Home » Featured, GoD

Porter’s Five Forces – The Missing Link

5 January 2010 14 Comments
Porter's Five Forces

Porter's Five Forces

Perhaps one of the most celebrated tools in the kitty of any marketer or strategist trying to analyze an industry is the Porter’s five forces model.

For the uninitiated, here’s how wiki defines it –

“Porter’s five forces” is a framework for the industry analysis and business strategy development developed by Michael E. Porter of Harvard Business School in 1979. It uses concepts developing Industrial Organization (IO) economics to derive five forces that determine the competitive intensity and therefore attractiveness of a market. Attractiveness in this context refers to the overall industry profitability. An “unattractive” industry is one where the combination of forces acts to drive down overall profitability. A very unattractive industry would be one approaching “pure competition”.

In very simple terms Porter’s theory says that if any organization keeps tabs on the bargaining power of its buyers, suppliers and customers and accounts for the threats from its competitors and potential substitutes, a very strong business can be put in place. It would be worthwhile to mention here that this theory has been celebrated for long and is widely considered as one of the earliest insights into how any industry and the competition in it can be analyzed.

But this is where I see a gap. With the advancement of technology, especially computers, we nowadays see rapid development taking place and product life cycles have grown smaller and smaller. The average life-cycle of software or hardware is extremely short and in most cases organizations develop technologies way ahead of the time they are actually launched. Another very important change that has come about with newer technology is the realm of possibilities available today to most companies. Even the biggest organizations are not safe as they know there may well be a small start-up somewhere which may come up with an idea which will not only change the face of the industry but also make you extinct.

In such a scenario, how relevant is it to only analyze the bargaining power of suppliers/ buyers or customers. This is because for all you know within a matter of days some change may come about which makes my supplier, buyer or customer extinct. Even if we avoid taking an extreme view, what is more probable is that as a marketer you may not find the relationship with your buyer/ supplier or customer as lucrative as before. E.g. Dell maybe buying its chips from an Intel today. But what if tomorrow AMD suddenly comes with a product which not only threatens the chip industry in its present form but also makes Dell seriously consider forging relations with AMD instead of Intel?

A little brainstorming and probably this scenario won’t seem all that improbable anymore. Even as we speak today, the SaaS (Software as a Service) Industry seems as a very real challenge to the traditional software vendors. One outstanding invention here and the traditional software vendors will be gone before you can say “Microsoft Windows”.

In such a situation what does one do?

While there may not be a very obvious answer to this question, one answer that intuitively springs up in my mind is – it is not enough for any organization to do a Porter’s five forces analysis only for itself. In today’s fast evolving world at least companies in technology intensive industries must play it safe and apply Porter’s five forces from the perspective of all its critical stakeholders!!!

And what do I mean by a “critical stakeholder” you ask? The simplest answer to that is someone who has a very direct and sizeable impact on my bottom-line. But it may well be interpreted in various ways depending on the nature of the business and it is this analysis which may eventually separate the men from the boys.

Do you think this is possible? Or do you feel that it is theoretically possible but not practically feasible? Are firms already engaging in such analysis? Are there other solutions you have in mind? Or do you think the whole exercise of doing a Porter’s Five Forces is not worthwhile! Think about it…

Let us know your opinions through comments on this post. If you would like to share your views in the form of an article in reply to this post, you can email it to us at themarketers.iimc@gmail.com and we might add your insights to this post.

Harish(Harish Seshadri Sarma is a PGDM (2011) student at IIM Calcutta. Apart from having utopian thoughts and cracking jokes which can make anyone sick, Harish kills his time reading about whatever he can lay his hands on and thinking about varied topics like strategy, marketing, finance, HR and how these different disciplines interact. Write to him at harishs2011@email.iimcal.ac.in).

Related posts:

  1. G.O.D-Gyaan on Demand
  2. Road to Research – Avoiding the Gravel
  3. Discussion: Brand Avtars??
  • Vishal Sharma (EPBM, IIM Calcutta)

    This is a great website. Wish I knew of of it before attending of Prof. Prafulla Y. Agnihotri’s lectures!

  • michael englert

    I think your assessment that things don’t look good for traditional software/tech companies is right on. I would only offer that the reasons you cite actually demonstrate, rather than diminsh the value of P5.

    For example, you suggest that the increasingly rapid pace of innovation/product development decrease or render obsolete the impact of customer/supplier bargaining. However, the change you describe is more comprehensively explained through the P5 lens.

