. CI practitioners abide by a strict code of ethics and these are far tighter than any legal constraints. If a method sounds in the least bit shady its not one that they would adopt.So where does the information come from? Information becomes available for a large number of reasons: financial information due to legal obligations and (in the case of public limited companies) duty to shareholders; product information to promote the company etc. This data emerges in from the annual reports, marketing material, applications for patents the list goes on. You must first have an understanding of why information becomes available, then think about where it might be obtained and then you can begin to work out how to obtain it. Its important to realize that information is very rarely held by only a few people. Normally the same information will be shared across a great number of sources and/or people. This is called the "information chain", and understanding it and following it is vital to the CI process. For example competitor prices are not only known by the company doing the selling but by the customers that have bought the product or service, so instead of trying to get the information from the competitor, try to get it from those that the competitor has already given it to! The information chain can be quite complex. Usually, actually obtaining the information is easy, it is thinking about where to get it from that is the difficult part. This can involve deep discussions in house and lateral thinking is a prized asset to have in this industry.Often the person who holds the information seems quite far removed from the heart of the matter - a company security guard for example. It is such people who not only have the knowledge, but they dont know how valuable it is and therefore dont mind divulging it. Interviewing to obtain information is a skill in itself, being too keen makes an interviewee very defensive and careful about their answers. One approach is to treat the most important question as the least significant; a question that it seems you wouldnt be bothered if it werent answered. Long pauses also yield fantastic results as people dont like silence and will fill in the gap, though this requires much self-constraint.Not all information comes from first party (or primary) sources, Indeed, not only is it sometimes quicker and easier to obtain from published (or secondary) sources where possible but it is also essential to conduct such searches before attempting to interview for further information. Company reports hold huge amounts of financial information about a company and they are available to anyone, for a small fee. But this is raw data and the accountants who drew them up usually hide sensitive information very well. A good CI practitioner is able to dissect these accounts, sorting through all the available data to produce some valuable analysed results. The rule of thumb is to start at the back and work to the front since much of the interesting data is in the "œnotes" section.Results dont always present themselves as a single definitive answer that is available from one or more sources (but always the same answer). Rather like a jigsaw puzzle, pieces must be gathered together, inspected to see where they each fit, until finally the bigger picture is revealed.Competitive intelligence is at its best when the results are used proactively. For example before committing large amounts of capital to a new development or research project, companies engage CI professionals. Being told that they will be beaten to market since the competitors are much further down the line, can save companies small fortunes and divert efforts to areas where they will be first to market.In conclusion there is not much information on a competitor that cant be obtained or calculated. Companies seem quite happy to spend many thousands of pounds "œpoaching" people from their competitors to gain information (which in itself can raise legal issues). They are then committed to employing that person in future years thereby increasing the expense year on year after the initial value of the information gained has worn off. Companies seem unaware that for a fraction of the price they could have had the same information supplied using methods that are both legal and ethical competitive intelligence.Q. Which of the following is not an ethical part of the CI gathering process?a)Extracting unpublished data about the other company.b)Obtaining the trade secrets of the other company.c)Interviewing employees of the other company.d)Using advanced techniques to uncover sensitive data hidden in company reports.e)All of these are ethicalCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Competitive intelligence, or CI for short, is all about collating information about your competitors, analyzing it and using the results to formulate plans and strategies to gain the competitive edge in the marketplace. Sadly, many people confuse this with spying or other cloak and dagger activities. Nothing could be further from the truth. Competitive intelligence uses legal and ethical methods in obtaining the information - anything else is not acceptable. Data must come from the public domain but this is not limited to published articles alone, indeed much information can come from interviewing people with experience or knowledge of the target companies. What is not acceptable is bugging, overhearing conversations behind closed doors or even attempting to gain trade secrets. Coca-Colas secret formula for example is a trade secret and no faithful CI practitioner would over attempt to discover it, but then Pepsi does not need to know what the formula is in order to compete effectively. CI practitioners abide by a strict code of ethics and these are far tighter than any legal constraints. If a method sounds in the least bit shady its not one that they would adopt.So where does the information come from? Information becomes available for a large number of reasons: financial information due to legal obligations and (in the case of public limited companies) duty to shareholders; product information to promote the company etc. This data emerges in from the annual reports, marketing material, applications for patents the list goes on. You must first have an understanding of why information becomes available, then think about where it might be obtained and then you can begin to work out how to obtain it. Its important to realize that information is very rarely held by only a few people. Normally the same information will be shared across a great number of sources and/or people. This is called the "information chain", and understanding it and following it is vital to the CI process. For example competitor prices are not only known by the company doing the selling but by the customers that have bought the product or service, so instead of trying to get the information from the competitor, try to get it from those that the competitor has already given it to! The information chain can be quite