Porter Five Forces Analysis（波特五力分析）

Porter five forces analysis is a framework that attempts to analyze the level of competition within an industry and business strategy development. It draws upon industrial organization (IO) economics to derive five forces that determine the competitive intensity and therefore attractiveness of an Industry. Attractiveness in this context refers to the overall industry profitability. An “unattractive” industry is one in which the combination of these five forces acts to drive down overall profitability. A very unattractive industry would be one approaching “pure competition”, in which available profits for all firms are driven to normal profit. This analysis is associated with its principal innovator Michael E. Porter of Harvard University.

波特五力分析是一個試圖分析行業(yè)內競爭水平和業(yè)務戰(zhàn)略發(fā)展的框架。它利用產業(yè)組織（IO）經濟學得出了五種力，這些力決定了一個行業(yè)的競爭強度和吸引力。在這種情況下的“吸引力”指的是整個行業(yè)的盈利能力。“沒有吸引力”的行業(yè)是指這五種力量的結合會降低整體盈利能力的行業(yè)。一個非常沒有吸引力的行業(yè)將是一個接近“純競爭”的行業(yè)，在這個行業(yè)中，所有公司的可用利潤都被驅趕到正常利潤。這項分析與哈佛大學的主要創(chuàng)新者邁克爾·E·波特（Michael E. Porter）有關。

Porter referred to these forces as the micro environment, to contrast it with the more general term macro environment. They consist of those forces close to a company that affect its ability to serve its customers and make a profit. A change in any of the forces normally requires a business unit to re-assess the marketplace given the overall change in industry information. The overall industry attractiveness does not imply that every firm in the industry will return the same profitability. Firms are able to apply their core competencies, business model or network to achieve a profit above the industry average. A clear example of this is the airline industry. As an industry, profitability is low and yet individual companies, by applying unique business models, have been able to make a return in excess of the industry average.

波特將這些力稱為微觀環(huán)境，以將其與更一般的宏觀環(huán)境進行對比。它們由那些與公司關系密切的力組成，這些力會影響公司為客戶提供服務和賺取利潤的能力?？紤]到行業(yè)信息的整體變化，任何力的變化通常都需要業(yè)務部門重新評估市場。整個行業(yè)的吸引力并不意味著該行業(yè)的每家公司都會獲得相同的盈利能力。航空業(yè)就是一個明顯的例子。作為一個行業(yè)，盈利能力很低，但個別公司通過應用獨特的商業(yè)模式，能夠獲得超過行業(yè)平均水平的回報。

Porter’s five forces include – three forces from ‘horizontal’ competition: the threat of substitute products or services, the threat of established rivals, and the threat of new entrants; and two forces from ‘vertical’ competition: the bargaining power of suppliers and the bargaining power of customers.

波特的五力包括：來自“橫向”競爭的三種力：替代產品或服務的威脅、同業(yè)競爭者的威脅和新進入者的威脅；以及來自“垂直”競爭的兩種力量：供應商的議價能力和購買者的議價能力。

Porter developed his Five Forces analysis in reaction to the then-popular SWOT analysis, which he found unrigorous and ad hoc.[1] Porter’s five forces is based on the Structure-Conduct-Performance paradigm in industrial organizational economics. It has been applied to a diverse range of problems, from helping businesses become more profitable to helping governments stabilize industries.[2] Other Porter strategic frameworks include the value chain and the generic strategies.

波特開發(fā)了五力分析，以回應當時流行的SWOT分析。他發(fā)現(xiàn)SWOT分析不嚴謹，而且是臨時性的。[1]波特五力是基于產業(yè)組織經濟學中的結構-行為-績效范式。它被應用于（處理）各種各樣的問題，它被應用于各種各樣的問題，從幫助企業(yè)變得更有利可圖到幫助政府穩(wěn)定行業(yè)。[2] 波特的其他戰(zhàn)略框架包括價值鏈和通用戰(zhàn)略。

Five forces
五力

Threat of new entrants
新進入者的威脅

Profitable markets that yield high returns will attract new firms. This results in many new entrants, which eventually will decrease profitability for all firms in the industry. Unless the entry of new firms can be blocked by incumbents (which in business refers to the largest company in a certain industry, for instance, in telecommunications, the traditional phone company, typically called the “incumbent operator”), the abnormal profit rate will trend towards zero (perfect competition).

