Editor’s Note:In 1979, Harvard Busi

Editor’s Note:
In 1979, Harvard Business Review published “How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy” by a young economist and associate professor, Michael E. Porter. It was his first HBR article, and it started a revolution in the strategy field. In subsequent decades, Porter has brought his signature economic rigor to the study of competitive strategy for corporations, regions, nations, and, more recently, health care and philanthropy. “Porter’s five forces” have shaped a generation of academic research and business practice. With prodding and assistance from Harvard Business
School Professor Jan Rivkin and longtime colleague Joan Magretta, Porter here reaffirms, updates, and extends the classic work. He also addresses common misunderstandings, provides
practical guidance for users of the framework, and offers a deeper view of its implications for
strategy today.In essence, the job of the strategist is to understand and cope with competition. Often, however, managers define competition too narrowly, as if it occurred only among today’s direct competitors. Yet competition for profits goes beyond established industry rivals to include four other competitive forces as well: customers, suppliers, potential entrants, and substitute products. The extended rivalry that results from all five forces defines an industry’s structure and shapes the nature of competitive interaction within an industry. As different from one another as industries might appear on the surface, the underlying drivers of profitability are the same. The global auto industry, for instance, appears to have nothing in common with the worldwide market for art masterpieces or the heavily regulated health-care delivery industry in Europe. But to understand industry competition and profitability in each of those three cases, one must analyze the industry’s underlying structure in terms of the five forces. (See the exhibit “The Five Forces That Shape Industry Competition.”) If the forces are intense, as they are in such industries as airlines, textiles, and hotels, almost no company earns attractive returns on investment. If the forces are benign, as they are in industries such as software, soft drinks, and toiletries, many companies are profitable. Industry structure drives competition and profit-ability, not whether an industry produces a product or service, is emerging or mature, high tech or low tech, regulated or unregulated.While a myriad of factors can affect industry profitability in the short run—including the weather and the business cycle—industry structure, manifested in the competitive forces, sets industry profitability in the medium and long run. (See the exhibit “Differences in Industry Profitability.”) Understanding the competitive forces, and their underlying causes, reveals the roots of an industry’s current profitability while providing a framework for anticipating and influencing competition (and profitability) over time. A healthy industry structure should be as much a competitive concern to strategists as their company’s own position. Understanding industry structure is also essential to effective strategic positioning. As we will see, defending against the competitive forces and shaping them in a company’s favor are crucial to strategy.

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

Editor's Note:Pada tahun 1979, Harvard Business Review diterbitkan "Bagaimana kompetitif pasukan bentuk strategi" oleh ekonom muda dan Profesor, Michael E. Porter. Itu artikelnya HBR pertama, dan memulai sebuah revolusi di bidang strategi. Pada dasawarsa berikutnya, Porter telah membawa tanda tangan Nya kekakuan ekonomi untuk mempelajari strategi yang kompetitif untuk perusahaan, wilayah, negara, dan, baru-baru ini, perawatan kesehatan dan filantropi. "Lima kekuatan Porter's" telah membentuk generasi penelitian akademis dan praktek bisnis. Dengan dorongan dan bantuan dari Harvard Business Sekolah Profesor Jan Rivkin dan rekan lama Joan Magretta, Porter di sini menegaskan, update, dan memperluas karya klasik. Dia juga membahas kesalahpahaman umum, menyediakan petunjuk praktis untuk pengguna rangka, dan menawarkan pemandangan yang lebih dalam dari Implikasi-implikasinya bagi strategy today.In essence, the job of the strategist is to understand and cope with competition. Often, however, managers define competition too narrowly, as if it occurred only among today’s direct competitors. Yet competition for profits goes beyond established industry rivals to include four other competitive forces as well: customers, suppliers, potential entrants, and substitute products. The extended rivalry that results from all five forces defines an industry’s structure and shapes the nature of competitive interaction within an industry. As different from one another as industries might appear on the surface, the underlying drivers of profitability are the same. The global auto industry, for instance, appears to have nothing in common with the worldwide market for art masterpieces or the heavily regulated health-care delivery industry in Europe. But to understand industry competition and profitability in each of those three cases, one must analyze the industry’s underlying structure in terms of the five forces. (See the exhibit “The Five Forces That Shape Industry Competition.”) If the forces are intense, as they are in such industries as airlines, textiles, and hotels, almost no company earns attractive returns on investment. If the forces are benign, as they are in industries such as software, soft drinks, and toiletries, many companies are profitable. Industry structure drives competition and profit-ability, not whether an industry produces a product or service, is emerging or mature, high tech or low tech, regulated or unregulated.While a myriad of factors can affect industry profitability in the short run—including the weather and the business cycle—industry structure, manifested in the competitive forces, sets industry profitability in the medium and long run. (See the exhibit “Differences in Industry Profitability.”) Understanding the competitive forces, and their underlying causes, reveals the roots of an industry’s current profitability while providing a framework for anticipating and influencing competition (and profitability) over time. A healthy industry structure should be as much a competitive concern to strategists as their company’s own position. Understanding industry structure is also essential to effective strategic positioning. As we will see, defending against the competitive forces and shaping them in a company’s favor are crucial to strategy.

