The global competitive landscape has witnessed significant changes due to globalization and technology. As such, firms must conduct market analysis and adjust their behavior to remain competitive. This essay examines the contemporary landscape, the impact of forces of competition, outsourcing, risks for business-level strategies, and the definition of important terms.
The current competitive landscape is dynamic, technology-based, and focused on customer satisfaction. Unlike in the past, competition is continuously changing in response to fast-paced technological changes and other global trends. Companies are increasingly converting new technologies, like artificial intelligence, to margins and competitive advantage (Krakowski et al., 2023). Markets today have become integrated, making competition unpredictable and vulnerable to global turbulence, as witnessed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, businesses are focusing more on customer satisfaction as a source of competitive advantage. While the traditional landscape was product-oriented, managers today are adopting a customer-centric mindset by engaging them in co-creating services and products. This factor, coupled with a growing appreciation for environmental conservation, has made firms compete based on increasing customization, personalization, and eco-friendly products.
Technological advancements and globalization are the primary drivers of the new landscape. Regarding globalization, services, goods, people, information, and skills are crossing quicker than before worldwide. Thus, the competition has intensified, with companies more exposed to new global rivals, opportunities, and uncertainties. Simultaneously, fast-paced technological changes have shifted and accelerated competition as firms leverage them to outdo their rivals. Particularly, the emergence of Industry 4.0 technologies, like artificial intelligence, have made firms compete by using algorithms to analyze customers’ data to inform strategic innovations and changes. Regardless of the industry, novel technologies promote performance and efficiency. Thus, firms that successfully integrate them to create innovative services promote customer satisfaction gain a sustainable competitive edge over their rivals.
The Effect of an Industry’s Five Forces of Competition on its affect its Profitability Potential
The five forces can negatively or positively affect an industry’s profitability potential. The threat of new entrants, which represents the probability of new firms joining the industry as determined, negatively impacts its profitability potential (Islami et al., 2020). The threat of more new firms join the market due to low barriers, like land of brand loyalty, low capital requirement, and access to distribution channels, the industry’s profitability decreases because of overcrowding and intense competition.
The threat of substitution and buyer’s power negatively affect an industry’s profitability potential. In particular, direct substitutes in an industry threaten its profit potential as they limit what a firm can produce or force them to fix the price ceiling (Hitt et al., 2015). Failure to notice and respond to substitutes might make a company register decline in profits or losses. Similarly, When buyers in a particular industry have a high bargaining base (due to factors like low switching costs, few customers, and backward integration), they can manipulate it by asking for better quality, less costs, and other demands. These concerns attract high costs or reduce revenues, decreasing the margins.
Supplier’s bargaining power and competitive rivalry in an industry decrease its profit potential (Isabelle et al., 2020). Suppliers who exercise authority in the industry for various reasons, such as patents, high switching costs, and few competitors. Lastly, a high level of competitive rivalry hurts the industry’s profitability by creating action and reaction cycles that disrupt performance.
The Meaning of and Reasons for Outsourcing and its Future
Outsourcing denotes the practice whereby a company passes or hires job functions, business processes, individual tasks, or services to a third party. Firms outsource for several reasons, mainly cost, core competence, and quality constraints. They can outsource to achieve cost-effectiveness by saving labor, overhead, and training expenses. Again, companies tend to outsource when the associated resources (like personnel or technology), focus on its core competencies focus on its core competencies for competitive advantage, or both (Dekker et al., 2020). Lastly, businesses outsource because they want to enjoy specialized expertise from a third party to enhance the quality of their services and products. Thus, firms outsource because they want to reduce production costs, focus on core competencies to improve their competitive edge and improve quality by enjoying specialized expertise from a third party.
The importance of outsourcing will grow in the future. First, because of the talent war and associated costs, companies will find it more cost-effective to outsource services than hire and retain specialized personnel (Dekker et al., 2015). Second, workers globally are increasingly pushing for remote working, so firms will need to adjust by outsourcing their services. Third, integrating new technologies (like Industry 4.0) is costly and complex, meaning companies will find it economical to outsource some associated processes.
The Specific Risks Associated with Using Each Business-Level Strategy
Each of the business-level strategies for competitive advantage has its unique risks. Cost leadership has the risk of sustainability because its success depends on large volumes, which might not be attainable. It exposes a company to instability and risks of debts and bankruptcy because it requires vast capital investment (Agustia et al., 2020). Maintaining cost leadership requires cost-cutting to keep prices low, meaning critical functions like research and development and innovation might be negatively affected, hence quality.
The main risks revolves around costs, exclusivity, the and potential for bad service or product. Providing a differentiated and quality service or good may require intensive investment in research and development, increasing production costs (Islami et al., 2020). This strategy also risks producing a product that is too unfamiliar or does not win consumers’ perceptions. Lastly, differentiation introduces the risk of exclusion by creating products for a small niche, reducing the customer base.
The focus strategy also involves critical risks. The market niche might shrink, become saturated, or vanish because of technological changes and new regulations (Islami et al., 2020). A focused company is also prone to other uncertainties, like changing customer preferences. Focusing undermines growth potential and is at the risk of imitation or substitution.
The Meaning of Competitors, Competitive Rivalry, Competitive Behavior, and Competitive Dynamics
Competitors are key stakeholders in a business. They constitute companies serving similar customers with similar services or goods in the same market (Hitt et al., 2015). Competitors may be operating at local, national, regional, or global levels and tend to reduce a firm’s market share.
Competitive rivalry, competitive dynamics, and competitive mean different. Competitive rivalry is defined as an ongoing interplay of competitive measures, counter-measures, actions, and responses between rival firms as struggle each other for a crucial market share (Hitt et al., 2015). It dependent on factors, like the number of players, ownership of production sources, and regulations. Contrarily, a competitive behavior entails the group of strategies and counter-strategies a business undertakes promote or guard its positions and advantages over competitors. It is limited to firm-specific actions and responses. Finally, competitive dynamics defines the combined measures, actions, counter-measures, and responses for all business rivaling in a particular market. Thus, competitive dynamics are market-based as they consider all players or competitors’ behaviors.
References
Agustia, D., Muhammad, N. P. A., & Permatasari, Y. (2020). Earnings management, business strategy, and bankruptcy risk: evidence from Indonesia. Heliyon, 6(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03317
Dekker, H. C., Mooi, E., & Visser, A. (2020). Firm enablement through outsourcing: A longitudinal analysis of how outsourcing enables process improvement under financial and competence constraints. Industrial Marketing Management, 90, 124–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.07.006
Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2015). Strategic management: Competitiveness & globalization: Concepts & cases. Cengage Learning.
Isabelle, D., Horak, K., McKinnon, S., & Palumbo, C. (2020). Is Porter’s five forces framework still relevant? A study of the capital/labour intensity continuum via mining and IT industries. Technology Innovation Management Review, 10(6), 28–41. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1366
Islami, X., Mustafa, N., & Topuzovska Latkovikj, M. (2020). Linking porter’s generic strategies to firm performance. Future Business Journal, 6(1), 11–25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-020-0009-1
Krakowski, S., Luger, J., & Raisch, S. (2023). Artificial intelligence and the changing sources of competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 44(6), 1425–1452. https://doi.org/10.1177/23409444231210566
write