by Ann Comer-Woods, USF Research
USF Research Development Institute Associate Director Karen Walker and University of Wisconsin CRISP Policy and Planning Analyst Alba Clivati McIntyre
A new scholarly paper co-authored by Karen Walker, competitive intelligence associate director at the 911’s Research Development Institute, and Alba Clivati McIntyre, policy and planning analyst for the University of Wisconsin’s , is helping shape how universities nationwide think about strategy, funding and research growth.
Published in the National Organization of Research Development Professionals’ inaugural
issue of Research Development Review, the paper titled “,” offers the first comprehensive, higher-education-focused definition of competitive
intelligence and explains how it is increasingly essential to success in academic
research development.
Competitive intelligence refers to the ethical collection, analysis and interpretation
of information to provide actionable insights that guide strategic decision-making.
In the university research context, Walker and McIntyre assert that competitive intelligence
allows institutions to move from reacting to funding announcements to positioning
themselves proactively in a highly competitive research ecosystem. “Universities are
operating in an environment of rapid change—shifting federal priorities, growing competition
for grants, and expanding opportunities for interdisciplinary and industry partnerships,”
the paper notes. “Competitive intelligence provides the structure needed to navigate
that complexity with clarity and purpose.”
While competitive intelligence has long been embedded in industry and government,
the practice is relatively new but quickly growing within higher education. The Competitive
Intelligence Working Group, founded by Walker as a national community of practice
for university CI professionals, has expanded from about 20 members in 2017 to nearly
120 in 2025. Several universities, including USF, now employ dedicated CI professionals
to support research leadership and faculty.
Data, information and intelligence exist as part of a knowledge continuum. (Graphic by Vincent Alrich)
A central contribution of the paper is its explanation of how intelligence differs from raw data or basic information. Drawing on frameworks from military intelligence and corporate strategy, Walker and McIntyre outline a knowledge continuum: data becomes information, and information becomes intelligence only through expert analysis and context.
For example, knowing how many grants a funding program has awarded is data. Identifying patterns among awardees is information. Using that knowledge to recommend potential collaborators or proposal strategies tailored to a specific researcher is intelligence. This transformation, the authors contend, requires skilled analysts who can synthesize multiple data sources, anticipate trends and align insights with institutional goals.
Three Core Domains of Competitive Intelligence
The paper identifies three core areas where competitive intelligence delivers the greatest value to university research offices:
- Sponsor Intelligence and Funding Strategy: Analyzing funding agencies’ priorities,
award trends and policy shifts to help faculty tailor more competitive proposals and
anticipate emerging opportunities.
- Institutional Capacity Assessment: Mapping a university’s internal research strengths,
facilities and expertise to inform strategic investments and leadership decisions.
- Competitor and Partnership Analysis: Benchmarking peer institutions, identifying potential collaborators and understanding where competition may be strongest or collaboration most advantageous.
At USF, these approaches support efforts to align research strengths with funder interests, diversify funding portfolios and build partnerships that amplify impact.
Practical Impact through a Case Study
To illustrate CI in action, the paper presents a detailed case study in which analysts
assessed whether a university had the research capacity to compete for state funding
to establish an institute focused on opioid and substance abuse research. Using grant
data, publication analysis and collaboration network mapping, the analysts identified
more than 200 affiliated researchers and multiple interdisciplinary clusters working
in the field. The analysis concluded that the university was well positioned to pursue
the opportunity, providing leadership with the confidence to move forward.
Beyond individual proposals, the authors emphasize that competitive intelligence strengthens
long-term institutional resilience. By monitoring shifts in funding landscapes and
competitor activity, universities can mitigate risk, avoid misaligned investments
and respond more nimbly to change.
“CI helps leaders understand not only where the university stands today, but where
it could be tomorrow—and what it will take to get there,” the authors write. They
also note that CI is a collaborative enterprise, relying on partnerships with units
such as government relations, advancement, information technology and academic leadership.
The paper concludes by calling for broader recognition of competitive intelligence
as a core function within research development. Future work, the authors suggest,
should focus on practical tools, emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence
and professional development pathways for CI analysts, while emphasizing that human
judgment and contextual expertise remain irreplaceable.
For USF, the work reflects the Research Development Institute’s commitment to advancing
not only proposal success, but the strategic capacity of the university. As competition
for research funding intensifies nationwide, the authors argue, competitive intelligence
may prove to be one of the most important drivers of academic innovation and success.