Sign inGet started
Skills / Strategy-frameworks

Porter's Five Forces

The essence of strategy is choosing what not to do.

Porter's Five Forces is a rigorous, systematic framework for analyzing the competitive structure of any industry. Developed by Harvard Business School professor Michael E. Porter, it evaluates five structural forces — new entrants, supplier power, buyer power, substitutes, and rivalry — to determine industry attractiveness and identify the strategic positions worth fighting for. Used in consulting, private equity due diligence, corporate strategy, and MBA coursework worldwide.

By Michael E. Porter · Free
Specimen 01 · Live diagnosisPorter's Five Forces
Input

“I'm evaluating the U.S. electric vehicle charging network market. We're a mid-size infrastructure company considering entering as an operator.”

Diagnosis
Let's build a Five Forces analysis for your industry.
Full transcript ↓
Calibrated referenceagent-skills.ai
The gap

Decode the structural forces that determine whether an industry can sustain profits

The Five Forces framework provides a structured decomposition of competitive pressure in any industry across five dimensions: (1) Threat of New Entrants — evaluated through barriers to entry including economies of scale, capital requirements, switching costs, brand loyalty, distribution access, and expected retaliation; (2) Bargaining Power of Suppliers — assessed via supplier concentration, input uniqueness, forward integration threat, and switching costs; (3) Bargaining Power of Buyers — gauged through buyer concentration, price sensitivity, product differentiation, and backward integration threat; (4) Threat of Substitute Products or Services — analyzed by relative price/performance of alternatives and buyer propensity to switch; and (5) Rivalry Among Existing Competitors — shaped by competitor balance, industry growth rate, fixed cost structure, exit barriers, and product differentiation. Each force is rated high, medium, or low based on specific sub-factors; the aggregate intensity determines overall industry attractiveness and profitability potential. The analysis culminates in strategic positioning recommendations aligned with Porter's Generic Strategies: cost leadership, differentiation, or focus.

The problem

Most competitive analyses focus on who the rivals are — not on the structural conditions that make an industry worth competing in at all. Companies enter markets that look attractive on the surface but are quietly eroded by powerful buyers, commoditizing substitutes, or low entry barriers that invite relentless new competition. Without a systematic force-by-force diagnosis, strategic decisions rest on intuition rather than structure.

The solution

By walking through all five forces and rating each against its specific sub-factors, you'll produce a structured industry analysis that reveals whether profitability is structurally attainable — and which forces you must neutralize or exploit to compete successfully.

You bring
  • The industry, market, or sector you want to analyze (even a rough description is enough to start)
  • Any context on key players — major competitors, notable suppliers, or powerful buyers you're already aware of
  • Your strategic goal — market entry assessment, investment due diligence, competitive repositioning, or academic analysis
  • Any data or intelligence you already have on market dynamics, pricing, or competitive behavior
You get
  • A complete Five Forces scorecard with high/medium/low intensity ratings for each force, supported by sub-factor reasoning
  • An industry attractiveness summary stating whether the structural conditions support sustained profitability — and why
  • Identification of the dominant force(s) posing the greatest strategic risk or leverage opportunity
  • Strategic positioning recommendations tied to cost leadership, differentiation, or focus based on force configuration
In action

Watch the methodology work.

Three specimens from a single real session: the same situation, unaided and calibrated, the full transcript, and the skill answering live in the channel where the work happens.

Fig.01The same situation, two ways
Specimens A · B
Specimen AVague
Unaided

“You're preparing a board presentation recommending entry into the EV charging market. You have a market sizing slide, a list of competitors, and a general sense that 'EV adoption is accelerating.' The board asks why your company will be profitable when others are struggling, and you don't have a structural answer — only a growth story.”

×Vague — nothing concrete to act on.
Specimen BCalibrated
With Porter's Five Forces

“You walk the board through a Five Forces scorecard: Medium new entrant threat (capital-filtered but not locked), High supplier power (utility demand charges and interconnection delays are the real profit destroyers), Medium-Low buyer power (drivers are price-sensitive but fragmented), Medium substitute threat (home charging limits public network TAM), High rivalry (price competition on per-kWh rates is accelerating). Overall verdict: structurally challenging — but defensible if you concentrate on utility-favorable territories and pursue differentiation via reliability and fleet contracts. The board has a structural basis for the decision.”