complex. Usually, actually obtaining the information is easy, it is thinking about where to get it from that is the difficult part. This can involve deep discussions in house and lateral thinking is a prized asset to have in this industry.Often the person who holds the information seems quite far removed from the heart of the matter - a company security guard for example. It is such people who not only have the knowledge, but they dont know how valuable it is and therefore dont mind divulging it. Interviewing to obtain information is a skill in itself, being too keen makes an interviewee very defensive and careful about their answers. One approach is to treat the most important question as the least significant; a question that it seems you wouldnt be bothered if it werent answered. Long pauses also yield fantastic results as people dont like silence and will fill in the gap, though this requires much self-constraint.Not all information comes from first party (or primary) sources, Indeed, not only is it sometimes quicker and easier to obtain from published (or secondary) sources where possible but it is also essential to conduct such searches before attempting to interview for further information. Company reports hold huge amounts of financial information about a company and they are available to anyone, for a small fee. But this is raw data and the accountants who drew them up usually hide sensitive information very well. A good CI practitioner is able to dissect these accounts, sorting through all the available data to produce some valuable analysed results. The rule of thumb is to start at the back and work to the front since much of the interesting data is in the "œnotes" section.Results dont always present themselves as a single definitive answer that is available from one or more sources (but always the same answer). Rather like a jigsaw puzzle, pieces must be gathered together, inspected to see where they each fit, until finally the bigger picture is revealed.Competitive intelligence is at its best when the results are used proactively. For example before committing large amounts of capital to a new development or research project, companies engage CI professionals. Being told that they will be beaten to market since the competitors are much further down the line, can save companies small fortunes and divert efforts to areas where they will be first to market.In conclusion there is not much information on a competitor that cant be obtained or calculated. Companies seem quite happy to spend many thousands of pounds "œpoaching" people from their competitors to gain information (which in itself can raise legal issues). They are then committed to employing that person in future years thereby increasing the expense year on year after the initial value of the information gained has worn off. Companies seem unaware that for a fraction of the price they could have had the same information supplied using methods that are both legal and ethical competitive intelligence.Q. Which of the following is not an ethical part of the CI gathering process?a)Extracting unpublished data about the other company.b)Obtaining the trade secrets of the other company.c)Interviewing employees of the other company.d)Using advanced techniques to uncover sensitive data hidden in company reports.e)All of these are ethicalCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2024 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Competitive intelligence, or CI for short, is all about collating information about your competitors, analyzing it and using the results to formulate plans and strategies to gain the competitive edge in the marketplace. Sadly, many people confuse this with spying or other cloak and dagger activities. Nothing could be further from the truth. Competitive intelligence uses legal and ethical methods in obtaining the information - anything else is not acceptable. Data must come from the public domain but this is not limited to published articles alone, indeed much information can come from interviewing people with experience or knowledge of the target companies. What is not acceptable is bugging, overhearing conversations behind closed doors or even attempting to gain trade secrets. Coca-Colas secret formula for example is a trade secret and no faithful CI practitioner would over attempt to discover it, but then Pepsi does not need to know what the formula is in order to compete effectively. CI practitioners abide by a strict code of ethics and these are far tighter than any legal constraints. If a method sounds in the least bit shady its not one that they would adopt.So where does the information come from? Information becomes available for a large number of reasons: financial information due to legal obligations and (in the case of public limited companies) duty to shareholders; product information to promote the company etc. This data emerges in from the annual reports, marketing material, applications for patents the list goes on. You must first have an understanding of why information becomes available, then think about where it might be obtained and then you can begin to work out how to obtain it. Its important to realize that information is very rarely held by only a few people. Normally the same information will be shared across a great number of sources and/or people. This is called the "information chain", and understanding it and following it is vital to the CI process. For example competitor prices are not only known by the company doing the selling but by the customers that have bought the product or service, so instead of trying to get the information from the competitor, try to get it from those that the competitor has already given it to! The information chain can be quite complex. Usually, actually obtaining the information is easy, it is thinking about where to get it from that is the difficult part. This can involve deep discussions in house and lateral thinking is a prized asset to have in this industry.Often the person who holds the information seems quite far removed from the heart of the matter - a company security guard for example. It is such people who not only have the knowledge, but they dont know how valuable it is and therefore dont mind divulging it. Interviewing to obtain information is a skill in itself, being too keen makes an interviewee very defensive and careful about their answers. One approach is to treat the most important question as the least significant; a question that it seems you wouldnt be bothered if it werent answered. Long pauses also yield fantastic results as people dont like silence and will fill in the gap, though this requires much self-constraint.Not all information comes from first party (or primary) sources, Indeed, not only is it sometimes quicker and easier to obtain from published (or secondary) sources where possible but it is also essential to conduct such searches before attempting to interview for further information. Company reports hold huge amounts of financial