Investigate Competitive Intelligence Process: An Exploratory Study in Tunisian Companies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to explore the aspects of management of competitive intelligence process in Tunisian companies. This exploratory study was conducted using semi-in-depth interviews with six executives in six companies in Tunisia. The results revealed by this study that the competitive intelligence as a competitive tool is unknown to the vast majority of Tunisian companies. It is not still a formalized stage, but it is in an embryonic way. Second, two most important of information are collected: profiles of potentials customers, and opportunities in new market. Thirdly, for analysing and synthesising information the results indicate that managers knows and uses the majority of methods to analyze competitive information gathered especially in making decisions that fall the marketing department. Fourthly, all companies spend most of their time in collecting information. Although planning what and how to collect information and analysis they receive relatively less attention. This research suggests that overriding influence on successful competitive intelligence process is the existence of a management support, culture and structure, which encourage and develop competitive intelligence activities in companies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it