高回報的有利可圖的市場將吸引新公司。這會吸引許多新進入者，最終將降低該行業(yè)所有公司的盈利能力。除非新公司的進入可以被主導運營商阻止（在商業(yè)中指的是某一行業(yè)中最大的公司，例如電信業(yè)，傳統(tǒng)的電話公司，通常被稱為“主導運營商”），反常利潤率將趨向于零（完全競爭）。

The following factors can have an effect on how much of a threat new entrants may pose:

以下因素可能會影響新進入者可能構成的威脅程度：

The existence of barriers to entry (patents, rights, etc.). The most attractive segment is one in which entry barriers are high and exit barriers are low. Few new firms can enter and non-performing firms can exit easily.
存在進入壁壘（專利、版權等）。最具吸引力的市場是進入壁壘高、退出壁壘低的市場。（只有）少量新公司可以進入，而運轉不佳的公司會輕易退出。
Government policy
政府政策
Capital requirements
資本要求
Absolute cost
絕對成本
Cost disadvantages independent of size
與公司規(guī)模無關的成本劣勢
Economies of scale
規(guī)模經濟
Economies of product differences
產品差異經濟
Product differentiation
產品差異化
Brand equity
品牌資產
Switching costs or sunk costs
轉換成本或沉沒成本
Expected retaliation
預期回報
Access to distribution
獲得分銷渠道
Customer loyalty to established brands
顧客對知名品牌的忠誠度
Industry profitability (the more profitable the industry the more attractive it will be to new competitors)
行業(yè)盈利能力（行業(yè)盈利越高，對新進的競爭對手的吸引力就越大）

Threat of substitute products or services
替代產品或服務的威脅

The existence of products outside of the realm of the common product boundaries increases the propensity of customers to switch to alternatives. For example, tap water might be considered a substitute for Coke, whereas Pepsi is a competitor’s similar product. Increased marketing for drinking tap water might “shrink the pie” for both Coke and Pepsi, whereas increased Pepsi advertising would likely “grow the pie” (increase consumption of all soft drinks), albeit while giving Pepsi a larger slice at Coke’s expense. Another example is the substitute of a landline phone with a cellular phone.

“公共產品領域邊界之外的產品”增加了客戶轉向替代品的傾向。例如，除百事可樂外，自來水也可能被視為可口可樂的替代品。增加飲用自來水的營銷可能會“縮小”可口可樂和百事可樂的市場份額，而增加百事可樂的廣告可能會“擴大市場份額”（增加所有軟飲料的消費），盡管如此，可口可樂卻為百事可樂提供了更大的份額。另一個例子是用手機代替固定電話。

Potential factors:
潛在因素：
Buyer propensity to substitute
買方選擇替代品的傾向
Relative price performance of substitute
替代品的相對價格表現(xiàn)
Buyer switching costs
買房的轉換成本
Perceived level of product differentiation
感知產品的差異化的水平
Number of substitute products available in the market
市場上可用的替代產品數量
Ease of substitution
易替換性（替代難度）
Substandard product
次品
Quality depreciation
質量折舊
Availability of close substitute
相似替代品的可獲得性

Bargaining power of customers (buyers)
購買者的議價能力

The bargaining power of customers is also described as the market of outputs: the ability of customers to put the firm under pressure, which also affects the customer’s sensitivity to price changes. Firms can take measures to reduce buyer power, such as implementing a loyalty program. The buyer power is high if the buyer has many alternatives. The buyer power is low if they act independently e.g. If a large number of customers will act with each other and ask to make prices low the company will have no other choice because of large number of customers pressure.

買家的議價能力也被描述為產出市場：買家給公司帶來壓力的能力，它也會影響買家對價格變化的敏感性。公司可以采取措施來降低來自買家的議價能力，比如實施忠誠度計劃。如果買家有很多選擇，那么買家的議價能力就很高。如果買家獨自行事，他的議價能力就低。如果大量買家相互交流，要求降低價格，由于大量用戶的壓力，公司將沒有其他選擇。

Potential factors:
潛在因素：
Buyer concentration to firm concentration ratio
買家集中度與公司集中度指數
Degree of dependency upon existing channels of distribution
對現(xiàn)有分銷渠道的依賴程度
Bargaining leverage, particularly in industries with high fixed costs
議價的杠桿作用，特別是在固定成本較高的行業(yè)
Buyer switching costs relative to firm switching costs
買家相對于公司的轉換成本
Buyer information availability
買家信息可獲得性
Force down prices
降低價格的力度
Availability of existing substitute products
現(xiàn)有替代產品的可用性
Buyer price sensitivity
買家價格敏感性
Differential advantage (uniqueness) of industry products
行業(yè)產品的差異優(yōu)勢（獨特性）
RFM (customer value) Analysis
RFM（客戶價值）分析
The total amount of trading
交易量