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 2:

Catatan Editor:
Pada tahun 1979, Harvard Business Review yang diterbitkan "Bagaimana Kompetitif Strategi Angkatan Shape" oleh muda ekonom dan profesor, Michael E. Porter. Itu artikel HBR pertama, dan mulai revolusi di bidang strategi. Dalam dekade berikutnya, Porter telah membawa ketelitian ekonomi tanda tangannya untuk mempelajari strategi bersaing bagi perusahaan, daerah, bangsa, dan, baru-baru ini, perawatan kesehatan dan filantropi. "Lima kekuatan Porter" telah membentuk generasi penelitian akademis dan praktik bisnis. Dengan dorongan dan bantuan dari Harvard Business
School Profesor Jan Rivkin dan rekan lama Joan Magretta, Porter sini menegaskan kembali, update, dan memperpanjang karya klasik. Dia juga membahas kesalahpahaman umum, memberikan
panduan praktis bagi pengguna kerangka, dan menawarkan pemandangan yang lebih dalam implikasinya terhadap
strategi today.In dasarnya, tugas strategi ini adalah untuk memahami dan mengatasi persaingan. Seringkali, bagaimanapun, manajer menentukan persaingan terlalu sempit, seolah-olah itu terjadi hanya di antara pesaing langsung hari ini. Namun persaingan untuk keuntungan melampaui saingan industri didirikan untuk menyertakan empat kekuatan lain yang kompetitif juga: pelanggan, pemasok, pendatang potensial, dan produk pengganti. Persaingan diperpanjang yang dihasilkan dari semua lima pasukan mendefinisikan struktur industri dan membentuk sifat interaksi kompetitif dalam suatu industri. Sebagai berbeda satu sama lain sebagai industri mungkin muncul di permukaan, driver yang mendasari profitabilitas adalah sama. Industri otomotif global, misalnya, tampaknya tidak memiliki kesamaan dengan pasar di seluruh dunia untuk karya seni atau industri pengiriman perawatan kesehatan sangat diatur di Eropa. Tapi untuk memahami persaingan industri dan profitabilitas di masing-masing tiga kasus, seseorang harus menganalisis struktur dasar industri dalam hal lima kekuatan. (Lihat pameran "The Five Forces Persaingan Industri Itu Shape.") Jika pasukan intens, karena mereka dalam industri seperti penerbangan, tekstil, dan hotel, hampir tidak ada perusahaan memperoleh pengembalian investasi yang menarik. Jika pasukan yang jinak, karena mereka dalam industri seperti software, minuman ringan, dan perlengkapan mandi, banyak perusahaan yang menguntungkan. Struktur industri mendorong kompetisi dan laba-kemampuan, bukan apakah suatu industri menghasilkan suatu produk atau jasa, yang muncul atau dewasa, teknologi tinggi atau teknologi rendah, diatur atau unregulated.While segudang faktor yang dapat mempengaruhi profitabilitas industri dalam jangka-pendek termasuk cuaca dan struktur bisnis siklus industri, diwujudkan dalam kekuatan kompetitif, menetapkan profitabilitas industri dalam jangka menengah dan panjang. (Lihat pameran "Perbedaan Industri Profitabilitas.") Memahami kekuatan kompetitif, dan penyebab mereka, mengungkapkan akar profitabilitas industri saat ini sambil memberikan kerangka kerja untuk mengantisipasi dan mempengaruhi persaingan (dan profitabilitas) dari waktu ke waktu. Struktur industri yang sehat harus sebanyak perhatian kompetitif untuk strategi sebagai posisi perusahaan mereka sendiri. Struktur industri pemahaman juga penting untuk posisi strategis yang efektif. Seperti yang akan kita lihat, membela melawan kekuatan kompetitif dan membentuk mereka mendukung sebuah perusahaan adalah penting untuk strategi.