information about a company and they are available to anyone, for a small fee. But this is raw data and the accountants who drew them up usually hide sensitive information very well. A good CI practitioner is able to dissect these accounts, sorting through all the available data to produce some valuable analysed results. The rule of thumb is to start at the back and work to the front since much of the interesting data is in the "œnotes" section.Results dont always present themselves as a single definitive answer that is available from one or more sources (but always the same answer). Rather like a jigsaw puzzle, pieces must be gathered together, inspected to see where they each fit, until finally the bigger picture is revealed.Competitive intelligence is at its best when the results are used proactively. For example before committing large amounts of capital to a new development or research project, companies engage CI professionals. Being told that they will be beaten to market since the competitors are much further down the line, can save companies small fortunes and divert efforts to areas where they will be first to market.In conclusion there is not much information on a competitor that cant be obtained or calculated. Companies seem quite happy to spend many thousands of pounds "œpoaching" people from their competitors to gain information (which in itself can raise legal issues). They are then committed to employing that person in future years thereby increasing the expense year on year after the initial value of the information gained has worn off. Companies seem unaware that for a fraction of the price they could have had the same information supplied using methods that are both legal and ethical competitive intelligence.Q. Which of the following is not an ethical part of the CI gathering process?a)Extracting unpublished data about the other company.b)Obtaining the trade secrets of the other company.c)Interviewing employees of the other company.d)Using advanced techniques to uncover sensitive data hidden in company reports.e)All of these are ethicalCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Competitive intelligence, or CI for short, is all about collating information about your competitors, analyzing it and using the results to formulate plans and strategies to gain the competitive edge in the marketplace. Sadly, many people confuse this with spying or other cloak and dagger activities. Nothing could be further from the truth. Competitive intelligence uses legal and ethical methods in obtaining the information - anything else is not acceptable. Data must come from the public domain but this is not limited to published articles alone, indeed much information can come from interviewing people with experience or knowledge of the target companies. What is not acceptable is bugging, overhearing conversations behind closed doors or even attempting to gain trade secrets. Coca-Colas secret formula for example is a trade secret and no faithful CI practitioner would over attempt to discover it, but then Pepsi does not need to know what the formula is in order to compete effectively. CI practitioners abide by a strict code of ethics and these are far tighter than any legal constraints. If a method sounds in the least bit shady its not one that they would adopt.So where does the information come from? Information becomes available for a large number of reasons: financial information due to legal obligations and (in the case of public limited companies) duty to shareholders; product information to promote the company etc. This data emerges in from the annual reports, marketing material, applications for patents the list goes on. You must first have an understanding of why information becomes available, then think about where it might be obtained and then you can begin to work out how to obtain it. Its important to realize that information is very rarely held by only a few people. Normally the same information will be shared across a great number of sources and/or people. This is called the "information chain", and understanding it and following it is vital to the CI process. For example competitor prices are not only known by the company doing the selling but by the customers that have bought the product or service, so instead of trying to get the information from the competitor, try to get it from those that the competitor has already given it to! The information chain can be quite complex. Usually, actually obtaining the information is easy, it is thinking about where to get it from that is the difficult part. This can involve deep discussions in house and lateral thinking is a prized asset to have in this industry.Often the person who holds the information seems quite far removed from the heart of the matter - a company security guard for example. It is such people who not only have the knowledge, but they dont know how valuable it is and therefore dont mind divulging it. Interviewing to obtain information is a skill in itself, being too keen makes an interviewee very defensive and careful about their answers. One approach is to treat the most important question as the least significant; a question that it seems you wouldnt be bothered if it werent answered. Long pauses also yield fantastic results as people dont like silence and will fill in the gap, though this requires much self-constraint.Not all information comes from first party (or primary) sources, Indeed, not only is it sometimes quicker and easier to obtain from published (or secondary) sources where possible but it is also essential to conduct such searches before attempting to interview for further information. Company reports hold huge amounts of financial information about a company and they are available to anyone, for a small fee. But this is raw data and the accountants who drew them up usually hide sensitive information very well. A good CI practitioner is able to dissect these accounts, sorting through all the available data to produce some valuable analysed results. The rule of thumb is to start at the back and work to the front since much of the interesting data is in the "œnotes" section.Results dont always present themselves as a single definitive answer that is available from one or more sources (but always the same answer). Rather like a jigsaw puzzle, pieces must be gathered together, inspected to see where they each fit, until finally the bigger picture is revealed.Competitive intelligence is at its best when the results are used proactively. For example before committing large amounts of capital to a new development or research project, companies engage CI professionals. Being told that they will be beaten to market since the competitors are much further down the line, can save companies small fortunes and divert efforts to areas where they will be first to market.In conclusion there is not much information on a competitor that cant be obtained or calculated. Companies seem quite happy to spend many thousands of pounds "œpoaching" people from