注：集中度指數：某行業(yè)的相關市場內前N家最大的企業(yè)所占市場份額（產值、產量、銷售額、銷售量、職工人數、資產總額等）的總和，是對整個行業(yè)的市場結構集中程度的測量指標，用來衡量企業(yè)的數目和相對規(guī)模的差異，是市場勢力的重要量化指標。

Bargaining power of suppliers
供應商的議價能力

The bargaining power of suppliers is also described as the market of inputs. Suppliers of raw materials, components, labor, and services (such as expertise) to the firm can be a source of power over the firm when there are few substitutes. If you are making biscuits and there is only one person who sells flour, you have no alternative but to buy it from them. Suppliers may refuse to work with the firm or charge excessively high prices for unique resources.

供應商的議價能力也被描述為投入品市場。在幾乎沒有替代品的情況下，給公司提供原材料、組件、勞動力和服務（如專業(yè)知識）的供應商，會成為公司的議價能力來源。如果你在做餅干，而只有一個人賣面粉，你別無選擇，只能從他們那里買。供應商可能會拒絕與公司合作，或對獨特的資源收取過高的價格。

Potential factors are:
潛在因素：
Supplier switching costs relative to firm switching costs
供應商相對于公司的轉換成本
Degree of differentiation of inputs
投入品的差異程度
Impact of inputs on cost or differentiation
投入品對成本或差異的影響
Presence of substitute inputs
存在投入品的替代品
Strength of distribution channel
分銷渠道的實力
Supplier concentration to firm concentration ratio
供應商集中度和公司集中度指數
Employee solidarity (e.g. labor unions)
員工相互支持（如，工會）
Supplier competition: the ability to forward vertically integrate and cut out the buyer.
供應商競爭：向前垂直整合并切斷買方的能力。

Intensity of competitive rivalry
競爭的激烈程度（同業(yè)競爭者的威脅）
For most industries the intensity of competitive rivalry is the major determinant of the competitiveness of the industry.

對于大多數行業(yè)來說，競爭的激烈程度是行業(yè)競爭力的主要決定因素。

Potential factors:
潛在因素：
Sustainable competitive advantage through innovation
通過創(chuàng)新獲得可持續(xù)競爭優(yōu)勢
Competition between online and offline companies
線上和線下公司之間的競爭
Level of advertising expense
廣告支出水平
Powerful competitive strategy
強有力的競爭戰(zhàn)略
Firm concentration ratio
企業(yè)集中度指數
Degree of transparency
透明度

Usage
用法
Strategy consultants occasionally use Porter’s five forces framework when making a qualitative evaluation of a firm’s strategic position. However, for most consultants, the framework is only a starting point or “checklist.” They might use value chain or another type of analysis in conjunction.[3] Like all general frameworks, an analysis that uses it to the exclusion of specifics about a particular situation is considered naive.

戰(zhàn)略顧問在對公司戰(zhàn)略地位進行定性評估時，偶爾會使用波特五力框架。然而，對于大多數顧問來說，該框架只是一個起點或“清單”他們可能會結合使用價值鏈或其他類型的分析。[3] 與所有通用框架一樣，使用它來排除特定情況的細節(jié)的分析被認為是幼稚的。

According to Porter, the five forces model should be used at the line-of-business industry level; it is not designed to be used at the industry group or industry sector level. An industry is defined at a lower, more basic level: a market in which similar or closely related products and/or services are sold to buyers. (See industry information.) A firm that competes in a single industry should develop, at a minimum, one five forces analysis for its industry. Porter makes clear that for diversified companies, the first fundamental issue in corporate strategy is the selection of industries (lines of business) in which the company should compete; and each line of business should develop its own, industry-specific, five forces analysis. The average Global 1,000 company competes in approximately 52 industries (lines of business)[citation needed].

波特認為，五力模型應該在行業(yè)層面上使用；其設計目的不是用于行業(yè)集團或行業(yè)部門層面。行業(yè)被定義在一個較低、更基本的層面上：向買家出售類似或密切相關產品和/或服務的市場。（參見行業(yè)信息。）在單一行業(yè)競爭的公司應至少為其行業(yè)制定一個五力分析。波特明確表示，對于多元化公司來說，公司戰(zhàn)略中的第一個基本問題是選擇公司應該競爭的行業(yè)（業(yè)務線）；每個行業(yè)都應該制定自己的行業(yè)特定五力分析。平均全球1000家公司在大約52個行業(yè)（業(yè)務線）競爭[需要引證]。

