Abstract:seven military classics (Jiang Ziya, the methods of theSima, Sun Tzu, Wu Qi, Wei Liaozi, the three strategies of Huang Shigong and the Questions and Repliesbetween Tang Taizong and Li Weigong). The entities studied then were nation states. Later, corporationsoften became just as powerful as states and their leaders demanded similar strategic thinking. Many ofthe ideas came initially from geopolitics as developed in the 19th century, and later with the spread ofmultinational companies at the end of the 20th century, with geoeconomics.What is unique for intelligence studies is the focus on information— not primarily geography ornatural resources— as a source for competitive advantage. Ideas of strategy and information developedinto social intelligence with Stevan Dedijer in the 1960s and became the title of a course he gave at theUniversity of Lund in the 1970s. In the US this direction came to be known as business intelligence. At afast pace we then saw the introduction of corporate intelligence, strategic intelligence and competitiveintelligence. Inspired by the writings of Mikael Porter on strategy, as related to the notion of competitiveadvantage the field of competitive intelligence, a considerable body of articles and books were written inthe 1980s and 1990s. This was primarily in the US, but interest spread to Europe and other parts of theworld, much due to the advocacy of the Society of Competitive Intelligence Professionals (SCIP). In Francethere was a parallel development with “intelligence économique”, “Veille” and “Guerre économique”, inGermany with “Wettbewerbserkundung” and in Sweden with “omvärldsanalys,” just to give someexamples.On the technological side, things were changing even faster, not only with computers but alsosoftware. Oracle corporation landed a big contract with the CIA and showed how data analysis could bedone efficiently. From then on, the software side of the development gained most of the interest fromcompanies. Business intelligence was sometimes treated as enterprise resource planning (ERP), customerrelations management (CRM) and supply chain management (SCM). Competitive intelligence wasassociated primarily with the management side of things as we entered the new millennium. Marketintelligence became a more popular term during the first decade, knowledge management developed intoits own field, financial intelligence became a specialty linked to the detection of fraud and crime primarilyin banks, and during the last decade we have seen a renewed interest for planning, in the form of futurestudies, or futurology and foresight, but also environmental scanning. With the development of Big Data,data mining and artificial intelligence there is now a strong interest in collective intelligence, which isabout how to make better decisions together. Collective intelligence and foresight were the main topics ofthe ICI 2020 conference. All articles published in this issue are from presentations at that conference.The common denominator for the theoretical development described above is the Information Age,which is about one’s ability to analyze large amounts of data with the help of computers. What is drivingthe development is first of all technical innovations in computer science (both hardware and software),while the management side is more concerned with questions about implementation and use.Management disciplines that did not follow up on new technical developments but defined themselvesseparately or independently from these transformations have become irrelevant.Survival as a discipline is all about being relevant. It’s the journey of all theory, and of all sciencesto go from “funeral to funeral” to borrow an often-used phrase: ideas are developed and tested againstreality. Adjustments are made and new ideas developed based on the critic. It’s the way we createknowledge and achieve progress. It’s never a straight line but can be seen as a large number of trials andsolutions to problems that change in shape, a process that never promises to be done, but is ever-changing,Journal of Intelligence Studies in BusinessVol. 10, No 2 (2020) p. 4-5Open Access: Freely available at: https://ojs.hh.se/5much like the human evolution we are a part of. This is also the development of the discipline ofintelligence studies and on a more basic level of market research, which is about how to gatherinformation and data, to gain a competitive advantage.Today intelligence studies and technology live in a true symbiosis, just like the disciplines ofmarketing and digital marketing. This means that it is no longer meaningful to study managementpractices alone while ignoring developments in hardware and software. The competitive intelligence (CI)field is one such discipline to the extent that we can say that CI now is a chapter in the history ofmanagement thought, dated to around 1980-2010, equivalent to a generation. It is not so that it willdisappear, but more likely phased out. Some of the methods developed under its direction will continueto be used in other discipline. Most of the ideas labeled as CI were never exclusive to CI in the first place,but borrowed from other disciplines. They were also copied in other disciplines, which is common practicein all management disciplines. Looking at everything that has been done under the CI label the legacy ofCI is considerable.New directions will appear that better fit current business practices. Many of these will seem similarin content to previous contributions, but there will also be elements that are new. To be sure newsuggestions are not mere buzzwords we have to ask critical questions like: how is this discipline definedand how is it different from existing disciplines? It is the meaning that should interest us, not the labelswe put on them. Unlike consultants, academics and researchers have a real obligation to bring clarityand order in the myriad ideas.The articles in this issue are no exception. They are on collective intelligence, decision making, BigData, knowledge management and above all about the software used to facilitate these processes. Thefirst article by Teubert is entitled “Thinking methods as a lever to develop collective intelligence”. Itpresents a methodology and framework for the use of thinking methods as a lever to develop collectiveintelligence.The article by Calof and Sewdass is entitled “On the relationship between competitive intelligenceand innovation”. The authors found that of the 95 competitive intelligence measures used in the study59% were significantly correlated with the study’s measure of innovation.The third article is entitled “Atman: Intelligent information gap detection for learning organizations:First steps toward computational collective intelligence for decision making” and is written by Grèzes,Bonazzi, and Cimmino. The research project shows how companies can constantly adapt to theirenvironment, how they can integrate a learning process in relation to what is happening and become a"learning company".The next article by Calof and Viviers entitled “Big data analytics and international market selection:An exploratory study” develops a multi-phase, big-data analytics model for how companies can performinternational market selection.The last article by Vegas Fernandez entitled “Intelligent information extraction from scholarlydocument databases” presents a method that takes advantage of free desktop tools that are commonplaceto perform systematic literature review, to retrieve, filter, and organize results, and to extract informationto transform it into knowledge. The conceptual basis is a semantics-oriented concept definition and arelative importance index to measure concept relevance in the literature studied.As always, we would above all like to thank the authors for their contributions to this issue of JISIB.Thanks to Dr. Allison Perrigo for reviewing English grammar and helping with layout design for allarticles.Have a safe summer!On behalf of the Editorial Board,

