This is volume number 10, meaning JISIB has published articles in intelligence studies for ten consecutive years. We have addressed the changes in the discipline during these years in articles and notes. I want to share with you another reflection. This year I am a reviewer and a member of the organizing committee of two similar conferences. The first is the CI2020, a conference on collective intelligence with participants from many larger and well-known universities. The second is the ICI2020, this year with a focus on collective intelligence and foresight. There are many more conference and journals presenting and publishing on similar topics simultaneously, but in different networks. Science as a whole—the advancement of knowledge for the benefit of all mankind— would most likely be better off if at least some of these groups merged. That was also my impression when reviewing the extended abstracts for these two conferences. I also tried to see if members of the CI2010 conference would consider joining the other, but that seemed more difficult than first imagined. This is also about ownership and identity, which is not an entirely unfamiliar idea. The consequences of these tendencies are not favorable for the objects we study. The unnecessary division of networks that look at the same phenomenon is sometimes referred to as “academic tribalism.” Academic tribes become a barrier to learning and this can result in closemindedness1. This is also according to my own experience. Academic clustering is a similar mechanism whereby graduates from one institution favor those who come from the same institution, but there are also those universities that systematically refrain from this. Among these is Harvard University, which seldom hires their own PhDs, or so I have been told. If so, that is probably better for the progress of science. Where is it meaningful to draw a line between academic groups then? Everyone will agree that the natural sciences are quite different from the humanities. Between psychology and business though there is much overlap with psychology in business. Between accounting and management, a good understanding of how to manage a business requires the knowledge of income statements, balance sheets and how to set up a cash flow analysis. One way to think about division is if the method is different. According to this criterion most social scientists should be able to do each other’s work, and subsequently go to each other’s conferences. Another meaningful division is based on experience and the depth of specialization obtained by the discipline. This criterion is less precise. I do not pretend to have the answer, but I think it’s a pity that all these tribes exist, with their own buzzwords often studying more or less the same phenomenon, with the same methods. What distinguishes intelligence studies from other tribes is, in my opinion, first of all that we see that the private organization is better organized as an intelligence organization, with focus on information gathering and analysis. It has less to do with departments of marketing, HR or accounting, even though the one does not exclude the other. Another way is to see the intelligence organization as a superstructure, a layer that exists above all functional departments where the aim is to achieve a competitive advantage through better information. In this respect the need for CEOs is