Specific, grounded, and ends with one clear next step.
Fig.02A real session, unedited
In-app · assistant
Porter's Five ForcesClaude
Porter's Five Forces
Let's build a Five Forces analysis for your industry. I'll walk you through each force systematically — new entrants, supplier power, buyer power, substitutes, and rivalry — and we'll rate each one high, medium, or low based on the specific sub-factors that drive intensity. At the end, you'll have a complete force scorecard, an industry attractiveness verdict, and strategic positioning options.
First: what industry, market, or competitive space do you want to analyze? A sentence or two on the context and your goal (market entry, due diligence, repositioning) will help me calibrate the questions.
I'm evaluating the U.S. electric vehicle charging network market. We're a mid-size infrastructure company considering entering as an operator.
Good choice — the EV charging network market has a number of structurally interesting dynamics right now. Let's start with the Threat of New Entrants, since entry barriers are often decisive for infrastructure plays.
A few targeted questions:1. Capital requirements: How capital-intensive is deploying a charging network at meaningful scale — and does this favor large incumbents?2. Incumbency advantages: Do existing operators like ChargePoint, Blink, or Tesla's Supernetwork have locked-in location agreements (parking lots, highway corridors, retail sites) that are difficult for new entrants to replicate?3. Regulatory access: Are there permits, utility interconnection agreements, or government incentive programs that create an inside-track for established players?
What's your read on these sub-factors based on what you've seen in the market?
Capital requirements are high — a single fast-charging hub can cost $500K+. Location agreements are real but the market is still early enough that good sites are available. Regulatory complexity is moderate; the NEVI program actually favors new entrants who can meet federal standards.
Useful picture. Tallying the new entrant sub-factors: high capital requirements push this toward LOW threat, but readily available locations and NEVI program access (which reduces incumbent advantage) push it back toward MODERATE. I'd rate Threat of New Entrants: Medium — capital is a real filter, but it's not prohibitive for an infrastructure company your size, and federal incentives are actively lowering barriers.
Now let's move to Bargaining Power of Suppliers. In your context, suppliers include electrical equipment manufacturers (charging hardware), utility companies (grid interconnection), and software/network platform providers.
1.
Are charging hardware suppliers (e.g., ABB, BTC Power, Tritium) concentrated, or do you have multiple competitive options?2. How much leverage do utilities have over your operating costs via demand charges and interconnection timelines?3. Can you switch hardware vendors between deployments, or do you get locked into a platform ecosystem?
Hardware has a few dominant vendors but competition is increasing. Utilities are honestly the scary one — demand charges can make or break unit economics, and interconnection queues are backlogged 18-24 months in some states. Hardware switching is possible but not frictionless.
That utility dynamic is a classic high-supplier-power signal: concentrated, non-substitutable, and structurally immune to competitive pressure from you. Demand charges and interconnection delays aren't just cost factors — they're strategic constraints that can shift entire site economics. I'm rating Bargaining Power of Suppliers: High, driven primarily by utility leverage. Hardware is medium, but utilities dominate the aggregate rating.
This has immediate strategic implications: your entry strategy should prioritize site selection by utility territory and interconnection queue status — not just by traffic volume. Markets with favorable utility rate structures (flat demand charges, fast interconnection) are structurally more attractive than raw EV adoption numbers would suggest.
Shall we continue with Buyer Power next, or do you want to flag anything before we move on?
Let's keep going — I'm already seeing things I hadn't quantified before.
Good — that's exactly what the sub-factor work surfaces. Let's finish the remaining three forces (Buyer Power, Substitutes, Rivalry), and then I'll compile your full Five Forces Scorecard and industry attractiveness verdict.
Bargaining Power of Buyers: Your buyers are EV drivers (retail) and potentially fleet operators or commercial real estate partners (B2B). Key questions: Is there significant price sensitivity given that charging costs compete with home charging? Do corporate fleet buyers (which represent large volume) have leverage to negotiate pricing or exclusivity? And critically — does the interoperability push (NEVI standards, plug standardization) commoditize your network relative to competitors, reducing switching costs for drivers?
Tell me what you're seeing on driver and fleet price sensitivity.
Reply to Porter's Five Forces
What the skill is doing
01Five-Force Structural Mapping
02Sub-Factor Interrogation
03Force Intensity Rating
Fig.03The same skill, in the channel you already use
WhatsApp · live
9:41
PFPorter's Five Forcestyping…
Messages are end-to-end encrypted. No one outside of this chat can read them.
Today
I'm evaluating the U.S. electric vehicle charging network market. We're a mid-size infrastructure company considering entering as an operator.9:14✓✓
Let's build a Five Forces analysis for your industry.9:14
At the end, you'll have a complete force scorecard, an industry attractiveness verdict, and strategic positioning options.9:15
First: what industry, market, or competitive space do you want to analyze?9:15
Message

The same skill, where the work happens.

No new app to learn. The methodology runs over the WhatsApp Business API, so the answer lands as a reply in the thread you’re already in — same rigour, zero context-switch.