Abstract:This is volume number 10, meaning JISIB has published articles in intelligence studies for ten consecutive years. We have addressed the changes in the discipline during these years in articles and notes. I want to share with you another reflection. This year I am a reviewer and a member of the organizing committee of two similar conferences. The first is the CI2020, a conference on collective intelligence with participants from many larger and well-known universities. The second is the ICI2020, this year with a focus on collective intelligence and foresight. There are many more conference and journals presenting and publishing on similar topics simultaneously, but in different networks. Science as a whole—the advancement of knowledge for the benefit of all mankind— would most likely be better off if at least some of these groups merged. That was also my impression when reviewing the extended abstracts for these two conferences. I also tried to see if members of the CI2010 conference would consider joining the other, but that seemed more difficult than first imagined. This is also about ownership and identity, which is not an entirely unfamiliar idea. The consequences of these tendencies are not favorable for the objects we study. The unnecessary division of networks that look at the same phenomenon is sometimes referred to as “academic tribalism.” Academic tribes become a barrier to learning and this can result in closemindedness1. This is also according to my own experience. Academic clustering is a similar mechanism whereby graduates from one institution favor those who come from the same institution, but there are also those universities that systematically refrain from this. Among these is Harvard University, which seldom hires their own PhDs, or so I have been told. If so, that is probably better for the progress of science. Where is it meaningful to draw a line between academic groups then? Everyone will agree that the natural sciences are quite different from the humanities. Between psychology and business though there is much overlap with psychology in business. Between accounting and management, a good understanding of how to manage a business requires the knowledge of income statements, balance sheets and how to set up a cash flow analysis. One way to think about division is if the method is different. According to this criterion most social scientists should be able to do each other’s work, and subsequently go to each other’s conferences. Another meaningful division is based on experience and the depth of specialization obtained by the discipline. This criterion is less precise. I do not pretend to have the answer, but I think it’s a pity that all these tribes exist, with their own buzzwords often studying more or less the same phenomenon, with the same methods. What distinguishes intelligence studies from other tribes is, in my opinion, first of all that we see that the private organization is better organized as an intelligence organization, with focus on information gathering and analysis. It has less to do with departments of marketing, HR or accounting, even though the one does not exclude the other. Another way is to see the intelligence organization as a superstructure, a layer that exists above all functional departments where the aim is to achieve a competitive advantage through better information. In this respect the need for CEOs is not unlike those of ministers of state. Now, is this perspective so radically different that it deserves its own tribe with its own journal and conferences? That is the important question. And in some way, I cannot help but think that learning would be better without them, that is, it would be better if it was all one big interchangeable group, going to one another’s conferences, and writing for each other’s journals. Science would benefit from it. From time to time I have also peeked over into other groups and joined their conferences. What is astonishing especially for an outsider is that you are immediately confronted with a pecking order that 1 Rogers, S. L., & Cage, A. G. (2017). Academic Tribalism and Subject Specialists as a Challenge to Teaching and Learning in Dual Honours Systems; a Qualitative Perspective From the School of Geography, Geology and the Environment, Keele University, UK. Journal of Academic Development and Education, (8). Journal of Intelligence Studies in Business Vol. 10, No 1 (2020) p. 4-5 Open Access: Freely available at: https://ojs.hh.se/ 5 is related to who has been there the longest and published the most in the group. This cannot be an advantage for the advancement of science, I tell myself. But, then again, pecking orders seems to be the rule rather than the exception for most social creatures, not only chicken. The first article by Nasullaev et al., entitled “Technology intelligence practices in SMEs: evidence from Estonia,” is on operationalization of technology intelligence practices by small firms in catching-up economies. Their analysis reveals that elements of technology intelligence in large and small companies are similar. Furthermore, they conclude that there is no unique set of technology intelligence. The second article by Nguyen entitled “The effects of cross-functional coordination and competition on knowledge sharing and organisational innovativeness: A qualitative study in a transition economy” reveals the potentially significant effect of coopetition (i.e., the simultaneous coordination and competition) on the degree of knowledge sharing between marketing and other departments in business organisations. The enhanced knowledge sharing can, according to author, positively improve organisational innovativeness. The third article by Hendar et al. entitled “Market intelligence on business performance: the mediating role of specialized marketing capabilities” integrates market intelligence dimensions and one dimension of marketing capabilities, i.e. specialized marketing capabilities (SMC), into an empirical model to try to gain a deeper understanding of the relationship between market intelligence and SMC and how these factors shape business performance (BP). The study suggests that owners or managers of SMEs recognize that important market intelligence factors are increasing SMC and BP. This helps them make better investment decisions in developing the right combination SMC to increase BP. The fourth article, by Zafary, is entitled “Implementation of business intelligence considering the role of information systems integration and enterprise resource planning”. It shows the value of integrated information systems and enterprise resource planning in the success of business intelligence implementation. The author concludes that organizations should pay more attention to their working processes to improve business intelligence success. The fifth and last article is an opinion piece by Barnea. The title is “How will AI change intelligence and decision making?” In the article Barnea argues that with increased attention on artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities, the value of the human factor will not become redundant but rather improve its use. Furthermore, in the future AI will be significant to analysis and predictions in advance of competitors’ moves and delivering early warning signals of threats both in the private sector as well as in state services. In the last issue of JISIB we said we were looking forward to a meeting in Bad Nauheim for the ICI2020. Now due to the Corona pandemic the conference will be held online, but we still hope to see you, on video camera, that is. As always, we would above all like to thank the authors for their contributions to this issue of JISIB. Thanks to Dr. Allison Perrigo for reviewing English grammar and helping with layout design for all articles. On behalf of the Editorial Board,