    Sticking with your software example:
    I agree it’s easier than ever before for an individual or small company to enter the market (P5 threat of new entrants)
    I agree SaaS/Cloud offer compelling alternatives to the customers of incumbents like Microsoft (P5 threat of substitution)

    Likewise, one might postulate that the increased number of software developers, all needing to release products more quickly than their competitors, would drive further standarization and reliance on existing software/harware/network “platforms” These suppliers may ultimately end up with far more bargaining power in the long run and dictate industry profitabiity.

    While it does not seem likely that enterprise software customers would consolidate just to gain leverage over software companies, they are taking action to increase bargaining power. Software purchasing decisions are increasingly concentrated in a corporate procurement group to ensure competitive bids are sought and that all of the firm’s business is brought to bear rather than individual offices/factories negotiating as small buyers. The Chinese government for example, gets windows for next to nothing because they were able to pool all national/provincial/municipal licences into on mega pricing deal and put the threat of standardizing on UNIX based platforms on the bargaining table. Meanwhile, most United States local government offices pay higher prices because each state/department/etc approach vendors individually and must play from a position of relative weakness.

    All in, the P5 analysis above indicates the traditional software industry as a whole is becoming less attractive:

    new entrants and substitutes >>> more choices for customers >>> fierce competition to win customers >>> customers/”platform” suppliers able to bargain more effectively >>> less profit for software makers overall and also more competitors spliting the market

    In my opinion, P5 is about as good a starting point as any, even if it doesn’t do everyhting. It’s is general and comprehensive enough to apply almost universally. A model specific to a given industry may offer more detail, but, in most cases, they directly or indirectly are based on the same underlying “forces”.

    You rightly point out that P5 does not, by itself, tell a company what they should do. That said, it’s not suppose to. P5 is a framework for evaluating the profitability/attractiveness of a given industry – NOT a complete tool to developing individual company strategy. In addition to industry analysis, consideration of the firm’s unique stakeholders, understanding the company’s strengths/weaknesses vs specific competitors (as you and others suggest above), etc. are also required.

  • JOHN

    But this is where I see a gap. With the advancement of technology, especially computers, we nowadays see rapid development taking place and product life cycles have grown smaller and smaller. The average life-cycle of software or hardware is extremely short and in most cases organizations develop technologies way ahead of the time they are actually launched. Another very important change that has come about with newer technology is the realm of possibilities available today to most companies. Even the biggest organizations are not safe as they know there may well be a small start-up somewhere which may come up with an idea which will not only change the face of the industry but also make you extinct.****** YES, YOUR IDEA IS POSSIBLE HAPPEN. PRODUCT LIFE CYCLE IS COUNTED IN THE PORTER’S FIVE FORCES, IT DOESN’T MATTER WHETHER “OLD” SUPPLIER OR “NEW ENTRANT” SUPPLIER. PORTER’S BOTTOM LINE IDEA’S IS HOW COMPANY BECOME AN AGILE COMPETITIVE ONE.******

    In such a scenario, how relevant is it to only analyze the bargaining power of suppliers/ buyers or customers.****** IT IS RELEVANT TO ANALYZE IN (SUPPLIER/SUPPLY) AND OUT (BUYER/DEMAND), THOUGH THEY MAY CHANGE (BARGAIN.This is because for all you know within a matter of days some change may come about which makes my supplier, buyer or customer extinct.********REGENERATION SUPPLIERS AND BUYERS; AS LONG AS PEOPLE LIVE, THERE ARE NEEDS TO BE SATISFIED, BUYERS NEEDS SUPPLY***************** Even if we avoid taking an extreme view, what is more probable is that as a marketer you may not find the relationship with your buyer/ supplier or customer as lucrative as before.********** IN BUSINESS, MONEY TALK AND CONTINUE BUSINESS RELATION********** E.g. Dell maybe buying its chips from an Intel today. But what if tomorrow AMD suddenly comes with a product which not only threatens the chip industry in its present form but also makes Dell seriously consider forging relations with AMD instead of Intel?*******WHAT IF INTEL MERGE WITH AMD?*************

    ************* YES, IT IS A BRAINSTORMING AND THE REST IS UP TO YOU*************

    A little brainstorming and probably this scenario won’t seem all that improbable anymore. Even as we speak today, the SaaS (Software as a Service) Industry seems as a very real challenge to the traditional software vendors. One outstanding invention here and the traditional software vendors will be gone before you can say “Microsoft Windows”.

    In such a situation what does one do?

    While there may not be a very obvious answer to this question, one answer that intuitively springs up in my mind is – it is not enough for any organization to do a Porter’s five forces analysis only for itself. In today’s fast evolving world at least companies in technology intensive industries must play it safe and apply Porter’s five forces from the perspective of all its critical stakeholders!!!