not unlike those of ministers of state. Now, is this perspective so radically different that it deserves its own tribe with its own journal and conferences? That is the important question. And in some way, I cannot help but think that learning would be better without them, that is, it would be better if it was all one big interchangeable group, going to one another’s conferences, and writing for each other’s journals. Science would benefit from it. From time to time I have also peeked over into other groups and joined their conferences. What is astonishing especially for an outsider is that you are immediately confronted with a pecking order that 1 Rogers, S. L., & Cage, A. G. (2017). Academic Tribalism and Subject Specialists as a Challenge to Teaching and Learning in Dual Honours Systems; a Qualitative Perspective From the School of Geography, Geology and the Environment, Keele University, UK. Journal of Academic Development and Education, (8). Journal of Intelligence Studies in Business Vol. 10, No 1 (2020) p. 4-5 Open Access: Freely available at: https://ojs.hh.se/ 5 is related to who has been there the longest and published the most in the group. This cannot be an advantage for the advancement of science, I tell myself. But, then again, pecking orders seems to be the rule rather than the exception for most social creatures, not only chicken. The first article by Nasullaev et al., entitled “Technology intelligence practices in SMEs: evidence from Estonia,” is on operationalization of technology intelligence practices by small firms in catching-up economies. Their analysis reveals that elements of technology intelligence in large and small companies are similar. Furthermore, they conclude that there is no unique set of technology intelligence. The second article by Nguyen entitled “The effects of cross-functional coordination and competition on knowledge sharing and organisational innovativeness: A qualitative study in a transition economy” reveals the potentially significant effect of coopetition (i.e., the simultaneous coordination and competition) on the degree of knowledge sharing between marketing and other departments in business organisations. The enhanced knowledge sharing can, according to author, positively improve organisational innovativeness. The third article by Hendar et al. entitled “Market intelligence on business performance: the mediating role of specialized marketing capabilities” integrates market intelligence dimensions and one dimension of marketing capabilities, i.e. specialized marketing capabilities (SMC), into an empirical model to try to gain a deeper understanding of the relationship between market intelligence and SMC and how these factors shape business performance (BP). The study suggests that owners or managers of SMEs recognize that important market intelligence factors are increasing SMC and BP. This helps them make better investment decisions in developing the right combination SMC to increase BP. The fourth article, by Zafary, is entitled “Implementation of business intelligence considering the role of information systems integration and enterprise resource planning”. It shows the value of integrated information systems and enterprise resource planning in the success of business intelligence implementation. The author concludes that organizations should pay more attention to their working processes to improve business