their competitors to gain information (which in itself can raise legal issues). They are then committed to employing that person in future years thereby increasing the expense year on year after the initial value of the information gained has worn off. Companies seem unaware that for a fraction of the price they could have had the same information supplied using methods that are both legal and ethical competitive intelligence.Q. Which of the following is not an ethical part of the CI gathering process?a)Extracting unpublished data about the other company.b)Obtaining the trade secrets of the other company.c)Interviewing employees of the other company.d)Using advanced techniques to uncover sensitive data hidden in company reports.e)All of these are ethicalCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Competitive intelligence, or CI for short, is all about collating information about your competitors, analyzing it and using the results to formulate plans and strategies to gain the competitive edge in the marketplace. Sadly, many people confuse this with spying or other cloak and dagger activities. Nothing could be further from the truth. Competitive intelligence uses legal and ethical methods in obtaining the information - anything else is not acceptable. Data must come from the public domain but this is not limited to published articles alone, indeed much information can come from interviewing people with experience or knowledge of the target companies. What is not acceptable is bugging, overhearing conversations behind closed doors or even attempting to gain trade secrets. Coca-Colas secret formula for example is a trade secret and no faithful CI practitioner would over attempt to discover it, but then Pepsi does not need to know what the formula is in order to compete effectively. CI practitioners abide by a strict code of ethics and these are far tighter than any legal constraints. If a method sounds in the least bit shady its not one that they would adopt.So where does the information come from? Information becomes available for a large number of reasons: financial information due to legal obligations and (in the case of public limited companies) duty to shareholders; product information to promote the company etc. This data emerges in from the annual reports, marketing material, applications for patents the list goes on. You must first have an understanding of why information becomes available, then think about where it might be obtained and then you can begin to work out how to obtain it. Its important to realize that information is very rarely held by only a few people. Normally the same information will be shared across a great number of sources and/or people. This is called the "information chain", and understanding it and following it is vital to the CI process. For example competitor prices are not only known by the company doing the selling but by the customers that have bought the product or service, so instead of trying to get the information from the competitor, try to get it from those that the competitor has already given it to! The information chain can be quite complex. Usually, actually obtaining the information is easy, it is thinking about where to get it from that is the difficult part. This can involve deep discussions in house and lateral thinking is a prized asset to have in this industry.Often the person who holds the information seems quite far removed from the heart of the matter - a company security guard for example. It is such people who not only have the knowledge, but they dont know how valuable it is and therefore dont mind divulging it. Interviewing to obtain information is a skill in itself, being too keen makes an interviewee very defensive and careful about their answers. One approach is to treat the most important question as the least significant; a question that it seems you wouldnt be bothered if it werent answered. Long pauses also yield fantastic results as people dont like silence and will fill in the gap, though this requires much self-constraint.Not all information comes from first party (or primary) sources, Indeed, not only is it sometimes quicker and easier to obtain from published (or secondary) sources where possible but it is also essential to conduct such searches before attempting to interview for further information. Company reports hold huge amounts of financial information about a company and they are available to anyone, for a small fee. But this is raw data and the accountants who drew them up usually hide sensitive information very well. A good CI practitioner is able to dissect these accounts, sorting through all the available data to produce some valuable analysed results. The rule of thumb is to start at the back and work to the front since much of the interesting data is in the "œnotes" section.Results dont always present themselves as a single definitive answer that is available from one or more sources (but always the same answer). Rather like a jigsaw puzzle, pieces must be gathered together, inspected to see where they each fit, until finally the bigger picture is revealed.Competitive intelligence is at its best when the results are used proactively. For example before committing large amounts of capital to a new development or research project, companies engage CI professionals. Being told that they will be beaten to market since the competitors are much further down the line, can save companies small fortunes and divert efforts to areas where they will be first to market.In conclusion there is not much information on a competitor that cant be obtained or calculated. Companies seem quite happy to spend many thousands of pounds "œpoaching" people from their competitors to gain information (which in itself can raise legal issues). They are then committed to employing that person in future years thereby increasing the expense year on year after the initial value of the information gained has worn off. Companies seem unaware that for a fraction of the price they could have had the same information supplied using methods that are both legal and ethical competitive intelligence.Q. Which of the following is not an ethical part of the CI gathering process?a)Extracting unpublished data about the other company.b)Obtaining the trade secrets of the other company.c)Interviewing employees of the other company.d)Using advanced techniques to uncover sensitive data hidden in company reports.e)All of these are ethicalCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Competitive intelligence, or CI for short, is all about collating information about your competitors, analyzing it and using the results to formulate plans and strategies to gain the competitive edge in the marketplace. Sadly, many people confuse this with spying or other cloak and dagger activities. Nothing could be further from the truth. Competitive intelligence uses legal and ethical methods in obtaining the information - anything else is not acceptable. Data must come from the public domain but