competitive-analysis-process

--- name: competitive-analysis-process argument-hint: "[competitor set or market, and the decision this analysis supports]" description: "Orchestrate a complete competitive analysis across six steps, from landscape to strategic direction. Use when you need the full picture, not a single scan or card." intent: >- The umbrella workflow for competitive analysis: six analytical steps — landscape overview, product comparison, customer-need fulfillment, business baseline, perception and positioning, strategic direction — each grounded in named frameworks and delegated to the right investigation skill, ending in the four output artifacts that make the work actionable. type: workflow theme: market-intelligence best_for: - "Running a complete competitive analysis instead of a one-off scan" - "Sequencing the market-intelligence skills into one coherent engagement" - "Choosing which analytical step (and which framework) a competitive question actually needs" scenarios: - "New fiscal year, new strategy cycle — run the full competitive analysis on our space" - "I've got scattered competitive research everywhere; give me the process that organizes it" estimated_time: "1-2 weeks calendar time; each step is a 20-45 min working session" --- # Competitive Analysis Process ## Purpose Orchestrate rigorous, repeatable competitive analysis across **six analytical steps**, producing four actionable output types (battle cards, comparison matrices, positioning counter-moves, threat assessments). This is the umbrella: each step names its purpose, its frameworks, and the skill that does the work — the way `discovery-process` orchestrates the discovery skills. Run all six for a strategy cycle; run one when a specific question walks in the door. The steps build on each other, but the sequence bends to the decision. ## Input **Works best with:** the market or competitor set in scope, and **the decision this analysis supports** — a roadmap bet, a positioning refresh, a market entry, deal defense. The decision determines which steps get depth and which get a pass. **Also useful:** any existing intelligence — a prior landscape scan, snapshots, battle cards, or `company-intel` output — so steps consume rather than repeat it. 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; don't re-ask. **Arriving empty-handed? That works too.** The workflow opens by asking what decision is on the table and what you already know, then recommends which steps to run and in what order. **Example invocation:** `Run the competitive analysis process on the mid-market payroll space — decision: whether we defend down-market or push up. We have last quarter's landscape scan.` ## Key Concepts - **Six steps, four outputs.** The steps are analytical lenses; the outputs (battle cards, comparison matrices, positioning moves, threat assessments) are what sales, execs, and roadmap owners actually consume. A step that doesn't feed an output is a detour. - **Steps delegate; this skill orchestrates.** Each step below names the skill that does the work. This file holds the sequence, the frameworks, and the decision points — not the research mechanics. - **Evidence discipline throughout.** Every step honors the [`autonomous-investigation`](../autonomous-investigation/SKILL.md) protocol (Fact/Inference/Assumption labels, real URLs, confidence stacking), drawing signals from the channels in [`intelligence-collection-disciplines`](../intelligence-collection-disciplines/SKILL.md). - **Named frameworks, cited.** Each step stands on published strategy work — Porter's Five Forces, the Kano model, Jobs-to-be-Done, the Business Model Canvas, Ries & Trout positioning, Hamel & Prahalad strategic intent. The frameworks are defined where used; agents shouldn't assume prior knowledge. - **Present ≠ future.** Steps 1-5 read where competitors *are*; Step 6 reads where they're *going* — and it's the step most teams skip, which is why they're perpetually surprised. ## Application **Step 0 — Scope.** Confirm the decision, the competitor set (or run [`market-landscape-scan`](../market-landscape-scan/SKILL.md) to find it), and which steps matter. Offer the six steps as a numbered menu; recommend a subset when the decision doesn't need all six. ### Step 1: Overview of the Competitive Landscape *Who's in the game, where, and how they operate — market saturation, fragmentation, disruptive entrants.