---
title: Strategic Frameworks — Porter's Five Forces, SWOT, OKR Alignment
domain: strategic-decision
level: 3
skill: strategic-decision
---

# Strategic Frameworks Reference

> **Scope**: Porter's Five Forces checklist, SWOT scoring templates, and OKR alignment matrices for CEO-level strategic decisions. Use when analyzing market position, competitive dynamics, or organizational direction-setting.
> **Version range**: Framework-agnostic — these frameworks are stable; the templates here adapt them for small-team use.
> **Generated**: 2026-04-09 — validate competitive data freshness before using Five Forces output.

---

## Overview

Porter's Five Forces is misused more often than it is useful. Most applications list generic observations per force without weighting them or drawing a conclusion. SWOT analyses similarly produce four lists that nobody acts on. This reference contains opinionated, scored versions of each framework that produce a decision-ready output, not a slide deck. OKR alignment matrices answer the question practitioners actually need: "Does this strategic option move our OKRs, or does it just sound strategic?"

---

## Porter's Five Forces — Scored Checklist

**Purpose**: Assess industry attractiveness and your competitive position within it. Run before major market entry or expansion decisions.

Rate each force 1-5: 1 = very low pressure on you (good), 5 = very high pressure (bad).

### Force 1: Threat of New Entrants

| Factor | Your Assessment (1-5) | Evidence |
|--------|-----------------------|----------|
| Capital requirements to enter | ___ | ___ |
| Economies of scale advantage for incumbents | ___ | ___ |
| Network effects protecting incumbents | ___ | ___ |
| Regulatory/compliance barriers | ___ | ___ |
| Brand loyalty / switching costs for customers | ___ | ___ |
| **Force Score (average)** | **___** | |

Score 1-2: High barriers, you are protected. Score 4-5: Low barriers, expect new competitors.

### Force 2: Bargaining Power of Suppliers

| Factor | Your Assessment (1-5) | Evidence |
|--------|-----------------------|----------|
| Number of alternative suppliers | ___ | ___ |
| Switching cost to change supplier | ___ | ___ |
| Supplier concentration vs. industry concentration | ___ | ___ |
| Supplier's ability to forward-integrate | ___ | ___ |
| **Force Score (average)** | **___** | |

### Force 3: Bargaining Power of Buyers

| Factor | Your Assessment (1-5) | Evidence |
|--------|-----------------------|----------|
| Buyer concentration (few large buyers vs many small) | ___ | ___ |
| Switching cost for buyers | ___ | ___ |
| Price sensitivity of buyers | ___ | ___ |
| Buyer's ability to backward-integrate | ___ | ___ |
| Availability of substitutes for buyers | ___ | ___ |
| **Force Score (average)** | **___** | |

### Force 4: Threat of Substitutes

| Factor | Your Assessment (1-5) | Evidence |
|--------|-----------------------|----------|
| Number of substitute products/services | ___ | ___ |
| Price-performance of substitutes vs. yours | ___ | ___ |
| Buyer propensity to switch | ___ | ___ |
| **Force Score (average)** | **___** | |

### Force 5: Competitive Rivalry

| Factor | Your Assessment (1-5) | Evidence |
|--------|-----------------------|----------|
| Number and size of competitors | ___ | ___ |
| Industry growth rate | ___ | ___ |
| Product differentiation | ___ | ___ |
| Exit barriers (sunk costs, specialization) | ___ | ___ |
| **Force Score (average)** | **___** | |

### Five Forces Summary

| Force | Score (1-5) | Weight | Weighted |
|-------|-------------|--------|----------|
| Threat of New Entrants | ___ | 20% | ___ |
| Supplier Power | ___ | 15% | ___ |
| Buyer Power | ___ | 25% | ___ |
| Threat of Substitutes | ___ | 20% | ___ |
| Competitive Rivalry | ___ | 20% | ___ |
| **Overall Pressure Score** | | 100% | **___** |

**Interpretation**: Score 1.0-2.0 = attractive industry, favorable position. 2.1-3.5 = moderate pressure, monitor. 3.6-5.0 = high pressure, requires active differentiation or exit plan.

**Worked example** (indie SaaS tool in crowded productivity space):
- New Entrants: 4.2 (low capital, no network effects)
- Supplier Power: 1.5 (AWS/GCP compete for business)
- Buyer Power: 3.8 (price-sensitive, many alternatives)
- Substitutes: 4.0 (spreadsheets, free tools)
- Rivalry: 4.5 (hundreds of competitors)
- **Overall: 3.6** — high pressure; conclusion: must differentiate on vertical specificity, not features.

---

## SWOT Scoring Matrix

Replace the traditional 4-box with scored, prioritized output. Each item gets a score and an action assignment.

### Scoring Method

| Category | Items (max 5 each) | Score (1-10) | Actionable? | Owner |
|----------|--------------------|--------------|-------------|-------|
| **Strength** | Strong brand trust in niche | 8 | Amplify in sales collateral | ___ |
| **Strength** | Proprietary data set | 9 | Build moat, protect via ToS | ___ |
| **Weakness** | No enterprise sales motion | 7 | Hire AE or partner channel | ___ |
| **Weakness** | Single-founder dependency | 6 | Document processes, hire #2 | ___ |
| **Opportunity** | Regulatory change opens market | 8 | Launch compliance feature Q2 | ___ |
| **Opportunity** | Competitor product discontinued | 7 | Outreach to their user base | ___ |
| **Threat** | Large competitor entering space | 9 | Accelerate differentiation | ___ |
| **Threat** | API dependency on third party | 6 | Build abstraction layer | ___ |

**Prioritization**: Address Weaknesses with score 7+ that block top Opportunities first. Ignore Threats with score < 5 until Strengths and Opportunities are capitalized.