Reads the situation, names the pattern, returns one concrete next move.
Delivered in seconds, inside a conversation that already exists.
Specimen · WhatsApp Business API · live
Capabilities

What it does, specifically.

Each capability is a distinct move drawn straight from the source methodology — not a generic assistant guessing.

CapabilityC-01

Five-Force Structural Mapping

Guides you through a complete inventory of each force as it applies to your specific industry. Rather than jumping to conclusions, this capability ensures all five structural dimensions are considered before any ratings are assigned — preventing the common mistake of fixating on rivals while ignoring supplier power or substitutes.

Directly implements Porter's core assertion from 'How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy' that competition extends far beyond direct rivals to encompass suppliers, buyers, substitutes, and potential entrants — all of which erode long-run profitability.
CapabilityC-02

Sub-Factor Interrogation

For each force, asks targeted questions about the specific sub-factors that determine intensity — such as capital requirements and switching costs for new entrant threats, or buyer concentration and backward integration potential for buyer power. This prevents superficial H/M/L ratings unsupported by evidence.

Based on Porter's published sub-factor checklists from Competitive Strategy (1980), which define the precise determinants of each force — e.g., economies of scale, brand identity, and government policy for entry barriers.
CapabilityC-03

Force Intensity Rating

Synthesizes your answers into a high, medium, or low intensity rating for each force, with explicit rationale. Each rating is traceable to specific sub-factors so the analysis can be defended in a board presentation, investment memo, or academic submission.

Implements Porter's force intensity scoring logic: collective high intensity across forces signals low industry attractiveness; low collective intensity signals structurally favorable conditions for sustained profitability.
CapabilityC-04

Industry Attractiveness Synthesis

Aggregates the five force ratings into an overall verdict on the industry's structural attractiveness — including which forces are the primary profit destroyers, which are manageable, and what the implication is for long-run profitability in this space.

Reflects Porter's central thesis: industry structure, not firm-specific factors alone, determines the average profitability of participants — and the Five Forces are the structural determinants.
CapabilityC-05

Generic Strategies Alignment

Connects your force analysis to concrete strategic positioning options: cost leadership (compete by being the lowest-cost producer), differentiation (compete on uniquely valued attributes), or focus (serve a narrow segment where force intensity is lower). Prevents analysis from ending as a report rather than a decision.

Extends naturally from Porter's Competitive Strategy framework, where Generic Strategies are the prescribed responses to the structural conditions revealed by force analysis — cost leadership counters powerful buyers and rivals; differentiation neutralizes substitutes and new entrants.
Tested

Graded before it shipped.

Every skill is scored against independent scenarios for methodology fidelity before it goes live — not vibes, a rubric.

What it produces
OutputD-01

Five Forces Scorecard

A structured table rating each of the five forces high, medium, or low, with supporting sub-factor evidence for each rating. Suitable for inclusion in a consulting deck, investment memo, or strategy document.

OutputD-02

Industry Attractiveness Brief

A 3-5 sentence synthesis of the aggregate force configuration: overall attractiveness verdict, the dominant force(s) driving the assessment, and the profitability implication for current and prospective participants.

OutputD-03

Strategic Response Roadmap

A prioritized list of strategic implications — which forces to address first, what positioning moves are available, and which of Porter's Generic Strategies best fits the structural conditions revealed by the analysis.

The source

Grounded in the original work.

Every answer traces back to a real source and the practitioner who wrote it — not a secondhand summary. Here is the source of record.

Source authorA-01

Michael E. Porter

Michael E. Porter is the Bishop William Lawrence University Professor at Harvard Business School, where he has taught since 1973. He introduced the Five Forces framework in his landmark 1979 Harvard Business Review article 'How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy,' then codified it in his 1980 book Competitive Strategy, one of the most cited business books in history. Porter is the founder of Harvard's Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness and has advised heads of state, CEOs, and governments across six continents.

Status · Inspired by Michael E. Porter’s work — not yet claimed. Are you Michael E. Porter?
Primary sourceS-01

Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors

by Michael E. Porter

Harvard Business School professor since 1973; author of Competitive Strategy (1980) and Competitive Advantage (1985); founder of the Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness; widely recognized as the father of modern competitive strategy.

Read the original ↗
Citationhbr.org
In the build queue

Be first to run it.

Porter's Five Forces is being built right now. Leave your email and we’ll tell you the moment it goes live.

Notify meEmail
At launchI want to analyze the competitive structure of [your industry] using Porter's Five Forces. Can we work through all five forces systematically and produce a force scorecard with an industry attractiveness verdict?