/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

Propositio