Back to Details

porters-five-forces

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Porter's Five Forces (Evidence-Cited)

波特五力模型（附证据引用）

Purpose

目的

Read an industry's structure through Porter's Five Forces, with evidence: search plan → force-by-force ratings with signals → profit-pool implication → next-step options. Each force — competitive rivalry, threat of new entrants, threat of substitutes, buyer power, supplier power — is rated weak/moderate/strong and justified with documented signals, because a rating without signals is vibes. The analysis closes where it should have been aiming all along: where the profit pool sits and who is squeezing it. Five forces is an argument about where margin goes, not a diagram for slide four.
通过波特五力模型分析行业结构，全程依托证据：搜索计划→逐力评级（附信号）→利润池影响→下一步选项。每个力——竞争 rivalry、新进入者威胁、替代品威胁、买方议价能力、供应商议价能力——都会被评为弱/中等/强，并以可查证的信号作为依据，因为没有信号支撑的评级只是主观感受。分析最终会落脚于其真正的核心：利润池的位置以及谁在挤压它。五力模型是关于利润流向的论证，而非PPT第四页的图表。

Input

输入

Works best with: the industry or segment, named as precisely as you can ("clinical data management SaaS," not "healthcare"), and the decision this analysis should support. Also useful: a geographic boundary if the structure differs by region, and a 
market-landscape-scan
 in session — the forces read builds on it and searches only gaps.
Input supplied inline with the invocation — text after the skill name, a pasted context dump, or an appended 
ARGUMENTS:
line — counts as answers already given. Use it against the question budget; don't re-ask.
Arriving empty-handed? That works too. The skill opens with at most 3 questions (segment, decision, boundary) and proceeds on labeled assumptions if they go unanswered.
Example invocation: 
Five forces on mid-market field-service management software, North America — decision: whether we enter or partner.
最适用场景： 尽可能精准地指定行业或细分领域（例如“临床数据管理SaaS”，而非“医疗保健”），以及该分析需支持的决策。 额外有用信息： 如果行业结构因地区而异，可提供地理边界；若会话中已进行
market-landscape-scan
，则五力分析会基于此展开，仅搜索信息缺口。
调用时提供的内联输入——技能名称后的文本、粘贴的上下文内容，或附加的
ARGUMENTS:
行——均视为已给出的答案，可用于减少提问次数，无需重复询问。
完全没有输入也可行： 该技能最多会提出3个问题（细分领域、决策、边界），若未得到回答，则会基于标注的假设继续分析。
调用示例： 
Five forces on mid-market field-service management software, North America — decision: whether we enter or partner.