### SWOT → Strategic Actions Matrix

|  | **Strengths (S)** | **Weaknesses (W)** |
|--|-------------------|--------------------|
| **Opportunities (O)** | **SO Strategies**: Use strengths to capture opportunities | **WO Strategies**: Overcome weaknesses to capture opportunities |
| **Threats (T)** | **ST Strategies**: Use strengths to mitigate threats | **WT Strategies**: Minimize weaknesses + avoid threats (defensive) |

Fill each quadrant with 1-2 concrete actions, not generic statements.

---

## OKR Alignment Matrix

Use before committing to a strategic initiative. Confirms the initiative actually moves the objectives, or reveals it is a distraction.

### Template

| Strategic Initiative | O1: [Objective 1] | O2: [Objective 2] | O3: [Objective 3] | Alignment Score |
|---------------------|-------------------|-------------------|-------------------|-----------------|
| Initiative A | High (3) | Medium (2) | Low (1) | 6 |
| Initiative B | Low (1) | High (3) | High (3) | 7 |
| Initiative C | None (0) | Low (1) | Medium (2) | 3 |

**Scoring**: None = 0, Low = 1, Medium = 2, High = 3. Max score = 3 × number of objectives.

**Decision rule**: Initiatives with alignment score < 30% of maximum should be questioned. They may be operationally necessary but are not "strategic" — be honest about what you are doing.

**Worked example** (content startup with 3 OKRs):
- O1: Reach 10,000 organic monthly readers by Q4
- O2: Launch paid newsletter tier by Q3
- O3: Establish 3 brand partnerships by Q4

| Initiative | O1 | O2 | O3 | Score |
|------------|----|----|-----|-------|
| Weekly long-form SEO articles | High (3) | Medium (2) | Low (1) | 6 |
| Twitter presence | Medium (2) | None (0) | Low (1) | 3 |
| Podcast series | Low (1) | Medium (2) | High (3) | 6 |
| Email list building | Medium (2) | High (3) | Medium (2) | 7 |

Conclusion: Twitter presence scores 3/9 — keep it under 2 hours/week. Email list building is the highest-leverage initiative at 7/9.

---

## Strategy Horizon Framework

For decisions that span multiple time horizons, use McKinsey's Three Horizons adapted for small teams.

| Horizon | Time Frame | Focus | Investment Level | Resource Split |
|---------|-----------|-------|-----------------|----------------|
| H1: Core | 0-12 months | Defend and extend current business | 70% of resources | Non-negotiable floor |
| H2: Adjacent | 12-36 months | Emerging opportunities with proven demand | 20% of resources | Adjustable quarterly |
| H3: Transformational | 36+ months | Options on future business models | 10% of resources | Can pause if H1 at risk |

**Trap to avoid**: Teams under pressure collapse all resources into H1 and wonder why they have no future. H3 investment survives pressure because it is small — protect it deliberately.

---

## Patterns to Detect and Fix
<!-- no-pair-required: section header, not an individual failure mode -->

### Five Forces as a one-time exercise
**What it looks like**: Five Forces analysis done at company founding, cited 3 years later.
**Why wrong**: Industry forces shift. A 3-year-old analysis of supplier power in cloud infrastructure predates major pricing moves. Forces should be re-run at every major strategic inflection.
**Detection**: Check the date on any Five Forces document. Over 18 months old = must refresh before citing.
**Do instead**: Date-stamp every Five Forces analysis and schedule a refresh trigger at 18 months or at any major industry inflection (funding round, acquisition, regulatory change). Cite only analyses within that window in strategy discussions.

### SWOT without prioritization
**What it looks like**: 20-item SWOT with equal visual weight given to "strong team culture" and "no enterprise sales motion."
**Why wrong**: Without scores, SWOT becomes a list that feels like analysis but produces no action.
**Do instead**: Score every SWOT item and assign it an owner before the session ends. Archive items scoring below 5. The remaining scored, owned items are the actual action surface from the SWOT.
**Fix**: Every SWOT item must have a score and an owner. Items below score 5 are archived, not acted on.

### OKRs set after strategy, not before
**What it looks like**: Leadership decides the strategy in Q4, then writes OKRs in January to match it.
**Why wrong**: OKRs should constrain strategy choice, not validate it retroactively. If OKRs are written to match decisions already made, the alignment matrix is theater.
**Do instead**: Set OKRs for the period before running any OKR alignment matrix. The OKRs act as the constraint that filters strategic options. If OKRs do not exist when the strategy decision needs to be made, use a decision matrix instead.
**Fix**: Set OKRs for the period before running the OKR alignment matrix. If OKRs don't exist, the matrix is not useful — run the decision matrix instead.

### "We have no competitors" (Porter's Forces Denial)
**What it looks like**: Founder refuses to name competitors; "we're unique."
**Why wrong**: No competitors = no market, or no market research. Porter's Threat of Substitutes force always has content even in novel markets (the substitute is "doing nothing" or "using the old way").
**Do instead**: Reframe the question as "what alternatives does the buyer consider?" Every buyer has at least one alternative, even if it is doing nothing or continuing with the old approach. Name those alternatives and analyze them as substitutes in the Forces model.
**Fix**: Replace "competitors" with "alternatives the buyer considers." Every buyer has alternatives, even if not commercial products.

---

## See Also

- `decision-matrices.md` — weighted scoring matrices and pre-mortem templates
- `skills/competitive-intel/references/competitive-mapping.md` — competitor landscape mapping
- `skills/competitive-intel/references/market-positioning.md` — positioning maps and differentiation scoring
