I'm currently reading Competitive Strategy by Michael Porter.Some time ago I read a few articles that were against focusing as much attention on competitors as this book says you should.Any strat consultants with opinions on this? Do you think that Company A should focus as intensly on Company B and C, gathering data on them and trying to read every move they make, as Michael Porter's book says? Or do you think that too much focus on competitor strategy will dilute your focus on your own strategy? Please give reasons for your answer, and if you have business case examples, please share them.Thanks.

Does Porter quantify how much attention you should focus on your competitors in this book?By writing a critique they are in fact attempting to compete with his ideas, which he earns money from, thus providing a case study which challenges their own assumptions.

No, I don't see him quantifying how much attention should be focused on competitors. However, I haven't finished the book yet, so perhaps that's still coming.It would be intersting to see whether any other strat consultants on this forum believe that too much attention on competitors dilutes focus on your own strategy.

I respect Porter, but he's not the only game in town. Try reading a few other strat titles to gain a rounded view (which ones doesn't matter, just read a couple more. You could start with Ansoff, for example, to cover the basics). Our experience is that most companies who actually engage in strategy development make several common mistakes.1. They pay a 'named' strat house to do it, and most of these have no concept or experience of implementation, so here's a big report saying "if you do this and that you'll make £X". And they charge a fortune for something essentially plucked straight out of a text book (or case study file) by an MBA grad. 2. The strategy evolution is too restricted (involves too few people) an is communcated very poorly.3. The strategy is rarely evaluated prior to selection (i.e. properly measured for contribution to various business objectives, themselves rarely articulated properly)4. The strategy is not implemented very well, if at all. Line managers are then blamed for failure.As for paying too much credence to competition...it is important to evaluate competition, but only to ensure there is "beneficial differentiation" within the strategy. Porter places emphasis on comp. since it is obvious if you come up with a grand plan which is 10 years behind your comp, you fail before you start. However, if you copy or merely improve, rather than innovate...Couple of other factors to consider...1. average tenure of CEO now 18 months (apparently). How long does it take to formulate and implement a strategy to see measurable results? 2. Pace of change is increasing, so incremental improvement is no longer good enough. Put these things together, and that's why everyone is now talking "innovation". Businesses need significant step changes in performance in their markets. This requires several things:1. new products in ever faster development cycles2. more flexible resourcing (different skills every x years)Now any business that puts those two things at the heart of their strategy (whatever sector) is going to come out on top.Hope this stimulates a thought or two.

Definately making me think.18 months average tenure is insane. If that's the case, no wonder so many comapnies keep chopping ang changing their corporate strategy.

Masterstrat- There is a whole consultancy industry out there researching competitors for most of the Fortune 500 and FTSE 100, under the catch-all of Competitive Intelligence. I know, as I spend most of my time undertaking these projects. You cannot build a winning strategy unless you know your competitive landscape in some detail. Read Competitor Intelligence by Andrew Pollard - published by FT Management Series - I helped write/edit it.RegardsColin