this is not limited to published articles alone, indeed much information can come from interviewing people with experience or knowledge of the target companies. What is not acceptable is bugging, overhearing conversations behind closed doors or even attempting to gain trade secrets. Coca-Colas secret formula for example is a trade secret and no faithful CI practitioner would over attempt to discover it, but then Pepsi does not need to know what the formula is in order to compete effectively. CI practitioners abide by a strict code of ethics and these are far tighter than any legal constraints. If a method sounds in the least bit shady its not one that they would adopt.So where does the information come from? Information becomes available for a large number of reasons: financial information due to legal obligations and (in the case of public limited companies) duty to shareholders; product information to promote the company etc. This data emerges in from the annual reports, marketing material, applications for patents the list goes on. You must first have an understanding of why information becomes available, then think about where it might be obtained and then you can begin to work out how to obtain it. Its important to realize that information is very rarely held by only a few people. Normally the same information will be shared across a great number of sources and/or people. This is called the "information chain", and understanding it and following it is vital to the CI process. For example competitor prices are not only known by the company doing the selling but by the customers that have bought the product or service, so instead of trying to get the information from the competitor, try to get it from those that the competitor has already given it to! The information chain can be quite complex. Usually, actually obtaining the information is easy, it is thinking about where to get it from that is the difficult part. This can involve deep discussions in house and lateral thinking is a prized asset to have in this industry.Often the person who holds the information seems quite far removed from the heart of the matter - a company security guard for example. It is such people who not only have the knowledge, but they dont know how valuable it is and therefore dont mind divulging it. Interviewing to obtain information is a skill in itself, being too keen makes an interviewee very defensive and careful about their answers. One approach is to treat the most important question as the least significant; a question that it seems you wouldnt be bothered if it werent answered. Long pauses also yield fantastic results as people dont like silence and will fill in the gap, though this requires much self-constraint.Not all information comes from first party (or primary) sources, Indeed, not only is it sometimes quicker and easier to obtain from published (or secondary) sources where possible but it is also essential to conduct such searches before attempting to interview for further information. Company reports hold huge amounts of financial information about a company and they are available to anyone, for a small fee. But this is raw data and the accountants who drew them up usually hide sensitive information very well. A good CI practitioner is able to dissect these accounts, sorting through all the available data to produce some valuable analysed results. The rule of thumb is to start at the back and work to the front since much of the interesting data is in the "œnotes" section.Results dont always present themselves as a single definitive answer that is available from one or more sources (but always the same answer). Rather like a jigsaw puzzle, pieces must be gathered together, inspected to see where they each fit, until finally the bigger picture is revealed.Competitive intelligence is at its best when the results are used proactively. For example before committing large amounts of capital to a new development or research project, companies engage CI professionals. Being told that they will be beaten to market since the competitors are much further down the line, can save companies small fortunes and divert efforts to areas where they will be first to market.In conclusion there is not much information on a competitor that cant be obtained or calculated. Companies seem quite happy to spend many thousands of pounds "œpoaching" people from their competitors to gain information (which in itself can raise legal issues). They are then committed to employing that person in future years thereby increasing the expense year on year after the initial value of the information gained has worn off. Companies seem unaware that for a fraction of the price they could have had the same information supplied using methods that are both legal and ethical competitive intelligence.Q. Which of the following is not an ethical part of the CI gathering process?a)Extracting unpublished data about the other company.b)Obtaining the trade secrets of the other company.c)Interviewing employees of the other company.d)Using advanced techniques to uncover sensitive data hidden in company reports.e)All of these are ethicalCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Competitive intelligence, or CI for short, is all about collating information about your competitors, analyzing it and using the results to formulate plans and strategies to gain the competitive edge in the marketplace. Sadly, many people confuse this with spying or other cloak and dagger activities. Nothing could be further from the truth. Competitive intelligence uses legal and ethical methods in obtaining the information - anything else is not acceptable. Data must come from the public domain but this is not limited to published articles alone, indeed much information can come from interviewing people with experience or knowledge of the target companies. What is not acceptable is bugging, overhearing conversations behind closed doors or even attempting to gain trade secrets. Coca-Colas secret formula for example is a trade secret and no faithful CI practitioner would over attempt to discover it, but then Pepsi does not need to know what the formula is in order to compete effectively. CI practitioners abide by a strict code of ethics and these are far tighter than any legal constraints. If a method sounds in the least bit shady its not one that they would adopt.So where does the information come from? Information becomes available for a large number of reasons: financial information due to legal obligations and (in the case of public limited companies) duty to shareholders; product information to promote the company etc. This data emerges in from the annual reports, marketing material, applications for patents the list goes on. You must first have an understanding of why information becomes available, then think about where it might be obtained and then you can begin to work out how to obtain it. Its important to realize that information is very rarely held by only a few people. Normally the same