* - **Frameworks:** Porter's Five Forces (industry structure); strategic group mapping (clustering competitors by GTM model, innovation pattern, or regional depth); market fragmentation indexing. - **Run:** [`market-landscape-scan`](../market-landscape-scan/SKILL.md) — segments, player map, dynamics, whitespace with the dead-zone test. - **Decision point:** which 2-4 players deserve depth? Everything downstream narrows to them. ### Step 2: Comparisons at the Product Level *Beyond feature lists: value delivery, architecture, interoperability, lifecycle maturity.* - **Frameworks:** Kano model (which features delight vs. merely satisfy); Geoffrey Moore's Whole Product model (core product vs. the ring of services and integrations deals actually hinge on); JTBD-based capability maps (compare by customer job, not by feature name). - **Run:** [`competitive-research-snapshot`](../competitive-research-snapshot/SKILL.md) on the selected players — its comparison matrix is this step's artifact. - **Watch for:** feature parity theater. A capability map by job-to-be-done exposes what a feature checklist hides: two "identical" features serving different jobs badly. ### Step 3: Ability to Fulfill Customer Needs *How well they serve real customers — outcomes, support quality, ecosystem benefits — not tech specs.* - **Frameworks:** Outcome-Driven Innovation (score against customer-defined outcomes); Value Proposition Canvas (their promise vs. the jobs/pains/gains that matter). - **Run:** [`voice-of-customer-miner`](../voice-of-customer-miner/SKILL.md) across the sources your buyer reads — need themes, quoted verbatims, competitor weak points, and switching triggers, each with a source-bias note. - **Watch for:** vendor-authored "reviews" and case studies. Independent complaint clusters are the signal; curated success stories are marketing. ### Step 4: Compilation of Business Information *The financial, organizational, and market baseline: structure, revenue streams, growth levers, channels.* - **Frameworks:** Business Model Canvas (how the whole machine fits together); revenue stream breakdown; sales channel profiling (direct vs. OEM vs. VAR vs. platform). - **Run:** [`company-intel`](../company-intel/SKILL.md) per deep-dive competitor — its eleven-section output (financials, offers, org signals) is this step's artifact; FININT sources per `intelligence-collection-disciplines` do the heavy lifting. - **Watch for:** press-release accounting. Filings and earnings calls outrank announcements — companies lie less where lying is a felony. ### Step 5: Perception and Relative Positioning *How buyers perceive you versus them — in promise, emotion, and mental association, not capability.* - **Frameworks:** Ries & Trout positioning theory (the battle is for the buyer's mind); perceptual mapping (price vs. value-perception plots; find the uncontested space); Blue Ocean strategy canvas. - **Run:** contrast their *stated* positioning (Step 2 snapshots) against *customer language* (Step 3 review mining); draft or revise with [`positioning-statement`](../positioning-statement/SKILL.md). - **Watch for:** the promise-delivery gap — where a competitor's marketing writes checks their reviews say they don't cash. That gap is a positioning counter-move waiting to be claimed. ### Step 6: Competitors' Strategic Direction *Where they're going, not where they are — the step that lets you preempt instead of react.* - **Frameworks:** Hamel & Prahalad's strategic intent (read the ambition behind the moves); the Innovation Ambition Matrix (core/adjacent/transformational mix of their bets). - **Run:** the forward-looking disciplines in [`intelligence-collection-disciplines`](../intelligence-collection-disciplines/SKILL.md) — TECHINT (patent clusters, trademark filings, preprints), HUMINT (hiring surges, leadership moves), FININT (earnings language, M&A themes), MASINT (supply chain, facility buildout) — fused via the confidence-stacking rule. [`competitive-intel-watch`](../competitive-intel-watch/SKILL.md) keeps this step running on a cadence after the initial pass. - **Watch for:** single-signal panic. One patent is exploration; a cluster plus a hiring surge plus a subdomain cert is a committed bet. Stack before you brief. ### Step 7: Produce the Outputs Close by building what the audience consumes — offer as a numbered menu: 