Статьи

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31713/ve2202616

Abstract

The article investigates the theoretical and methodological foundations of competitive intelligence (CI) in the sectoral dimension, addressing the contradiction between the universality of its conceptual core and its operational variability. The research problem arises from the coexistence of more than 800 recorded definitions of CI with the routine transfer of general definitions into sectoral contexts without conceptual modification, which constitutes a tacit methodological consensus that has never been systematically verified. The aim is to prove that the conceptual model of CI is sector-invariant, whereas sectoral differentiation is realised exclusively at the operational level and does not affect the basic definition. The hypothesis is tested deductively, by proof through contradiction: the modular "5P" framework (Process, Purview, Product, Purpose, Practice) serves as the verification instrument, and three logically possible scenarios of a genuinely sector-specific definition are formulated, namely the introduction of a sixth dimension, reduction to a subset of the existing ones, or a redefinition of the core dimensions incompatible with the universal understanding. The pharmaceutical industry, the defence industry and telecommunications are examined under a single analytical protocol as sectors combining pronounced regulatory and structural specificity with the most representative empirical base of CI research; the hospitality sector serves as an external control case. None of them has produced its own conceptual definition of CI: the dimensions of Process, Product and Purpose remain invariant, while Purview and Practice are the sole carriers of sectoral specificity. Four relatively independent levels of operational differentiation are identified, namely objects of monitoring, information sources, analytical methods and organisational forms of implementation, which exhaust the space of sectoral variation and represent a projection of the 5P architecture onto empirical material. The regularity is explained through prototype semantics in cognitive linguistics, which accounts for the asymmetry between the prototypical core of the discipline and the peripheral features of its particular realisations, and through normative isomorphism, which explains the uncoordinated convergence of definitions among researchers working in a shared information field. The applied implications concern the substantiation of cross-sectoral transfer of CI practices, the design of training programmes around a single theoretical core supplemented by sectoral operational modules, and the grounds for rejecting attempts to "clarify" the definition of CI for a particular sector, which complicate the terminological apparatus without producing new scientific knowledge.

Author Biographies