Key Concepts

核心概念

  • Governing protocol: honors the 
    autonomous-investigation
     contract — question budget of 3, search-plan gate, Fact/Inference/Assumption labels, Just Enough Mode (2-4 signals per force), stable schema, 4-option Final Step. Disciplines: FININT (concentration, margins, filings) + OSINT (analyst coverage, trade press) per 
    intelligence-collection-disciplines
    .
  • The framework (Porter, 1979): industry profitability is determined by five structural forces, not by how hard incumbents work. Rivalry sets the intensity of margin competition; entry threat caps pricing; substitutes cap value; buyer power extracts margin downstream; supplier power extracts it upstream. Structure explains what negotiation skill cannot: pricing power is structural.
  • Ratings must survive "how do you know?" Each weak/moderate/strong rating stands on documented signals — concentration data, switching costs, entry examples and how they fared, substitute adoption curves, margin trends. Forces-with-signals is the difference between naming a framework and using one.
  • AI-driven substitution is a named candidate, always. In most knowledge industries it is now the substitute threat; assess it explicitly in the substitutes force rather than letting the analysis pretend it's 2015. Supplier power gets the same modern read: cloud, model, and platform dependencies are supplier concentration.
  • Industry, not player: this reads what the structure does to everyone who plays. 
    swot-analysis
     reads one company's position within it.
  • When NOT to use: nascent categories with no stable structure — the forces are still forming; run the landscape scan and revisit.
  • Do-not-invent list: market share, margin data, entrant names, funding rounds, adoption figures.
  • 遵循协议： 严格执行
    autonomous-investigation
    协议——最多3个问题的提问限额、搜索计划审核、事实/推论/假设标注、适度模式（每个力对应2-4个信号）、固定框架、4选项最终步骤。信息来源遵循
    intelligence-collection-disciplines
    ，包括FININT（集中度、利润率、备案文件）和OSINT（分析师报告、行业媒体）。
  • 框架基础（Porter, 1979）： 行业盈利能力由五种结构性力量决定，而非 incumbent的努力程度。竞争rivalry决定了利润率竞争的激烈程度；新进入者威胁限制了定价上限；替代品威胁限制了价值上限；买方议价能力从下游榨取利润；供应商议价能力从上游榨取利润。结构解释了谈判技巧无法解释的问题：定价权是结构性的。
  • 评级需经得起“如何得知？”的质疑： 每个弱/中等/强评级都基于可查证的信号——集中度数据、转换成本、新进入者案例及表现、替代品 adoption曲线、利润率趋势。带信号的五力分析才是真正运用框架，而非仅仅提及框架。
  • AI驱动的替代品始终是明确的分析对象： 在大多数知识型行业中，AI驱动的替代品已成为主要的替代品威胁；需在替代品威胁部分明确评估，而非假装仍处于2015年。供应商议价能力也需结合现状分析：云、模型和平台依赖属于供应商集中度范畴。
  • 聚焦行业，而非单个玩家： 该分析关注行业结构对所有参与者的影响。
    swot-analysis
    则分析单个公司在行业中的定位。
  • 不适用场景： 结构尚未稳定的新兴领域——此时五力仍在形成中，应先进行市场格局扫描，之后再重新评估。
  • 禁止编造内容清单： 市场份额、利润率数据、新进入者名称、融资轮次、adoption数据。

Application

应用流程

  1. Credit inline context, then ask only the unanswered questions (max 3):
    1. Which industry or segment, precisely?
    2. What decision should this support?
    3. Any geographic boundary?
  2. Show the 3-bullet search plan — what you'll search per force, source types (filings, analyst coverage, trade press, pricing pages, funding databases), fact/inference separation. Continue unless revised. If a landscape scan is in session, build on it; search only gaps.
  3. Rate each force with signals, then emit the schema below exactly.
  1. 参考内联上下文，仅提出未回答的问题（最多3个）：
    1. 具体是哪个行业或细分领域？
    2. 该分析需支持什么决策？
    3. 是否有地理边界？
  2. 展示3条要点的搜索计划——每个力的搜索内容、来源类型（备案文件、分析师报告、行业媒体、定价页面、融资数据库）、事实/推论区分。除非修改，否则继续执行。若已进行市场格局扫描，则基于此展开，仅搜索信息缺口。
  3. 为每个力评级并附上信号，然后严格按照以下框架输出。

Output schema (do not reorder)

输出框架（请勿调整顺序）

markdown
undefined
markdown
undefined

Five Forces: [Industry / Segment]

五力分析：[行业/细分领域]

As-of date: | Boundary: | Decision supported:
截至日期： | 边界： | 支持的决策：

1. Competitive Rivalry — [weak / moderate / strong]

1. 竞争Rivalry — [弱/中等/强]

  • Signals: [concentration, growth rate, differentiation, exit barriers — each with URL + label]
  • What it means here: [one sentence]
  • 信号：[集中度、增长率、差异化、退出壁垒——均附URL+标注]
  • 此处含义：[一句话总结]

2. Threat of New Entrants — [weak / moderate / strong]

2. 新进入者威胁 — [弱/中等/强]

  • Signals: [entry barriers, capital needs, recent entrants and how they fared, regulation — each with URL + label]
  • What it means here: [one sentence]
  • 信号：[进入壁垒、资金需求、近期新进入者及表现、监管——均附URL+标注]
  • 此处含义：[一句话总结]

3. Threat of Substitutes — [weak / moderate / strong]

3. 替代品威胁 — [弱/中等/强]

