Talk:Porter's five forces analysis/Archives/2014
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Porter's five forces analysis. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
widLy criticized
Since 1979 Porter's 5 forces analysis has been wildy criticized.
Experts in the field 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)
- wildly or widely criticized? Anything can be wildly criticized.
- 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)