CI derived buying models
CI Derived Buying Models to
Increase Business Results
Avner Barnea, A.B. Projects
Companies that develop and make
products for major corporations and
manufacturers (such as technological
tools for assembly lines and production
lines - machinery, software, services,
products sold as OEM, components
and semi-finished goods as input to the
production of other goods and services)
are facing tough competition from two
sides:  • Less focus on promoting and
• The industrial buyer that has
to make a decision whether to
prefer and purchase the products
presented. In most cases, a sale by
the supplying company will lead
to long term cooperation with the
buyer company.
 
• The fierce rivalry with other
supplier companies that are
offering similar solutions to exactly
the same industrial buyer and
are attempting to convince the
buyer that their solutions are more
competitive than the others.
 
Often the suppliers have significant
size with worldwide industrial
customers and have an experienced
sale force. But this is often not enough
to obtain the contract that can be of
critical importance to their future
growth.
Traditionally, supplier companies
direct their primary attention and
efforts at persuading the industrial
buyer to prefer them based on
better qualities, higher value, and
competitive price. But they can
maximize their prospects by having a
quality external business orientation
through Competitive Intelligence
(CI).  Organizations willing to invest
heavily in the CI process can improve
52 SCIP 2006 www.scip.org Competitive Intelligence Magazine
their understanding and knowledge of
competitor threats and reveal the real
needs and hidden considerations of the
industrial buyer.
Supplier companies who have
a high level of external business
orientation have the following
characteristics:  guesswork to make key decisions
emphasizing quality, pricing, and
value advantages as the major
criteria for wining the 'best buy'
decision.
• Understand the overall business
picture of the industrial buyer and
their internal decision–making
process.
• Have information on the other
competitors participating in
the same bidding situation. For
example, they have an overview of
past business relations between the
competitor and the industrial buyer
and a comprehensive analysis on
the strengths and weaknesses of the
rival company.
• Know that the individuals and
groups in the purchasing process
don’t always have collective goals
and interests, and often are not a
business coherent entity.  • Set up an internal competitive
• Understand the benefits of
competitive intelligence as a
complementary tool to enhance
their understanding of external
business orientation.
• Create decision-maker awareness
of the contribution competitive
intelligence can make to the process
of winning and renewing contracts.
• Make an effort to discover the
hidden considerations of the
industrial buyer and the decision
role of other executives who are not
situating around the negotiation
table.
• Increase their winning
opportunities by improving the
intelligence on the decision-
making of the industrial buyer.
• Don’t rely on instinct and
regarding industrial buyers'
intentions i.e. pricing, product
portfolio planning and competitor
analysis.
• Share quality data internally
between product managers,
marketing, sales and other internal
units.
If supplier companies lack the
overall picture, it places them at a
major disadvantage in a bidding
situation. They often don’t make the
right decisions on how to approach the
industrial buyer and where to funnel
their efforts.      
I often come across situations
where supplier companies don’t have
the high level of external business
orientation described above. In these
cases the companies can decide to take
two simultaneous directions:
intelligence activity. Its first
priority is to map the competitors
participating in bid situations and
understand the dynamic business
environment of the relevant
industry.
• Implement a buying model to help
focus their efforts and influence the
purchasing agents of the industrial
buyers involved in the decision-
making process.
Organizational buying behavior has