information will be shared across a great number of sources and/or people. This is called the "information chain", and understanding it and following it is vital to the CI process. For example competitor prices are not only known by the company doing the selling but by the customers that have bought the product or service, so instead of trying to get the information from the competitor, try to get it from those that the competitor has already given it to! The information chain can be quite complex. Usually, actually obtaining the information is easy, it is thinking about where to get it from that is the difficult part. This can involve deep discussions in house and lateral thinking is a prized asset to have in this industry.Often the person who holds the information seems quite far removed from the heart of the matter - a company security guard for example. It is such people who not only have the knowledge, but they dont know how valuable it is and therefore dont mind divulging it. Interviewing to obtain information is a skill in itself, being too keen makes an interviewee very defensive and careful about their answers. One approach is to treat the most important question as the least significant; a question that it seems you wouldnt be bothered if it werent answered. Long pauses also yield fantastic results as people dont like silence and will fill in the gap, though this requires much self-constraint.Not all information comes from first party (or primary) sources, Indeed, not only is it sometimes quicker and easier to obtain from published (or secondary) sources where possible but it is also essential to conduct such searches before attempting to interview for further information. Company reports hold huge amounts of financial information about a company and they are available to anyone, for a small fee. But this is raw data and the accountants who drew them up usually hide sensitive information very well. A good CI practitioner is able to dissect these accounts, sorting through all the available data to produce some valuable analysed results. The rule of thumb is to start at the back and work to the front since much of the interesting data is in the "œnotes" section.Results dont always present themselves as a single definitive answer that is available from one or more sources (but always the same answer). Rather like a jigsaw puzzle, pieces must be gathered together, inspected to see where they each fit, until finally the bigger picture is revealed.Competitive intelligence is at its best when the results are used proactively. For example before committing large amounts of capital to a new development or research project, companies engage CI professionals. Being told that they will be beaten to market since the competitors are much further down the line, can save companies small fortunes and divert efforts to areas where they will be first to market.In conclusion there is not much information on a competitor that cant be obtained or calculated. Companies seem quite happy to spend many thousands of pounds "œpoaching" people from their competitors to gain information (which in itself can raise legal issues). They are then committed to employing that person in future years thereby increasing the expense year on year after the initial value of the information gained has worn off. Companies seem unaware that for a fraction of the price they could have had the same information supplied using methods that are both legal and ethical competitive intelligence.Q. Which of the following is not an ethical part of the CI gathering process?a)Extracting unpublished data about the other company.b)Obtaining the trade secrets of the other company.c)Interviewing employees of the other company.d)Using advanced techniques to uncover sensitive data hidden in company reports.e)All of these are ethicalCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Competitive intelligence, or CI for short, is all about collating information about your competitors, analyzing it and using the results to formulate plans and strategies to gain the competitive edge in the marketplace. Sadly, many people confuse this with spying or other cloak and dagger activities. Nothing could be further from the truth. Competitive intelligence uses legal and ethical methods in obtaining the information - anything else is not acceptable. Data must come from the public domain but this is not limited to published articles alone, indeed much information can come from interviewing people with experience or knowledge of the target companies. What is not acceptable is bugging, overhearing conversations behind closed doors or even attempting to gain trade secrets. Coca-Colas secret formula for example is a trade secret and no faithful CI practitioner would over attempt to discover it, but then Pepsi does not need to know what the formula is in order to compete effectively. CI practitioners abide by a strict code of ethics and these are far tighter than any legal constraints. If a method sounds in the least bit shady its not one that they would adopt.So where does the information come from? Information becomes available for a large number of reasons: financial information due to legal obligations and (in the case of public limited companies) duty to shareholders; product information to promote the company etc. This data emerges in from the annual reports, marketing material, applications for patents the list goes on. You must first have an understanding of why information becomes available, then think about where it might be obtained and then you can begin to work out how to obtain it. Its important to realize that information is very rarely held by only a few people. Normally the same information will be shared across a great number of sources and/or people. This is called the "information chain", and understanding it and following it is vital to the CI process. For example competitor prices are not only known by the company doing the selling but by the customers that have bought the product or service, so instead of trying to get the information from the competitor, try to get it from those that the competitor has already given it to! The information chain can be quite complex. Usually, actually obtaining the information is easy, it is thinking about where to get it from that is the difficult part. This can involve deep discussions in house and lateral thinking is a prized asset to have in this industry.Often the person who holds the information seems quite far removed from the heart of the matter - a company security guard for example. It is such people who not only have the knowledge, but they dont know how valuable it is and therefore dont mind divulging it. Interviewing to obtain information is a skill in itself, being too keen makes an interviewee very defensive and careful about their answers. One approach is to treat the most important question as the least significant; a question that it seems you wouldnt be bothered if it werent answered. Long pauses also yield fantastic results