1. **Battle cards** for the field — [`battle-card-builder`](../battle-card-builder/SKILL.md) 2. **Executive comparison matrix** — from Step 2's snapshot 3. **Positioning counter-moves** — from Step 5's gap analysis 4. **Threat assessment brief** — Step 6's fused signals, with confidence levels and recommended responses Then set the maintenance cadence: [`competitive-intel-watch`](../competitive-intel-watch/SKILL.md) on the schedule the artifact mapping in `intelligence-collection-disciplines` prescribes (weekly SIGINT layer for cards, quarterly deep passes for direction). A copy/paste engagement tracker for all seven steps lives in [`template.md`](template.md). ## Examples **Scoping to the decision (fictional):** the decision is deal defense against one rival in enterprise deals. The right subset is Steps 2, 3, and 5 on that one competitor, straight into a battle card — Steps 1, 4, and 6 add days, not win-rate. The orchestrator's value is *permission to skip*: "Based on your decision, I recommend Steps 2→3→5 only. Run the full six? 1. Yes, deal defense scope (2, 3, 5 → battle card) 2. Add Step 6 — they've been acquiring lately and I want the direction read 3. Full six-step pass 4. Something else" **Step 6 catching what Steps 1-5 missed:** the present-state read shows a competitor stable and mid-pack. The direction pass finds a patent cluster in a new classification, four platform-engineer postings, and an earnings call where the CFO declined to break out R&D — three disciplines, one story: a platform pivot in progress. The threat assessment brief re-ranks them from "monitor" to "act," a quarter before their announcement would have forced a reactive scramble. See [`examples/sample.md`](examples/sample.md) for a complete worked engagement (fictional FSM-software market) showing the orchestration decisions — scoping menu, recorded skips, and step-to-step compounding — with links into the delegated skills' own worked artifacts. [`examples/sample-industrial.md`](examples/sample-industrial.md) shows the umbrella bending — steps merged, one run out of order, cadence slowed — with each call's reasoning stated. ## Common Pitfalls - **Running all six on autopilot.** The steps are a menu, not a mandate. Scope to the decision or the analysis ships after the decision got made without it. - **Skipping Step 6.** Present-state analysis ages the moment it ships; direction analysis is what buys you a quarter of lead time. Teams that skip it are perpetually surprised on launch day. - **Framework name-dropping.** Citing Five Forces without rating the forces, or Kano without classifying a single feature. A framework earns its mention by producing a judgment. - **Analysis without outputs.** Six beautiful steps and no battle card, no matrix, no brief. Step 7 isn't optional — research is only done when it names the artifact it changes. - **One-time heroics.** A grand annual analysis that's stale by month three. The process ends by installing the watch cadence, or it didn't end — it just stopped. ## References - [`market-landscape-scan`](../market-landscape-scan/SKILL.md) (Workflow) — Step 1 - [`competitive-research-snapshot`](../competitive-research-snapshot/SKILL.md) (Workflow) — Step 2 - [`voice-of-customer-miner`](../voice-of-customer-miner/SKILL.md) (Workflow) — Step 3 - [`company-intel`](../company-intel/SKILL.md) (Workflow) — Step 4 - [`positioning-statement`](../positioning-statement/SKILL.md) (Component) — Step 5 - [`competitive-intel-watch`](../competitive-intel-watch/SKILL.md) (Workflow) — Step 6 cadence + maintenance - [`battle-card-builder`](../battle-card-builder/SKILL.md) (Workflow) — Step 7 output - [`intelligence-collection-disciplines`](../intelligence-collection-disciplines/SKILL.md) (Component) — signal channels throughout - [`autonomous-investigation`](../autonomous-investigation/SKILL.md) (Workflow) — evidence discipline throughout - External frameworks: Porter, *How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy* (HBR, 1979); Kano, attractive quality theory; Moore, *Crossing the Chasm* (Whole Product); Ulwick, Outcome-Driven Innovation; Osterwalder & Pigneur, *Business Model Generation*; Ries & Trout, *Positioning*; Hamel & Prahalad, *Competing for the Future* (HBR, 1994); Nagji & Tuff, *Managing Your Innovation Portfolio* (HBR, 2012) - Adapted from Dean Peters' Competitive Analysis Playbook (Productside).