Talk:Porter 5 forces analysis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of Business and Economics WikiProject.
Start	rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
High	rated as high-importance on the assessment scale

Since 1979 Porter's 5 forces analysis has been wildy criticized.

Sceptics claim that Porter's model no longer holds stand in todays dynamic economy.

Is the model still a viable tool for strategic analysis?

That is a good question. Many claim that any external based strategy is ineffective. The way I view it is that Porters system is useful as one of many approaches to strategy. (see the strategic management article for an overview of various strategies used today). I agree with the critics however that the dependence on analytical and positioning techniques by themselves (as was done in the 1980s) is no longer good enough. mydogategodshat 16:26, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Who are the skeptics? I am not sure that the utility of the five-force analysis is in doubt. Porter's Competitive Advantage and Competitive Strategy have many more tools and analyses to base strategy on than this simple rubric. Not sure about wildly criticized. It would be more useful to have references and logical reasoning than just rejection and claims of inadequacy. If it is important to supplement the article, let's get a more substantial point made that is widely referenced. --Jeffmcneill ^{talk contribs} 06:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Graphic 2 Expansion 3 The 6th force 4 External Links 5 What the FFF?

[edit] Graphic

• The current graphic with various colors and shapes seems more misleading. Do we need permission from Porter's publishers to recreate something close to the graphics on p. 4 in Competitive Strategy and p. 6 in Competitive Advantage or even the funky one on p. 141 of the 1979 article? --Jeffmcneill ^{talk contribs} 06:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion

The expanded text now at Five forces/temp was a good attempt to expand the article, since discussion of the details of each force would be useful. However, much of the information contained in it was incorrect. Perhaps we could rewrite and then add it back? --Goodoldpolonius2 20:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. I merged the material because I wanted to eliminate the extra article. I was going to modify it as I merged it, but decided it was too much of a task to do right now. mydogategodshat 21:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The 6th force

There seems to be some confusion as to what the 6th force is. Having used the model just for a year, I did not encounter it in my literature so I cannot help. _└^VodkaJazz/_talk^┐ 23:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The 6th force is sometimes referred to as 'government regulation'. Firms can take advantage of this by maximising any new technology they have to petition governments to install regulations that favour them (or rather their new technology). EG - low emissions diesel engine.

• Unclear on this, unless there is some verifiable source for a "sixth force". I am not aware of any 6th force extension that Porter has done to this model. --Jeffmcneill ^{talk contribs} 06:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It links in with VRIN resource theory (Barney 91) and is one way of making rare resources in a firm valuable (thus developing 2 of the VRIN facets).

Richard Brooks MK 19:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC) Richard Brooks

[edit] External Links

Please check http://www.franteractive.net/Porter-Five-Forces.html. In this article on Proter's Five Forces, I have a 3 x 3 Buyer-Supplier matrix, which shows the power of buyer over supplier and vice-versa. For example, if the buyer has most of the power and the supplier is marginalized, the buyer enjoys monopsony power. Similarly, if the supplier has much more negotiating power compared to the buyer, the supplier enjoys market power. Since buyers and suppliers are two of the more important five forces, their interaction is important and must be considered while using Five Forces for industry analysis. Conesequently, I had added a link to the above article, but someone removed it, saying it is a SPAM link. What the remover did is deprive readers from undestanding this strategic framework completely. I want this link added back. What do others think. Sam 05:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Franteractive link is useful and relevant. However, may want to spell-check the page over there. Cheers. --Jeffmcneill ^{talk contribs} 06:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Link deleters should think before deleting. But I might have more sympathy if you restored more links than just your own.— 85.210.225.240 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Tesco link was deleted after an over-active linking strategy, on other pages, that an editor perceived as spamming. This link has been on this page for months and should remain. If you disagree, please discuss.— Deckiller (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

The Tesco link does not provide useful information. It is mainly a page with a lot of advertisements and only a little bit of text without much context. As such, and since it does not give any useful supplement to the article, is not relevant. Use of Wikipedia to attract links to websites, without delivering actual value to the article, is suspicious. In addition, SWOT analysis is not comparable with the five forces analysis, since they are at different units of analysis (one is industry the other at the level of the organization). --Jeffmcneill ^{talk contribs} 06:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatly in this case there is a Conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged.--Hu12 03:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The matrix from the franteractive.net website on buyer-supplier equations is a useful link. It amply extends the Porter Five Forces model. I think this should be added back to the article... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.62.247.81 (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree, and had noted that earlier. Not sure why it gets deleted. I have added it back. There is a big problem with MNewton2 keeping adding back in that non-useful link without any discussion. Should this be complained about? What's next? --Jeffmcneill ^{talk contribs} 20:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That has already been dealt with see WPSPAM case--Hu12 16:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What the FFF?

The text claims "it's also known as Fullerton's Five Forces" but never explains or justifies that claim. Even if it were true (and I'm suspect), it's certainly not widely known as FFF. If substantiated, the claim should be moved out of the lead; if not substantiated, it should be deleted. 71.198.121.244