Desired result
A defined, reviewable outcome
Deliver a dated brief with source links, observed changes, comparison dimensions, unknowns, confidence notes, and clearly labeled analyst interpretation.
Business workflow
Research Competitors with a Structured AI Workflow
Create repeatable competitive research around a defined question, source policy, time window, and comparison framework instead of generating unsupported summaries.
The problem
Where the workflow breaks today
Competitive information changes across websites, announcements, product material, and internal observations, making ad hoc research difficult to reproduce.
How the workflow works
Move from trigger to accountable handoff
Frame the question
Define competitors, topics, regions, time range, approved sources, and decisions the research should inform.
Collect evidence
Gather permitted public material and approved internal notes with capture dates and source references.
Compare consistently
Map evidence to the same dimensions and leave unsupported cells empty instead of guessing.
Review and distribute
Separate observed facts from analysis, request subject-matter review, and publish the dated brief to approved readers.
Agents involved
Assign a specific role to each stage
Agent roles describe possible workflow responsibilities. Final configuration and availability depend on the selected implementation.
Competitor Research Agent
Collects and organizes evidence by comparison topic.
View details →Research Assistant
Maintains source notes and unresolved questions.
View details →Data Analyst Agent
Structures comparisons and change summaries.
View details →Integrations involved
Connect only the systems the outcome needs
Notion
Research database, comparison pages, and review status.
View details →Google Workspace
Source files, comparison sheets, and review documents.
View details →Slack
Alerts for material changes and reviewer questions.
View details →Human approval points
Keep consequential decisions with people
Approval design should reflect the actual risk, audience, and permissions of this workflow.
✓Require analyst review before strategic conclusions are circulated.
✓Use only approved, lawful sources and respect access terms and intellectual property.
✓Label unverified claims, stale sources, and inferred conclusions clearly.
Example workflow
Quarterly product comparison
The workflow checks approved product pages and announcements, records dated evidence by feature category, flags changed claims, leaves unavailable pricing blank, and sends a sourced draft to product marketing.
Workflow boundary
An example, not a promise of availability
This illustrates how roles, integrations, and controls can be arranged. Connection support and final behavior must be confirmed during implementation.
Implementation considerations
Decisions to make before execution
✓Define source quality and freshness standards.
✓Avoid collecting restricted or confidential competitor information.
✓Keep snapshots or citations sufficient for a reviewer to verify statements.
✓Do not present absence of evidence as proof that a capability does not exist.
Related workflows
Continue from an adjacent business outcome
FAQ
Questions to resolve when planning this workflow
Does the workflow guarantee complete competitor coverage?
No. It covers the approved sources and period, and should state limitations and unknowns in the output.
Can it copy competitor content into our materials?
Research should preserve citations and respect usage rights; publication decisions remain with authorized editors and legal reviewers.
Discuss this workflow with our team.
Bring the outcome, current systems, approval needs, and exception paths you want to design.