Intelligence Education made in Europe

The Intelligence College in Europe (ICE): An Effort to Create a European Intelligence Community

Research Status of International Intelligence Education

The impasse of competitive intelligence today is not a failure. A special issue for papers at the ICI 2020 Conference

Military Intelligence in Support of EU Missions and Operations: Bridging the Strategic Vulnerability Gap

On the 10th anniversary of JISIB: Reflection on academic tribalism

The Relationship Foundation of the Intelligence Analysis Methods

Intercultural Education for the Twenty-First Century: A Comparative Review of Research

On the Role of Intelligence and Business Wargaming in Developing Foresight

The Integration of Character Education and Intercultural Competence in German Learning Process

Transdisciplinarity seen through Information, Communication, Computation, (Inter-)Action and Cognition

Availability by Stealth? EU Information-sharing in Transatlantic Perspective

Why Intelligence Is Missing from American Education Policy and Practice, and What Can Be Done About It

Scientific Study of Foreign Policy

Intelligence as Democratic Statecraft: Accountability and Governance of Civil-Intelligence Relations across the Five Eyes Security Community—the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand Christian Leuprecht and Hayley McNorton, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021, pp. 272

Europe and Conflict Resolution: Isolated or Engaged?

U.S. intelligence and the nascent transatlantic security architecture of the Cold War – the case of the ‘Gesellschaft für Wehrkunde’

Towards a Common EU Immigration and Asylum Policy

Organizational Culture Challenges to Interagency and Intelligence Community Communication and Interaction

From "Information Service" to "Intelligence Intervention": Thinking on the Function of Intelligence from Decision Mistakes