Business Intelligence
Intelligence is only worth what it changes. The test of a monitoring system is whether anyone did anything differently because of it.
Starting from the decision, not the data
Most intelligence programmes begin with available data and work forward to insight. That produces dashboards nobody opens. We start from the decisions the leadership actually has to make in the next four quarters, work backwards to the indicators that would change those decisions, and only then ask what data is required.
The output is usually a much smaller system than the one originally requested, and it gets used.
Early warning that specifies the threshold
An early warning system without thresholds is a news feed. For each risk that matters we define the observable indicator, the level that constitutes a warning, the level that constitutes a trigger, and the pre-authorised action at each. When the indicator moves, the argument about whether to act has already been had.
This is the single most valuable thing a monitoring system can do, and it requires the uncomfortable step of committing to a response before the event.
Competitor and counterparty intelligence
We track competitors on the things that predict behaviour rather than the things that are easy to collect: hiring patterns, registrations and filings, distribution changes, tender participation, capacity commitments and the movement of specific people. On counterparties, we monitor ownership changes, litigation, payment behaviour and political exposure across the life of the relationship rather than once at onboarding.
Localised insight and honest uncertainty
In the markets we cover, published data is frequently incomplete, delayed or shaped by the institution publishing it. We say which figures are verified, which are estimated, and which are contested, and we do not smooth over a gap in the record with a plausible number. A decision-maker who knows the confidence level of each input makes better decisions than one handed a clean sheet built on sand.
Signals this is the right work
Your team learns about relevant events from the news. You have dashboards and still hold the same argument every month. A competitor moved and nobody can say when it started. You are exposed to a country where your information comes from one person.
What you get
- A decision inventory mapping the choices leadership faces to the indicators that would change them
- An early warning system with named indicators, warning levels, trigger levels and pre-authorised actions
- Competitor tracking on predictive signals rather than published announcements
- Continuous counterparty monitoring covering ownership, litigation, payment and political exposure
- Reporting that states confidence levels and does not smooth over gaps in the record
Common questions
Is this a software product?
No. We will build against tools you already run, and the deliverable is the analytical framework, the thresholds and the judgement, not a licence.
How do you source information in closed markets?
Through documented open sources, filings and registries, and through a standing network of professional contacts. We do not use intrusive collection, we do not pay officials, and we do not accept assignments that would require either.
How current is the monitoring?
Depends on the risk. Some indicators justify daily attention, most justify weekly, and a few are quarterly. Monitoring everything daily is how a system becomes noise and stops being read.
Related work
Early Warning in the Sahel →The Deal That Didn't Happen →Shipping Giants: Why the Push for Control Backfires →Discuss a mandate
If this describes the problem you are holding, a short conversation will establish quickly whether we are the right people for it.
Start a conversationOther services: Management Consultancy · International Business Development · Corporate Diplomacy · Project Financing · Project Management