Criticisms
批評

Porter’s framework has been challenged by other academics and strategists such as Stewart Neill. Similarly, the likes of ABC, Kevin P. Coyne [1] and Somu Subramaniam have stated that three dubious assumptions underlie the five forces:

波特的框架受到了斯圖爾特·尼爾（Stewart Neill）等其他學者和戰(zhàn)略家的挑戰(zhàn)。類似地，ABC、Kevin P.Coyne[1]和Somu Subramaniam等人也表示，這五種力背后有三個可疑的假設：

That buyers, competitors, and suppliers are unrelated and do not interact and collude.
買家、競爭對手和供應商是不相關的，不會相互影響和勾結。
That the source of value is structural advantage (creating barriers to entry).
價值的來源是結構優(yōu)勢（創(chuàng)造進入壁壘）。
That uncertainty is low, allowing participants in a market to plan for and respond to competitive behavior.[4]
這種不確定性很低，市場參與者可以為競爭行為制定計劃并做出反應。[4]

An important extension to Porter was found in the work of Adam Brandenburger and Barry Nalebuff of Yale School of Management in the mid-1990s. Using game theory, they added the concept of complementors (also called “the 6th force”), helping to explain the reasoning behind strategic alliances. Complementors are known as the impact of related products and services already in the market. [5]The idea that complementors are the sixth force has often been credited to Andrew Grove, former CEO of Intel Corporation. According to most references, the sixth force is government or the public. Martyn Richard Jones, whilst consulting at Groupe Bull, developed an augmented 5 forces model in Scotland in 1993. It is based on Porter’s model and includes Government (national and regional) as well as Pressure Groups as the notional 6th force. This model was the result of work carried out as part of Groupe Bull’s Knowledge Asset Management Organisation initiative.

20世紀90年代中期，耶魯大學管理學院的亞當·勃蘭登伯格（Adam Brandenburger）和巴里·納勒布夫（Barry Nalebuff）的工作中發(fā)現(xiàn)了波特的一個重要延伸。利用博弈論，他們加入了互補者（也稱為“第六力”）的概念，幫助解釋戰(zhàn)略聯(lián)盟背后的原因?；パa者被稱為市場上已有的相關產品和服務的影響。[5] 互補者是第六種力的觀點經常被歸功于英特爾公司前首席執(zhí)行官安德魯·格羅夫（Andrew Grove）。根據大多數參考資料，第六種力是政府或公眾。馬丁·理查德·瓊斯（Martyn Richard Jones）在波爾集團（Groupe Bull）擔任顧問期間，于1993年在蘇格蘭開發(fā)了一個增強的五力模型。他以波特的模型為基礎，包括政府（國家和地區(qū)）以及壓力團體作為概念上的第六種力。該模型是Groupe Bull知識資產管理組織倡議的一部分成果。

Porter indirectly rebutted the assertions of other forces, by referring to innovation, government, and complementary products and services as “factors” that affect the five forces.[6]

波特間接駁斥了”其他的力“的說法，他將創(chuàng)新、政府、互補產品和服務稱為影響這五種力的“因素”。[6]

It is also perhaps not feasible to evaluate the attractiveness of an industry independent of the resources a firm brings to that industry. It is thus argued (Wernerfelt 1984)[7] that this theory be coupled with the Resource-Based View (RBV) in order for the firm to develop a much more sound strategy. It provides a simple perspective for accessing and analyzing the competitive strength and position of a corporation, business or organization.

獨立于企業(yè)為該行業(yè)帶來的資源，評估該行業(yè)的吸引力也可能是不可行的。因此，有人認為（Wernerfelt 1984）[7]該理論應與基于資源的觀點（RBV）相結合，以便企業(yè)制定更合理的戰(zhàn)略。它為訪問和分析公司、企業(yè)或組織的競爭力和地位提供了一個簡單的視角。

參考文獻：

1. Michael Porter, Nicholas Argyres, Anita M. McGahan, “An Interview with Michael Porter”, The Academy of Management Executive 16:2:44 at JSTOR
2. Michael Simkovic, Competition and Crisis in Mortgage Securitization
3. Tang, David (21 October 2014). “Introduction to Strategy Development and Strategy Execution”. Flevy. Retrieved 2 November 2014.
4. Kevin P. Coyne and Somu Subramaniam, “Bringing discipline to strategy”, The McKinsey Quarterly, 1996, Number 4, pp. 14-25 http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/six-forces-model.asp
5. Michael E. Porter. “The Five Competitive Forces that Shape Strategy”, Harvard Business Review, January 2008, p.86-104. PDF
6. Wernerfelt, B. (1984), A resource-based view of the firm, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5, (April–June): pp. 171-180