as people dont like silence and will fill in the gap, though this requires much self-constraint.Not all information comes from first party (or primary) sources, Indeed, not only is it sometimes quicker and easier to obtain from published (or secondary) sources where possible but it is also essential to conduct such searches before attempting to interview for further information. Company reports hold huge amounts of financial information about a company and they are available to anyone, for a small fee. But this is raw data and the accountants who drew them up usually hide sensitive information very well. A good CI practitioner is able to dissect these accounts, sorting through all the available data to produce some valuable analysed results. The rule of thumb is to start at the back and work to the front since much of the interesting data is in the "œnotes" section.Results dont always present themselves as a single definitive answer that is available from one or more sources (but always the same answer). Rather like a jigsaw puzzle, pieces must be gathered together, inspected to see where they each fit, until finally the bigger picture is revealed.Competitive intelligence is at its best when the results are used proactively. For example before committing large amounts of capital to a new development or research project, companies engage CI professionals. Being told that they will be beaten to market since the competitors are much further down the line, can save companies small fortunes and divert efforts to areas where they will be first to market.In conclusion there is not much information on a competitor that cant be obtained or calculated. Companies seem quite happy to spend many thousands of pounds "œpoaching" people from their competitors to gain information (which in itself can raise legal issues). They are then committed to employing that person in future years thereby increasing the expense year on year after the initial value of the information gained has worn off. Companies seem unaware that for a fraction of the price they could have had the same information supplied using methods that are both legal and ethical competitive intelligence.Q. Which of the following is not an ethical part of the CI gathering process?a)Extracting unpublished data about the other company.b)Obtaining the trade secrets of the other company.c)Interviewing employees of the other company.d)Using advanced techniques to uncover sensitive data hidden in company reports.e)All of these are ethicalCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Competitive intelligence, or CI for short, is all about collating information about your competitors, analyzing it and using the results to formulate plans and strategies to gain the competitive edge in the marketplace. Sadly, many people confuse this with spying or other cloak and dagger activities. Nothing could be further from the truth. Competitive intelligence uses legal and ethical methods in obtaining the information - anything else is not acceptable. Data must come from the public domain but this is not limited to published articles alone, indeed much information can come from interviewing people with experience or knowledge of the target companies. What is not acceptable is bugging, overhearing conversations behind closed doors or even attempting to gain trade secrets. Coca-Colas secret formula for example is a trade secret and no faithful CI practitioner would over attempt to discover it, but then Pepsi does not need to know what the formula is in order to compete effectively. CI practitioners abide by a strict code of ethics and these are far tighter than any legal constraints. If a method sounds in the least bit shady its not one that they would adopt.So where does the information come from? Information becomes available for a large number of reasons: financial information due to legal obligations and (in the case of public limited companies) duty to shareholders; product information to promote the company etc. This data emerges in from the annual reports, marketing material, applications for patents the list goes on. You must first have an understanding of why information becomes available, then think about where it might be obtained and then you can begin to work out how to obtain it. Its important to realize that information is very rarely held by only a few people. Normally the same information will be shared across a great number of sources and/or people. This is called the "information chain", and understanding it and following it is vital to the CI process. For example competitor prices are not only known by the company doing the selling but by the customers that have bought the product or service, so instead of trying to get the information from the competitor, try to get it from those that the competitor has already given it to! The information chain can be quite complex. Usually, actually obtaining the information is easy, it is thinking about where to get it from that is the difficult part. This can involve deep discussions in house and lateral thinking is a prized asset to have in this industry.Often the person who holds the information seems quite far removed from the heart of the matter - a company security guard for example. It is such people who not only have the knowledge, but they dont know how valuable it is and therefore dont mind divulging it. Interviewing to obtain information is a skill in itself, being too keen makes an interviewee very defensive and careful about their answers. One approach is to treat the most important question as the least significant; a question that it seems you wouldnt be bothered if it werent answered. Long pauses also yield fantastic results as people dont like silence and will fill in the gap, though this requires much self-constraint.Not all information comes from first party (or primary) sources, Indeed, not only is it sometimes quicker and easier to obtain from published (or secondary) sources where possible but it is also essential to conduct such searches before attempting to interview for further information. Company reports hold huge amounts of financial information about a company and they are available to anyone, for a small fee. But this is raw data and the accountants who drew them up usually hide sensitive information very well. A good CI practitioner is able to dissect these accounts, sorting through all the available data to produce some valuable analysed results. The rule of thumb is to start at the back and work to the front since much of the interesting data is in the "œnotes" section.Results dont always present themselves as a single definitive answer that is available from one or more sources (but always the same answer). Rather like a jigsaw puzzle, pieces must be gathered together, inspected to see where they each fit, until finally the bigger picture is revealed.Competitive intelligence is at its best when the results are used proactively. For example before committing large amounts of capital to a new development