The key mission for a CI unit should be to provide needed information that will serve as a key element in a firm's decision making. That means that those providing the CI must avoid having any preconceived position either for or against any specific policy or outcome that can be affected by their research. In some firms, that has meant that the CI unit must avoid making policy or even suggesting the correct decisions the firm should make.

There are two principal reasons for drawing and maintaining a line between CI and policy making:

• The first is the need to keep CI unbiased. The CI professionals cannot use their position or that of the unit to "take sides" in any internal divisions. To do so even once is to condemn the CI unit to a peripheral position, at best.

• The second is the need to keep CI free from the appearance of special pleading. For example, the tactics-oriented CI provided by your marketing unit may stress the need for additional distribution channels. However, that conclusion, even if valid, may be disregarded by some managers in nonmarketing areas as special pleading. Implicitly, it would their position that only those with the operating responsibility must be the ones to recommend and ultimately carry out policy decisions.

However, there is no essential need to separate CI and policy or decision-making. In fact, the most effective CI is "actionable," that is it provides the end users with, not only intelligence, but also options and possible actions. For instance, it may be entirely appropriate for a strategy-oriented CI report to assess the probable effects of alternative corporate marketing policies, particularly when these policies entail strategic responses of a particular competitor to these very initiatives. The end users themselves must also not take a hard line with respect to such a distinction. The division between CI and operations must not be so rigid that the CI unit is precluded from even assessing the impact of past decisions already made and currently in practice.

It is critical that CI end users and the CI professionals providing them with intelligence are continually aware of what kinds of projects are underway, status, progress, any problems, and what decisions are needed by the end user. Whatever options are selected, the CI professionals should not merely accept the assignment, go away, and then bring back a finished product. Best Practice firms, involving all types of CI, have shown that the best intelligence is the result of continuing communication with and feedback from the end users during the assignment.

When dealing with projects which are of a prolonged duration, such as three or more months, it is probably necessary only to report every three to four weeks. Those that are shorter can involve more frequent reports. One way to handle this, while keeping track of accomplishments, is to use a simple form of report. This can be hard copy or e-mail. In any case, it should contain the following elements:

• a clear indication of the date of the report, in the top line

• a summary of assignments that have been closed or finished since the last report. Two to three lines of test describing the assignment, plus a separate line noting the status or results is sufficient.

• a list, in due date or priority order, of current assignment. Here the descriptions should be more completed, possibly including the end user's intentions. A separate status section should indicate when the assignment was given, when it is due, and where it stands now. That includes noting interim briefing, critical problems, and the like.

• It may be useful to separate or highlight any questions that have been taken back to the end user, so that the end user has a "gentle" reminder of what is needed to keep the project moving on schedule.

Consider using the following form as a starting template.