competitive-analysis-process

# 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, emo