or research project, companies engage CI professionals. Being told that they will be beaten to market since the competitors are much further down the line, can save companies small fortunes and divert efforts to areas where they will be first to market.In conclusion there is not much information on a competitor that cant be obtained or calculated. Companies seem quite happy to spend many thousands of pounds "œpoaching" people from their competitors to gain information (which in itself can raise legal issues). They are then committed to employing that person in future years thereby increasing the expense year on year after the initial value of the information gained has worn off. Companies seem unaware that for a fraction of the price they could have had the same information supplied using methods that are both legal and ethical competitive intelligence.Q. Which of the following is not an ethical part of the CI gathering process?a)Extracting unpublished data about the other company.b)Obtaining the trade secrets of the other company.c)Interviewing employees of the other company.d)Using advanced techniques to uncover sensitive data hidden in company reports.e)All of these are ethicalCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Competitive intelligence, or CI for short, is all about collating information about your competitors, analyzing it and using the results to formulate plans and strategies to gain the competitive edge in the marketplace. Sadly, many people confuse this with spying or other cloak and dagger activities. Nothing could be further from the truth. Competitive intelligence uses legal and ethical methods in obtaining the information - anything else is not acceptable. Data must come from the public domain but this is not limited to published articles alone, indeed much information can come from interviewing people with experience or knowledge of the target companies. What is not acceptable is bugging, overhearing conversations behind closed doors or even attempting to gain trade secrets. Coca-Colas secret formula for example is a trade secret and no faithful CI practitioner would over attempt to discover it, but then Pepsi does not need to know what the formula is in order to compete effectively. CI practitioners abide by a strict code of ethics and these are far tighter than any legal constraints. If a method sounds in the least bit shady its not one that they would adopt.So where does the information come from? Information becomes available for a large number of reasons: financial information due to legal obligations and (in the case of public limited companies) duty to shareholders; product information to promote the company etc. This data emerges in from the annual reports, marketing material, applications for patents the list goes on. You must first have an understanding of why information becomes available, then think about where it might be obtained and then you can begin to work out how to obtain it. Its important to realize that information is very rarely held by only a few people. Normally the same information will be shared across a great number of sources and/or people. This is called the "information chain", and understanding it and following it is vital to the CI process. For example competitor prices are not only known by the company doing the selling but by the customers that have bought the product or service, so instead of trying to get the information from the competitor, try to get it from those that the competitor has already given it to! The information chain can be quite complex. Usually, actually obtaining the information is easy, it is thinking about where to get it from that is the difficult part. This can involve deep discussions in house and lateral thinking is a prized asset to have in this industry.Often the person who holds the information seems quite far removed from the heart of the matter - a company security guard for example. It is such people who not only have the knowledge, but they dont know how valuable it is and therefore dont mind divulging it. Interviewing to obtain information is a skill in itself, being too keen makes an interviewee very defensive and careful about their answers. One approach is to treat the most important question as the least significant; a question that it seems you wouldnt be bothered if it werent answered. Long pauses also yield fantastic results as people dont like silence and will fill in the gap, though this requires much self-constraint.Not all information comes from first party (or primary) sources, Indeed, not only is it sometimes quicker and easier to obtain from published (or secondary) sources where possible but it is also essential to conduct such searches before attempting to interview for further information. Company reports hold huge amounts of financial information about a company and they are available to anyone, for a small fee. But this is raw data and the accountants who drew them up usually hide sensitive information very well. A good CI practitioner is able to dissect these accounts, sorting through all the available data to produce some valuable analysed results. The rule of thumb is to start at the back and work to the front since much of the interesting data is in the "œnotes" section.Results dont always present themselves as a single definitive answer that is available from one or more sources (but always the same answer). Rather like a jigsaw puzzle, pieces must be gathered together, inspected to see where they each fit, until finally the bigger picture is revealed.Competitive intelligence is at its best when the results are used proactively. For example before committing large amounts of capital to a new development or research project, companies engage CI professionals. Being told that they will be beaten to market since the competitors are much further down the line, can save companies small fortunes and divert efforts to areas where they will be first to market.In conclusion there is not much information on a competitor that cant be obtained or calculated. Companies seem quite happy to spend many thousands of pounds "œpoaching" people from their competitors to gain information (which in itself can raise legal issues). They are then committed to employing that person in future years thereby increasing the expense year on year after the initial value of the information gained has worn off. Companies seem unaware that for a fraction of the price they could have had the same information supplied using methods that are both legal and ethical competitive intelligence.Q. Which of the following is not an ethical part of the CI gathering process?a)Extracting unpublished data about the other company.b)Obtaining the trade secrets of the other company.c)Interviewing employees of the other company.d)Using advanced techniques to uncover sensitive data hidden in company reports.e)All of these are ethicalCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Top Courses for CAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup