Talk:Porter's five forces analysis/Archives/2011

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)

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

It seems odd to include the government as the sixth force as Porter's five forces are used for analysing the operating environment, i.e. the environment over which it can impact. It is extremely rare that an organisation can influence the government; Porter (1991) identifies that often the government acts as a catalyst for innovation in his dynamic theory of strategy model ("Towards a Dynamic Theory of Strategy"). This may be adding to confusion as it has 6 factors.

The DEEPLIST framework (what started as the PEST framework, which got added to to become PESTEL and then DEEPLIST) analyses the remote environment, i.e. the environment over which the organisation has no control. This model includes both 'Political' and 'Legal' which generally accounts for all things Government.

In circumstances where the organisation CAN influence the government e.g. petitioning the government to get a favourable conditions, then it might be suggested that the government becomes part the operating environment, but this is rare and is not, as far as I'm aware, acknowledged by Porter.

As regards to the VRIO framework (Barney 2002; 1998; 1997; 1991; Ray et al 2004), it is one of many mechanisms of achieving a sustainable competitive advantage, but as far as I am aware, not related to Porter's five forces.

Akingsbury 15:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

See Six Forces Model. Perhaps merge. 72.79.89.118 (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

External Links

Please check www.quickmba.com/strategy/porter. In this article it gives a better explanation of each of the five forces and its effects compared to what is already cited on the wikipedia page.Tabrowne C109 (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

I disagree that this site should be added. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Mar#franteractive.net - MrOllie (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2009 (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)

Keep it out per WP:SPAM, WP:COI, and WP:ELNO #4, #5, & #11. If the spamming continues, I'll recommend blacklisting the site. --Ronz (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Has anyone been able to find any verifiable data which justifies the claim? I have done not a little searching, and have not been able to come up with anything other than what is quoted in the article. As the user above states, it certainly does not seem to be widely know as FFF. Any insights? Blacks C109 (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

First Update from Oscail

Getting the ball rolling, part of C1 module in DCU Moodle (Assignment 2) Acwhelan C109 (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Second Update from Oscail

Hi fellow Oscail-folk , I had an idea to add more data to the main article from our course textbook to put more detail on each of the 5 forces ((Assignment 2) Acwhelan C109 (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Just testing the water here as I am still finding my feet on here. Acwhelan, do you mean copying the information within the text book to the article. (Jalyng c109 (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC))

Maybe we could just wikify the article first by linking it to another article. This would be something small but as least it would be a start and we may get some feedback from the editors which is what we need to start the question. Any suggestions of which page to link to. How about the word Government or can that be done according to the rules of the site. (Jalyng c109 (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)).

Just noticed that government cannot be used because it is a well known general term. But "Capital requirements" may be able to be used as it already has an article relating to this term and is not a generally used term (not understood widely by the general public) unless you are a banker. (Jalyng c109 (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC))

Hello fellow students, I was wondering if the 5 forces as described by Porter is limited only to be used on smaller companies that do not have a government or public interest and that it is not a universal market opportunities analysis model as somewhat suggested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabrowne C109 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC) !Tabrowne C109 (talk) 09:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello all, when reading the Porter Wikipedia article and then comparing this to the Introduction to Information Systems by Rainer and Turban article on Porter’s Competitive Forces model I find that the wording of the Wikipedia article is slightly complex, and less clear.

I would also like to make two points

First, I do understand that this is supposed to be a blueprint for industry analysis and business strategy but I was wondering if anyone else thought that the version in the Rainer and Turban book was easier to absorb and understand?

Second point, as mentioned by other students. Should we consider using information from our course textbook to help improve this article? If so how much and what to put in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Refarrell C109 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added a number of points to this article. As we are studying an IT diploma, I thought it was appropriate to point out that technology is a significant source of competitive advantage. It can reduce the threat from competitors and allow firms to charge higher prices. I added a reference from Kotler - Marketing ManagementCocarroll C109 (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree ,I think referring Rainer and Turbans views on how technology has changed the way competitive advantage can be achieved at a much greater pace these days should be considered for inclusion in this article. Aphanrahan C109 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aphanrahan C109 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi folks, I found another reference for the article.Kpmurray c109 (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Refarrel - I agree with you the textbook version is easier to absorb. The graphic model is better too, I found Lafitzgerald c109 (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added in an additional point under The Intensity of Competitive Rivalry, taken from the Rainer & Turban book. Would you agree with it? I think the web is a huge source of competition in todays industries Lafitzgerald c109 (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi all,I added some links to Wikipedia sites that were not there or incorrectly placed (see history page) any issues let me knowregards ken (KMulligan C109 (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC))

I've just added another point under "the Intensity of Competitive Rivalry" called "Level of Advertising Expense". I think advertisting is hugely important especially in the current economic climate. I have also added an additional reference at the bottom of the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by EPKENNY C109 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Folks, I am not big into economics and was wondering if other students had any thoughts as to whether the model described by Porter was outdated and or too simplistic in today’s market place i.e. global recession? Huge developments in the use of the internet etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spjeremiah c109 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there all. Vandalism on Wikipedia? I added a link from "Price Sensitivity" to an article on "Price elasticity of demand" as I thought it might be helpful to explain exactly what the term means. the link still appears to be there, but, when I checked it this morning, without logging in, it appears that a moderator of Wikipedia has undone an attempt by someone to alter my revision, identifying it as "Vandalism" ( 23:05, 14 January 2010 Az29 (talk | contribs) m (11,255 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 204.75.125.136 identified as vandalism to last revision by Omball C109. usingTW)Has anyone else had a similar experience? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omball C109 (talk • contribs)

Hello. I have added a link to an external website which explains in a more simplified manner the 5 forces as described by Porter. Tabrowne C109 (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC).

Hey guys, I'm thinking of putting in something in relation to "the cost of creating extra units of a product reaches zero"(pg 38 Introduction to information systems) into the section rivalry amoung exsisting firms in the industry, as I think this part of the 5 forces is lacking something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Refarrell C109 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Hey all Oscail people - I added a link to vertical Integration in the intensity of competitive rivalry section. It seems to be a relevant topic in terms of supplier domination/costs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slynch C109 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC) There is a duplicate (and mis-spelt) reference to Rainer & Turban, it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stspelman C109 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there I have added a link to the bio and information on Kevin P Boyle whose name appears in the article. Ambrady C109 (talk) 12:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi all, I wikified the article by using wiki markup on the following words: lines of business, product differentiation, fixed costs, game theory and Intel Corporation. Mdlukas C109 (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi all, have wikified the two entries of the word "incumbents". --Dvbergen C109 (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi all, at first sight I thought that this was something new "Quality depriciation" and had something to do with price but it is obviously just a typo (refarrell_C109) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Refarrell C109 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi everyone,ya,"Quality depreciation" is the right spelling of the second word.Spot more typo-do not hesitate to challenge by pointing out and edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gayeni C109 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC) changed example of only one suppler to simplify sentence why use two words when one will do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuomeyc2 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Hi all,Iknow this is a late contribution but I definitely think that this analysis is outdated for todays economy User:Aphanrahan C109 —Preceding undated comment added 04:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC).

Hi everyone,I think that porter's theory does not include such important parts of market competition as innovation, benchmarking,innovation circle and developent of technology. Comment added by Oojo C109( talk.contribs) 12:43, 27January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.141.142 (talk)

Hello all, I Wikified both cases of the term "complementors" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpomahony c109 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, wondered was the five forces a very western conceptObried54 (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Update of lead

Hi all, I was looking at the guidelines for the introduction of any article Wikipedia:Lead_section#Length and it seems this one needs a clean up- it is overly long it seems, and could be. I know above someone has suggested the introduction itself could be more clear- so is there anything in there currently which ccould be moved to the main body? Rgmooney C109 (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I have moved two paragraphs from the lead to a new section. I thought they were not needed in the lead section, and made the introduction too large, and a bit over-detailed. I have moved these paragraphs to a new section- Usage. There may be more formatting which need correction here. I have also removed "of porter's five forces" from the Criticism section, as it is implied. Happy to discuss these changes- Rgmooney C109 (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether to make an edit or not?

Hi all. I’m considering making an edit to the following line contained in the sub section “Criticisms of the 5 Forces model” of the article:

“Similarly, the likes of Kevin P. Coyne [1] and Somu Subramaniam have stated that three dubious assumptions underlie the five forces:”

It is concerned with “improving the tone of the article” as cited from Q.2. My issue with the line is the use of “the likes of” in the sentence. With no disrespect intended towards the original writer, I don’t think it is the best use of language that could be applied. “The likes of” can often be used in a derogatory way, and although it is clear in this case it is not intended that way, I still think something more appropriate could be used.

One solution could be to just leave out “the likes of” in the sentence.

Another solution could be to replace it with something like,

“Similarly, experienced professionals Kevin P. Coyne and…….”

I would greatly appreciate anyone’s thoughts on this before editing the article, whether you think it is anything to be concerned with or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvbergen C109 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

In principle I would agree, but if we take the neutrality policy to its logical extreme: with no disrespect to either Coyne or Subramaniam, would it not be more neutral to say "Similarly, Kevin P. Coyne, Somu Subramaniam and others have...." and maybe Wikify their names?User:Blacks C109 —Preceding undated comment added 17:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC).

I looked and there are no Wikipedia pages for Coyne or Subramaniam. I googled them and did find some info on them which lead me to maybe using “experienced professionals” but as you say doing that may not be considered neutral, so I would probably go with your suggestion.--Dvbergen C109 (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you both @Blacks_C109 and @Dvbergen_C109 "the likes of" did sound off to me too and also good points on the NPOV of this section when considering replacement wording. If there was a link to any actual sources that contained criticisms of the Porter model that would really improve the article. Or if you cannot find one of these then the {{Reference necessary}} template template could be added where there are unsubstantiated claims made. --Dwellings (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

As I understand from this article competition has two levels:
-'horizontal competition: threat of substitute products, the threat of established rivals, and the threat of new entrants'
and
-'vertical competition: the bargaining power of suppliers and the bargaining power of customers’.

The current diagram from the article and not only, doesn’t suggest any diffrence between vertical and horizontal forces.--Sucioc2 c109 (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that you must keep in mind what you say when editing in relation to dvBergan_C109's question however if possible I would just stick to the information you want to add while also keeping in mind the tone, if you have major doubts then you can choose if you want to edit it. From what I understand there is no right or wrong answer and whatever is put into this article will at some point be edited. Refarrell_C109 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Refarrell C109 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

In relation to @Blacks_C109 and @Dvbergen_C109 discussion on "the likes of", most of that whole section on the criticism of the 5-force model is a straight cut and paste from the 6-force model page (link on page). It seems unnecsssary duplication to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stspelman C109 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that it might be worth a link to the Seven Domains Model, as it shows a similar but contrasting theory, with emphasis on "Attractive Business". However, the only serious article on that Theory is on Entrepedia Wiki. Can we link to that? or do I need to paraphrase from that article?EMcDunphy C109 (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Third update from Oscail

Hi Everyone

It took me a while, to get used to the navigation of this site. I never used it before, because of the creditabilty issues. I corrected some punctuation and added an external link.

Regds MMcAMcauliffe C109 (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi all C1,

Quite late, but I added a link to bricks and clicks for clarification

daatkins_c109 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daatkins c109 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)