    And what do I mean by a “critical stakeholder” you ask? The simplest answer to that is someone who has a very direct and sizeable impact on my bottom-line. But it may well be interpreted in various ways depending on the nature of the business and it is this analysis which may eventually separate the men from the boys.

    Do you think this is possible? Or do you feel that it is theoretically possible but not practically feasible? Are firms already engaging in such analysis? Are there other solutions you have in mind? Or do you think the whole exercise of doing a Porter’s Five Forces is not worthwhile! Think about it…
    ************** YES, SURELY YOU HAVE A CRITICAL THOUGHT BASE ON YOUR PERSPECTIVE OF EASTERN THOUGHT, THANK YOU ************************

    Let us know your opinions through comments on this post. If you would like to share your views in the form of an article in reply to this post, you can email it to us at themarketers.iimc@gmail.com and we might add your insights to this post.

    ********** KEEP YOUR POST ON OTHER TOPICS, IT WILL HELP OTHER TO UNDERSTAND THE TOPIC BETTER, AGAIN THANKS******************

  • harish

    @All – Thanks a lot for the comments you have been sending in. The amount of discussion this has managed to generate is truly heartening and in a way justifies the purpose of not only this article but of our blog as a whole.

    As I have tried to point out, in an increasingly dynamic world with change being the only constant and firms working on partnership structures, it is essential to know not only what lies in your future but in the future of all your stakeholders. So a tool like P-5, which undoubtedly is one of the most widely used around the world would require a few tweaks here and there to accommodate today’s business realities.

    Do keep writing in your views.

  • James

    Very insightful article. When you think about forward looking in a strategic sense it is not only wise but prudent. The Five Forces Model is an excellent tool but not the only tool. If you were to live and die by one model or process your firms inovation and success would surely lag behind if not fail all together. No one model or popular press item can sustain an organization by itself, there has to be multiple angles and views discussed and or researched to maintain just the status quo. If an organization is truly looking towards the future and keeping its stakeholders in mind then it would be well served to explore every tool available and discount none. Throughout history the greatest invention or modification lasted as long as it took to improve or obsolete it. There are countless stories of firms working to obsolete thier own product to drive inovation and competitive advantage. Mature industries seem to suffer the most from new inovations but as stated in your article the technological advancements of today threaten even the freshest of ideas.

    I truly enjoyed your article and plan to follow future posts on a regular basis. Thank You

  • http://bzhound.com Noam

    Harish

    I have tons of respect for M. Porter, but in 1979 they did not have the same dynamics and as we have today and the impact of the forces between the five forces was different from today in many ways.

    Take for example the pharmaceutical industry; where the influence of regulator is immense and one change in FDA regulation can make the difference between a billion Dollar molecule to a million Dollar one.
    The stubborn advocates of Porter will claim you can plug “Regulators” under Competitive since it will define the industry.
    By the way, Regulators are in the process of killing the incandescent light ball, in which case fluorescent light balls do not fit under Substitute Products.

    Another huge force we have today is Public Opinion. Take for example social networks such as Twitter or Facebook (both did not exist in 1979), they may not be your customers but still have an opinion that may affect your brand, for example a worldwide campaign to ban diamonds, or a movement to promote organic foods.

    In any case my point is that today we need to look at 9 forces and not 5. The 9 forces would include Regulators, Public Opinion (Social), Political,

  • rohit

    SHouldnt that be intel instead of AMD.? read the part you’ll know. Its just a lil goof up but nice read.

    cheers

  • Swati

    Hey, Porter’s five forces can take care of the dynamic nature of an industry & many such things through “Threat of Substitutes” – which captures current & potential threats to the company’s core product.

    Also, a P5 analysis must always be supplemented by a Value Chain analysis, SWOT & PEST to understand the company & industry in totality.

    Regards,
    Swati

  • harish

    @Nitin: Thank you very much for writing-in. It feels really great when more people join in as the whole discussion becomes so much more meaningful.

    1)Bargaining power of suppliers – Well true we do all of what you just mentioned. But again, the issues I have tried to discuss here are not regarding how the suppliers have more bargaining power but to say that as businesses evolve more and more, your partners are also in as much trouble as you are. So please don’t limit your analysis to only how your business is evolving but also to how your partners’ businesses evolve. And as such Porter only spoke of relative position of your stakeholders in the market and the bargaining power they enjoy because of that. I don’t think he mentioned about doing a complete analysis of your partners.

