Many corporate intelligence teams struggle with a "proactivity gap," trapped in reactive cycles despite leadership's desire for foresight due to structural disconnects and overwhelming demand. Intelligence often fails to translate into impact because of language barriers—not speaking the business's terms—and workflow barriers like information silos and scattered communication. To bridge this gap, intelligence functions must shift from passive providers to active partners, owning the responsibility to make insights indispensable through practical steps like mapping stakeholders, learning the business, co-creating requirements, productizing intelligence, and establishing feedback loops. Ultimately, sustaining this requires an integrated, enterprise-wide workspace to break down silos and enable a truly collaborative, proactive approach.
The modern dilemma: the proactivity gap
Every corporate leader shares the same ambition: to be proactive in understanding and navigating the complex geopolitical landscape. The goal is to anticipate shifts, de-risk supply chains, and seize opportunities before they become obvious to the competition. Yet, for most organizations, the day-to-day reality is a constant, draining battle against reactivity. We often hear from intelligence leaders who feel they are navigating a dense fog, forced to manage the immediate crisis of the day at the expense of preparing for the challenges of tomorrow. This creates a "proactivity gap."
This gap isn't a reflection of a team's talent or dedication. On the contrary, today’s intelligence professionals are incredibly capable but are often overwhelmed by the sheer volume and pace of demand from the business. There is typically a structural disconnect between the intelligence function and its internal clients, where even the most heroic efforts can result in fragmented understanding. To truly support these teams, we need more than just better analysis; we need a new playbook for how intelligence is developed, delivered, and integrated.
Diagnosing the disconnect: why intelligence might fail to land
The failure of intelligence to translate into impact can usually be traced to deep-seated barriers within the enterprise.
First, there is a language barrier. Intelligence teams, by their nature, speak the language of analysis – scenarios, political stability indices, and regional dynamics. Business functions, however, speak the language of operational and financial impact – supplier reliability, logistics costs, margin pressure, and quarterly targets. An analysis of a new export control policy in China is abstract; its direct impact on a specific product's cost of goods sold (COGS) is concrete. When intelligence is not translated into the specific metrics that a business unit is measured on, it remains interesting but not essential.
Second, there is a workflow barrier. In most enterprises, intelligence is disseminated through a patchwork of emails, dense PDF reports, and disparate news feeds. This prevents the creation of a single, shared reality. The strategy team in the head office, the legal team concerned with force majeure clauses, and the supply chain team on another continent are often working from completely different maps. This fragmentation makes aligned, decisive action nearly impossible.
The ownership principle: a shift in mindset
Some intelligence teams might think that it is the business's job to learn how to consume intelligence. We believe this is backward. The onus must be on the intelligence function to make its output not just insightful, but indispensable. This requires a fundamental shift in mindset: from being a provider of information to an active partner in decision-making. It means the success of an intelligence team is no longer measured by the quality of its reports alone, but by the quality of the business decisions its work enables. This requires a new level of business acumen, empathy, and proactive engagement from the intelligence function itself.
The Playbook: practical steps for building bridges
Adopting this mindset requires a deliberate and structured approach. Here are practical steps to begin building the bridges necessary to transform the intelligence function:
1. Map your internal landscape. Before you can engage effectively, you must understand the terrain. This means formally mapping the key decision-makers and risk owners across the enterprise. Who in the procurement team is responsible for single-source supplier risk? Which strategist owns the market entry plan for Latin America? What are the top three strategic initiatives for the finance department this year? Creating this organizational map allows you to target your intelligence precisely where it will have the most impact.
2. Achieve fluency in the business. This goes far beyond knowing acronyms. It means deeply understanding the mechanics, metrics, and pressures of the business functions you support. Sit in on their planning meetings. Understand their budget cycle. Know their top KPIs. The goal is to be able to hear about a geopolitical development and immediately map it to those specific metrics. For example, instead of reporting "tensions are rising in the South China Sea," you can report "the rising tensions in the South China Sea create a direct, quantifiable risk to our key shipping lanes, potentially impacting our 'on-time delivery' KPI by 15%."
3. Co-create intelligence requirements. Don't guess what the business needs; ask them, and build the requirements together. The most effective method is to conduct structured "Intelligence gap interviews." Sit down with business leaders and ask targeted questions: "What is the one external risk that keeps you up at night?" "What is the key geopolitical assumption your five-year plan rests on?" "What decision would you make tomorrow if you had perfect information about X?" The output of these conversations should be a formal, shared document of Key Intelligence Questions (KIQs) that becomes the foundation of your analytical work for that department.
4. "Productize" your intelligence. Deliver your analysis not as a generic report, but as a tailored "product" designed for a specific consumer. A C-level executive doesn't have time for a 20-page document, but a regional risk manager might need that level of detail. Develop a suite of intelligence products:
- Tactical alerts: Short, need-to-know updates on immediate disruptions for logistics and supply chain teams.
- Strategic briefings: Quarterly deep dives on major trends for the strategy team and C-suite.
- Scenario-based wargaming: Interactive workshops where you help leadership stress-test their assumptions against potential futures.
5. Establish feedback loops. How do you know if your intelligence is having an impact? You must ask. Create a formal process for gathering feedback. Follow up after a major briefing: "Was the information presented in a useful format?" "Did this analysis help you make a specific decision?" "What could we have done better?" This continuous feedback loop allows you to constantly refine your "products" and demonstrate your value to the organization.
The Endgame: the integrated intelligence workspace
While these behavioral changes are critical, sustaining them is difficult when the underlying tools, email, documents, separate chat platforms, actively reinforce silos. This is why the ultimate solution for any modern enterprise is an enterprise-wide workspace for geopolitics. This workspace is the technological foundation that enables the playbook. It is the environment where the KIQs are tracked, and where tailored intelligence products are delivered. It creates the shared context necessary for this new, integrated way of working to become scalable and sustainable.
By combining a proactive mindset, a practical playbook, and the right collaborative environment, an intelligence team can transform itself from a support function into a core part of an enterprise's strategic advantage.