been defined by Webster and Wind as
"the decision-making process by which
formal organizations establish the need
for purchased products and services,
and identify, evaluate and choose
among alternative brand and suppliers"
(Webster 1972).
Organizational buying decisions
are more likely to be made by a group
rather than an individual. Webster and
Wind used the term 'decision making
unit' (DMU) to describe such groups.
Specific members of DMU have
different roles:
• Users – the individuals who are
most likely to use the product,
initiate the buying process, and
outline its specifications (for
example, a production manager).
• Influencers – others in the
organization who influence
the specifications and provide
information on alternatives.
• Decision-makers – they have the
power to reach conclusions on the
product, the suppliers, and the
decision in general.
• Approvers – persons with authority
to override the purchase decision
by the decision-maker.
• Buyers - individuals who have the
formal responsibility to choose the
suppliers and agreeing the terms
and agreement of the contract.
• Gatekeepers – persons who
have the power to filter
information intended to
the members of the DMU.
The marketer firms must
have information on the
existing structure of the buyer
firm’s decision making unit,
and gather and assess that
information regularly. The
focus of their key intelligence
needs is to understand the
relative role of each decision
making unit member.
The goal is to know
the real meaning behind the
standard roles in specific
situations. For example, does Figure 1: Follow-up questions
Volume 9 • Number 6 • November-December 2006 SCIP 2006 www.scip.org 53
the buyer just formally execute the
buying order, or is he also a person in
strong informal position closer to the
status of a ‘decision–maker’? Knowing if
that individual is also member of senior
or middle management can be very
important. The same goals relate to the
informal relations with other members
of the decision–making team.
The sale force, which in addition
to experienced sales people may
include technologists and R&D staff,
has to know what to expect and how
to prepare themselves for the bid
situation. To implement their strategy,
they must know if the person they are
meeting with is empowered to make
final decisions or must defer to more
senior members. It is vital to know
enough to match your negotiation team
to the buyer team (similar status or
similar level of authority to convey the
message of equality). We always have to
remember that decisions are made by
people!
The competitive intelligence
team, working with senior managers,
provides one of the keys to success:
a two-sided flow of information. All
must share high quality information
gathered on the industrial buyer and
their negotiation team. Their analyzed
information becomes an important tool
for directing further efforts.
The Webster and Wind model
emphasizes that industrial buyers
Low 1
2 12
3
4 6
High 5
Will you use Contribution Contribution
CI in the future of information of information
on competitors on DMU
CI derived buying models
are influenced by four group factors.
In implementing the competitive
intelligence function and Key
Intelligence Topics (KITS), two of
them – interpersonal and individual -
- provided major support to the process
and achieved the following results:
• Improved information gathering
and processing to develop profiles
of the DMU members.
• Generated a better understanding
of the decision-making process on
the industrial buyers side.
• Dynamically applied the developed
intelligence to the negotiation
process.
• More effective informal influence
on the DMU when a higher
priority was given to influence the
"right people."
• Improved team work by the
marketer side as a result of a
constant exchange of information
and views, and gathering feedback
on the progress.
Conclusions
Four competitive intelligence
oriented supplier companies recently
implemented the Webster and
Wind buying model. Three of them
successfully won their supply contract
bid.
18
16
14
10
8
4
2
0
Overall Quality of
contribution information
of CI before
CI derived buying models
Each company had follow-up
meetings to draw lessons from their
experiences. These meetings were
conducted separately in the four
companies, with nineteen participants
altogether. Each participant answered
the following questions:
1. What was the quality of
information available before
implementing CI?
2. What was the overall contribution
of competitive intelligence to the
bid process?
3. How much did information on the
purchaser’s decision making unit
influence the bid process?
4. How much did information on the
competitor companies influence
the bid process?
5. Will you use CI in the future?
The results of this survey is
presented in Figure 1, with a scale of 1
= low, to 5= high.
The survey results clearly pointed
out that the contribution of the
competitive intelligence process was
very significant while the situation
before CI implementation was not
satisfactory. Most of the participants
prefer to apply competitive information
knowledge in similar situations in the
future.  School of the Academic Studies Division
By using the Webster & Wind
buying model, the supplier companies
were more focused on the value of
using CI, profiling the DMU and
using relevant information about the
competitors, which enhanced their
chances of winning the bid. The survey
results were not different for those
companies that won and the one that
unfortunately did not succeed. 
These results provide a clear
indication that the buying model
directed by competitive intelligence
information can improve core business
activities. Using a buying model is also
relevant to supplier companies that have
already have a competitive intelligence
process in place but need to more
54 SCIP 2006 www.scip.org Competitive Intelligence Magazine
tightly focus their efforts in the process
of acquiring major contracts. 
To sum up - enterprises that took
an analytical and fact-based approach
towards industrial buyers by applying
the model have gained decisive
competitive advantage. I intend to
continue using this model in the future
with other client firms and will update
my experience in another column.
Reference
Webster, F.E. and Wind, Y. (1972),
Organizational Buying Behavior,
Prentice-hall, New Jersey, P. 2-37.
Avner Barnea, former senior member
of the Israeli Intelligence Community,
and holder of an MA from the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem and graduate the
Top Executive Program in Marketing
Management from the Tel Aviv
University Graduate School of Business
Administration. He is a consultant in
the field of Competitive Intelligence
[CI] and Business Strategy in Israel and
abroad. He is a guest lecturer on CI
at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Business School and at the Business
of the College of Management and in
addition in various business executives
training programs among them the
Lahav Executive Education Programs,
The Faculty of Management, Tel Aviv
University. The author has an intensive
experience in the integration of CI
systems into Israeli corporations. He can
be reached at: avnerpro@netvision.net.