    2)SWOT – again same as above. It looks only towards your own business which is not what I have tried to analyze here.

    3)About the dynamic nature of businesses – in today’s world this can never be over-emphasized I feel. The exact point I highlighted in this article of new entrants giving the oldies a run for their money was written about in Economic Times recently wherein smaller and newer FMCG companies are giving the Big Boys a hard time.

    ~ A final word – When this idea had occurred to me, I too was apprehensive if my thoughts made any sense. But let me tell you something. Whatever I said here is exactly the subject matter of something called the “Systemic view of businesses”. I’ll be writing an article on it soon.

    ~Please do keep writing in. Let the discussions go on.

  • nitin

    @ harish… you are i believe over emphasizing on the dynamic nature of the business .. when we talk about the bargaining power of the suppliers we do take in consideration about its size in the market , its position in the market wit respect to other players and its influence on the company keeping in mind some macroeconomic factors affecting the relations.
    and of course when we do any analysis like swot then its for that particular time so that we can understand present situation to formulate the policies or strategies for future.And its very obvious that as the situation changes its face so we have to do our analysis again to decide in the same manner…..

  • harish

    Well Ayush I took sometime to introspect and understand the topic before I set out to answer your question. Let me begin by saying there is no “hidden force”.
    What I was trying to show essentially through this article was the inadequacy of the Porter Model. I reiterate again, the example of a high tech industry I took was only to make my view clear and as you say it’s true for all industries.
    But I do not agree that the Porter model had ever spoken of doing an “in detail” analysis of the all other stakeholders. Did it ever speak of looking into who the suppliers for your supplier are and what are the dynamics between them? I doubt it!! It only spoke of bargaining power of your suppliers and nothing else.
    Also what I wanted to showcase through my article and want to reiterate again is – It’s not enough to only look at your stakeholders at the outset only. It has to be a constant vigil if you will to make sure none of your stakeholder simply vanishes from the face of this planet leaving you in a soup. And the suggestion that occurred to me (it may not be the best – just a discussion I started) was that probably companies should periodically go for a Porter’s five forces analysis for each of it’s stakeholders for starters.
    ~We are all mortals – lesser or more are just adjectives people may use :P
    ~It’s a discussion through which we ourselves intend to learn not a be all and end all point I am making :)

  • Aayush Shrivastava

    I just don’t get it.

    As far as I can see the article started with a very good point when it said how in today’s dynamic environment, the ‘force’ of bargaining powers is becoming irrelevant (which maybe is only true for tech savvy industry). But then the article veers off and tells that P5FA is fine but should be done from the point of view of other stakeholders as well which we do anyways. Normally every P5FA IS followed by a regressive P5FA for all the links in the value chain. That is how it works and it is not just for tech companies but for any company. For example, A automobile manufacturing company also needs to study the automotive component industry in detail before venturing out.

    In short, what’s the ‘missing link’?? Any 6th Force?? In a way, I don’t get it yaar. Please clarify further for lesser mortals.

  • Harish Sarma

    @Shabad – Firstly thank you so much for starting a thought-provoking conversation. Well I agree when you say the threat of a wonder product is omnipresent. Actually that’s exactly the point I was trying to make through the article. So each organization in a dynamically changing environment in effect is forced to do Porter’s 5 Forces with respect to it’s critical stakeholders.
    The first part though I disagree in the sense that though a divorce between Dell and Intel may well be more devastating for Dell – the bargaining power for suppliers would actually lower if something like a wonder product knocks the wind out of your supplier.
    And as far as the doing part is concerned – well all I am trying to figure out through this article is – that in addition to looking for technological advancements for itself – aren’t firms today also obligated to keep an eye out for the long term competitive advantage that it’s stakeholders hold?

    ~Would love to hear more on this

  • Shabad

    Nice example quoted… got me thinking…
    let’s look at it this way…
    although the marriage between Dell and Intel is rosy, I wonder who would suffer a greater loss from a divorce… Dell or Intel??
    If Dell has a greater loss, the existing 5 forces would indicate that the bargaining power of suppliers is very high and that anyways is a threat to Dell… so, we finally arrive at a situation where (say equilibrium), both parties are EQUAL losers in this relationship…
    So, both Dell & Intel will have to be on the lookout for advancements in technology… dell for forging new partners and Intel for retaining competitive advantage…
    What am i trying to say – that the scenario of a wonder product hitting the streets and making competition evaporate is an omnipresent threat in all industries… it is a threat only if u treat it as one and a threat that you cannot do much against…
    Porter is looking at things from the perspective of a particular firm / industry….