  • Signals: [substitute adoption, price-performance trajectory, switching evidence — each with URL + label]
  • AI-driven substitution, named and assessed: [labeled]
  • What it means here: [one sentence]
  • 信号：[替代品adoption、性价比轨迹、转换证据——均附URL+标注]
  • AI驱动的替代品，明确评估：[标注]
  • 此处含义：[一句话总结]

4. Buyer Power — [weak / moderate / strong]

4. 买方议价能力 — [弱/中等/强]

  • Signals: [buyer concentration, switching costs, price transparency, backward-integration examples — URL + label]
  • What it means here: [one sentence]
  • 信号：[买方集中度、转换成本、价格透明度、后向整合案例——URL+标注]
  • 此处含义：[一句话总结]

5. Supplier Power — [weak / moderate / strong]

5. 供应商议价能力 — [弱/中等/强]

  • Signals: [supplier concentration (including cloud/model/platform dependencies), input differentiation — URL + label]
  • What it means here: [one sentence]
  • 信号：[供应商集中度（包括云/模型/平台依赖）、输入差异化——URL+标注]
  • 此处含义：[一句话总结]

6. The Profit Pool (the "so what")

6. 利润池（核心结论）

  • Where margin sits today, and the force squeezing it: [labeled]
  • Structure trend: [tightening / loosening, on what evidence]
  • For your decision: [2 sentences tying structure to the decision named above]
  • 当前利润池位置及挤压它的力量：[标注]
  • 结构趋势：[收紧/放松，附依据]
  • 针对你的决策：[两句话将结构与上述决策关联]

Assumptions to Validate

需验证的假设

  • [Assumption 1] / [Assumption 2] / [Assumption 3]

A copy/paste fill-in version of this schema, with quality checks, lives in [`template.md`](template.md).
  • [假设1] / [假设2] / [假设3]

该框架的可复制填充版本（含质量检查）见[`template.md`](template.md)。

Final Step (offer exactly 4 options)

最终步骤（提供恰好4个选项）

  1. Trace the strongest force into your strategy's exposed assumptions
  2. Run 
    market-landscape-scan
     to name the players behind each force
  3. Feed the profit-pool read into an Ansoff growth-options analysis (
    ansoff-matrix
    )
  4. Schedule-ready version: which force signals should a re-run watch?
Accept 
1
, 
2
, 
3
, 
4
, 
1 and 3
, 
Verbose Mode
, or a custom path.
  1. 追踪最强力量，分析其对战略假设的影响
  2. 运行
    market-landscape-scan
    ，明确每个力量背后的参与者
  3. 将利润池分析结果输入安索夫增长矩阵分析（
    ansoff-matrix
    ）
  4. 可用于汇报的版本：重新运行时需关注哪些力量的信号？
接受
1
、
2
、
3
、
4
、
1 and 3
、
Verbose Mode
或自定义路径。

Examples

示例

A rating that survives "how do you know?" (fictional):

4. Buyer Power — strong

  • Signals: top 10 buyers account for ~60% of segment spend — Fact ([trade association data, URL]); three publicized incumbent-to-rival switches in 18 months with no reported penalty — Fact ([press coverage, URLs]); public rate cards make pricing fully transparent — Fact ([vendor pricing pages]); one major buyer built the capability in-house — Fact ([their engineering blog, URL])
  • What it means here: buyers can credibly threaten to leave or build, so list-price integrity is an illusion in this segment — discounting pressure is structural, not a sales-discipline problem.
The profit-pool close doing its job: rivalry moderate, entrants weak, substitutes strong (AI agents absorbing the low-complexity tier), buyers strong, suppliers moderate. The pool sits in the regulated high-complexity tier — the only place two strong forces don't reach — Inference. For the entry decision: enter only via the regulated tier; the volume tier's margin is already spoken for by buyers below and AI substitution above.
See 
examples/sample.md
 for a complete worked five-forces read (fictional FSM-software market) that builds on the 
market-landscape-scan
example and lands at a profit-pool close that changes the decision. 
examples/sample-industrial.md
 shows the forces inverting in an industrial market — read both to see the framework adapt instead of recite.
经得起“如何得知？”质疑的评级（虚构）：

