Like in the previous issue we have admitted a large number of opinion pieces, first of all in the form of case studies but also reviews and a survey. It is quite fitting that we present two articles with cases as case studies have been requested in a recent surveys from users of the journal.
The first article by Christophe Bisson shows CI practices at a French regional chamber of agricultura with four departemental chambers of agricultura linked to it. A survey was used to detect seven typological strands (gathering, attitude, Technology support, IT systems, Use, Location and Identification). The paper finds that current practices are ineffective, inefficient and far from attaining goals for collective intelligence gathering.
The second article by Najibeh Abbasi Rostami is a literature review of the BI and KM fields. In a previous issue we have discussed the relationship between CI and KM. Rostami presents the differences in the form of a number of models and summaries found in the existing literature. The articles conclude, not unexpectedly, that the literature clearly shows that a proper integration of the two functions are beneficial to organizations. More interesting the review also concludes that studies are needed to show how cultural aspects affect this dichotomy.
The third article, the second opinion piece, is a case study by Pierre Memheld. The article illustrates a critical CI lesson through the use of a case presenting two major tire manufacturers troubled by a price war. The article argue that intelligence failures can be caused by particular biases which may be culture related.
The fourth article by Abdelkader Baaziz and Luc Quoniam is a discussion around “patent trolls” and Non Practicing Entities (NPE). The article is illustrated with two examples, or mini cases, from the pharmaceutical industry in two emerging countries. The article shows how the use of Web 2.0 technologies makes it easier to extract useful intelligence from patents.
The last article by Klaus Solberg Søilen entitled “A survey of users’ perspectives and preferences as to the value of JISIB - a spot-check” show what users want from the journal JISIB. It concludes that more cases studies are requested, but it gives no credit to those who think there is too much or too little technology related material as opinions on this issue are balanced. A number of minor suggestions are presented and the survey shows that the question of editing language is not settled.
As always we would first of all like to thank the authors for their contributions to this issue of JISIB.
On behalf of the Editorial Board,
Prof. Dr.Klaus Solberg Søilen
Halmstad: Halmstad University , 2014. Vol. 4, no 2, 4-4 p.