intelligence success. The fifth and last article is an opinion piece by Barnea. The title is “How will AI change intelligence and decision making?” In the article Barnea argues that with increased attention on artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities, the value of the human factor will not become redundant but rather improve its use. Furthermore, in the future AI will be significant to analysis and predictions in advance of competitors’ moves and delivering early warning signals of threats both in the private sector as well as in state services. In the last issue of JISIB we said we were looking forward to a meeting in Bad Nauheim for the ICI2020. Now due to the Corona pandemic the conference will be held online, but we still hope to see you, on video camera, that is. As always, we would above all like to thank the authors for their contributions to this issue of JISIB. Thanks to Dr. Allison Perrigo for reviewing English grammar and helping with layout design for all articles. On behalf of the Editorial Board,

中文翻译：

---

在JISIB十周年之际：对学术部落主义的反思

这是第10卷，这意味着JISIB已连续十年发表了有关情报研究的文章。我们在文章和注释中介绍了这些年来学科的变化。我想与您分享另一种想法。今年，我是两次类似会议的审稿人和组委会成员。第一个是CI2020，这是一个集体智能会议，来自许多大型和知名大学的参与者。第二个是今年的ICI2020，重点是集体智慧和远见。有更多的会议和期刊同时在不同的网络上针对相似的主题进行展示和发布。如果至少其中一些集团合并在一起，那么作为一个整体的科学（即造福全人类的知识的发展）将更有可能取得更好的发展。这也是我在回顾这两个会议的扩展摘要时的印象。我还试图查看CI2010会议的成员是否考虑加入另一个会议，但这似乎比最初想象的要困难。这也与所有权和身份有关，这并不是一个完全陌生的想法。这些趋势的后果不利于我们研究的对象。着眼于相同现象的不必要的网络划分有时被称为“学术部落主义”。学术部落成为学习的障碍，这可能导致思想紧缩1。这也是根据我自己的经验。学术集群是一种类似的机制，来自一个机构的毕业生会偏爱来自同一机构的毕业生，但是也有一些大学系统地避免了这一点。其中之一就是哈佛大学，它很少聘用自己的博士学位，或者有人告诉我。如果是这样，那可能对科学的进步更好。那么，在学术团体之间划清界限在哪里有意义？每个人都会同意，自然科学与人文科学完全不同。在心理学和商业之间，尽管与商业心理学有很多重叠。在会计和管理之间，要对如何管理业务有一个很好的了解，就需要了解损益表，资产负债表以及如何进行现金流量分析。考虑除法的一种方法是方法是否不同。根据这个标准，大多数社会科学家应该能够彼此进行工作，然后参加彼此的会议。另一个有意义的划分是基于经验和该学科获得的专业深度。此标准不太精确。我不假装没有答案，但我认为所有这些部落都存在，以他们自己的流行语经常或多或少地研究相同的现象，使用相同的方法，真是令人遗憾。我认为，将情报研究与其他部落区分开来的原因是，首先，我们看到，私人组织作为情报组织更好地组织了起来，重点是信息收集和分析。它与市场营销，人事或会计部门关系不大，即使一个部门不排除另一个部门。另一种方法是将情报组织视为上层建筑，位于所有职能部门之上的一层，其目的是通过更好的信息获得竞争优势。在这方面，对首席执行官的需求与国务卿的需求没有什么不同。现在，这种观点是否如此根本地不同，以至于它不应该拥有自己的部落以及自己的期刊和会议？这是重要的问题。从某种意义上说，我不禁认为，没有他们，学习会更好，也就是说，如果这是一个可以互换的大团体，参加彼此的会议，并为彼此的期刊撰稿，那会更好。科学将从中受益。我还时不时地探访其他小组并加入他们的会议。尤其令局外人惊讶的是，您立即受到了1罗杰斯（Rogers，SL）和凯奇（AG）的啄食令 （2017）。学术部族和学科专家对双重荣誉系统中的教与学提出了挑战；英国基尔大学地理，地质与环境学院的定性视角。学术发展与教育杂志，（8）。商业情报研究杂志卷。10，No 1（2020）p。4-5开放获取：可从以下网址免费获得：https：//ojs.hh.se/ 5与谁在该论坛中停留时间最长，发布最多的人有关。我告诉自己，这对科学的进步不是一个优势。但话又说回来，对于大多数社交动物，不仅是鸡，啄食命令似乎是规则，而不是例外。Nasullaev等人的第一篇文章名为“中小企业的技术情报实践：爱沙尼亚的证据，”是关于追赶经济中的小公司对技术情报实践的操作。他们的分析表明，大小型公司中的技术智能元素是相似的。此外，他们得出结论，没有独特的技术情报集。Nguyen撰写的第二篇文章“跨职能协调和竞争对知识共享和组织创新的影响：转型经济中的定性研究”揭示了合作竞争（即同时进行的协调和竞争）对学位的潜在重大影响市场营销与业务组织中其他部门之间的知识共享。作者认为，增强的知识共享可以积极改善组织的创新能力。Hendar等人的第三篇文章。题为“关于业务绩效的市场情报：专业营销能力的中介作用”将市场情报维度和营销能力的一个维度（即专业营销能力（SMC））整合到一个经验模型中，以试图更深入地了解两者之间的关系市场情报和SMC，以及这些因素如何影响业务绩效（BP）。该研究表明，中小企业的所有者或管理者认识到重要的市场情报因素正在增加SMC和BP。这有助于他们在开发正确的SMC组合以增加BP方面做出更好的投资决策。Zafary撰写的第四篇文章的标题为“考虑到信息系统集成和企业资源计划的作用，实现商业智能”。它显示了集成信息系统和企业资源计划在商业智能实施成功中的价值。作者得出结论，组织应更加注意其工作流程以提高商业智能的成功率。第五篇也是最后一篇文章是Barnea的观点文章。标题是“人工智能将如何改变智力和决策能力？” Barnea在文章中指出，随着人们对人工智能（AI）功能的关注度越来越高，人为因素的价值将不会变得多余，反而会改善其用途。此外，在未来，人工智能将对竞争者的行动之前的分析和预测以及在私营部门和国家服务机构中发出威胁威胁的预警信号具有重要意义。在JISIB的上一期中，我们说过我们期待着在巴特瑙海姆召开的ICI2020会议。现在由于电晕大流行，会议将在线举行，但是我们仍然希望能通过摄像机看到您。与往常一样，我们首先要感谢作者为这一期JISIB所做的贡献。感谢Allison Perrigo博士复习了英语语法并为所有文章提供了版式设计帮助。代表编辑委员会，Allison Perrigo回顾了英语语法，并为所有文章提供了布局设计帮助。代表编辑委员会，Allison Perrigo回顾了英语语法，并为所有文章提供了布局设计帮助。代表编辑委员会，