4. 买方议价能力 — 强

  • 信号：前10大买家占细分领域支出的约60% — 事实（[行业协会数据，URL]）；18个月内有3起公开的 incumbent转向竞争对手案例，且无处罚记录 — 事实（[媒体报道，URLs]）；公开价目表使定价完全透明 — 事实（[供应商定价页面]）；一家大型买家自行搭建了相关能力 — 事实（[其技术博客，URL]）
  • 此处含义：买家可可信地威胁转向或自行搭建，因此该细分领域的标价只是假象——降价压力是结构性的，而非销售纪律问题。
利润池核心结论的作用： 竞争rivalry中等，新进入者威胁弱，替代品威胁强（AI Agent占据低复杂度层级），买方议价能力强，供应商议价能力中等。利润池位于受监管的高复杂度层级——这是唯一未被两种强力量影响的区域——推论。针对进入决策：仅通过受监管层级进入；量层级的利润已被下方的买方和上方的AI替代品瓜分。
完整的五力分析示例（虚构现场服务管理软件市场）见
examples/sample.md
，该示例基于
market-landscape-scan
展开，最终得出的利润池结论改变了决策。
examples/sample-industrial.md
展示了工业市场中五力的反转——阅读两个示例可了解框架如何灵活适配，而非机械套用。

Common Pitfalls

常见误区

  • Ratings as vibes. "Rivalry: strong" because it feels crowded. Every rating stands on signals with URLs, or the whole exercise is a diagram.
  • Skipping the AI substitute. Assessing substitutes as adjacent products while an AI workflow eats the category's low end. Name it and rate it, even when the rating is "weak — for now."
  • Confusing competitors with structure. Listing who plays (that's the landscape scan) instead of what the structure does to everyone who plays. The forces are about margin physics, not rosters.
  • No profit-pool close. Five rated forces and no answer to "where does margin go?" The close is the analysis; everything above it is evidence assembly.
  • Forcing structure onto a nascent category. Rating forces that haven't formed yet produces confident noise. Say "still forming," scan the landscape, revisit in two quarters.
  • 主观评级： 因感觉市场拥挤而给出“竞争rivalry：强”的评级。每个评级都必须基于带URL的信号，否则整个分析只是一张图表。
  • 忽略AI替代品： 将替代品仅视为相邻产品，而AI工作流正在蚕食品类的低端市场。需明确提及并评估，即使评级为“弱——目前”。
  • 混淆竞争对手与结构： 列出参与者（这是市场格局扫描的内容），而非分析结构对所有参与者的影响。五力模型关注的是利润规律，而非参与者名单。
  • 缺少利润池核心结论： 给出五个力的评级，但未回答“利润流向何处？”的问题。核心结论才是分析的核心；以上所有内容都是证据收集。
  • 强行对新兴领域进行结构分析： 对尚未形成的力量进行评级只会产生看似可信的噪音。应说明“结构仍在形成中”，先进行市场格局扫描，两季度后再重新评估。

References

参考资料

  • autonomous-investigation
     (Workflow) — the governing protocol
  • intelligence-collection-disciplines
     (Component) — FININT/OSINT sources behind the signals
  • market-landscape-scan
     (Workflow) — who plays; this skill asks what the structure does to them
  • swot-analysis
     (Workflow) — one company's position within the structure
  • ansoff-matrix
     (Workflow) — growth options informed by the profit-pool read
  • Michael E. Porter, "How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy" (Harvard Business Review, 1979)
  • Adapted from 
    market-intelligence/porters-five-forces-prompt.md
    in the 
    https://github.com/deanpeters/product-manager-prompts
    repo.
  • autonomous-investigation
    （工作流）——遵循的协议
  • intelligence-collection-disciplines
    （组件）——信号背后的FININT/OSINT来源
  • market-landscape-scan
    （工作流）——参与者信息；本技能分析结构对他们的影响
  • swot-analysis
    （工作流）——单个公司在结构中的定位
  • ansoff-matrix
    （工作流）——基于利润池分析的增长选项
  • Michael E. Porter, "How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy" (Harvard Business Review, 1979)
  • 改编自
    https://github.com/deanpeters/product-manager-prompts
    仓库中的
    market-intelligence/porters-five-forces-prompt.md
    。