competitive-platform-analysis

Competitive Platform Analysis

Use this skill to decide who to benchmark and where to find them before any scoring begins. A competitive analysis is only as good as its frame: the wrong set makes the client look either unbeatable or doomed. The goal is a defensible, decision-relevant set — not an exhaustive census.

Use When

Starting a competitive-intelligence engagement that needs a defensible, pruned competitor set before benchmarking.
Unsure which companies belong in the Direct / Adjacent / Aspirational tiers.
A client positioning brief exists (or can be quickly elicited) and the task is to identify who genuinely contests that position.
First step before running benchmark-methodology.

Do Not Use When

The competitor discussion is a subsection of a business-plan document, not a standalone competitive-intelligence deliverable — use pipeline/06-competitive-analysis instead (it produces Section 06 of the plan directly, with its own Porter's Five Forces, moat, and market-share treatment).
The competitor set is already tiered and sourced — go straight to benchmark-methodology.

Client positioning brief (establish first — do not skip)

Before scoping the set, establish the client's positioning brief. If it does not already exist, run a short discovery pass to elicit it — do not invent one and do not scope the set blind. The brief supplies:

Identity / register — what kind of company this is and how it presents itself to the market.
Offer — what products or services it delivers.
Target clients — who it sells to.
Differentiator — the moat or positioning argument the client believes in.
Scoping consequence — the implication for how to weight competitors (e.g., prioritise by distinctiveness vs. capability overlap vs. price).
Strategic tension — the paired axes that define the client's white-space (e.g., innovation × bankability, premium × accessibility).

Do not proceed without the positioning brief. A competitor list scoped without the client's lens is noise, not intelligence. The scoping consequence in particular determines which competitors are genuine rivals (those that contest the client's moat) versus merely overlapping on offer.

This gate is a process addition on top of this engine's existing ask-for-business-name-industry-country-context-first rule (rules/common/core.md) — that rule establishes the engagement context (who, what sector, what country); the positioning brief establishes the competitive frame (what tension the client is trying to win) and must be established before scoping, not merely before drafting.

Selection criteria

For each candidate, capture these axes — they decide both inclusion and tier:

Size / model — micro-enterprise, SME, mid-size, large/multinational. Match the client's own band; same-band players are the realistic head-to-head set.
Niche / specialisation — how closely the candidate's focus overlaps with the client's offer. Tighter overlap = more direct.
Geography / market — district/city, national, regional (East Africa), or international; note whether they win the same customers the client targets.
Pricing & engagement model — transparent published pricing vs. quote-on-request; retail vs. wholesale vs. B2B contract. Signals positioning maturity.
Offer presentation — generic vs. differentiated/branded vs. informal and unbranded. Closer to the client's register = more it contests the client's distinctiveness.
Operational/technical depth — relevant if the client's credibility story includes certifications, process quality, or documented systems (e.g. UNBS marks, ISO, NEMA compliance).
Brand strength — does the competitor have an ownable identity, or is it interchangeable/informal? Weight this per the client's scoping consequence.

Player taxonomy — axes to populate across

Don't sort competitors into sector-specific buckets only; sort them along a few generic axes so the landscape isn't skewed toward one archetype. These axes apply to any sector this engine covers (agriculture, ICT, hospitality, manufacturing, services, etc.):

Positioning stance — brand-led (competes on identity, trust, story) vs capability-led (competes on scale, throughput, price). Populate both poles; the client's closest mirror sits at its own end.
Specialisation — specialist (one tight product/vertical) vs generalist (broad offer). Tighter overlap with the client's focus = more direct.
Size / model — micro/informal vs SME vs mid-size vs enterprise/multinational. Same-band players are the realistic head-to-head; larger bands are the aspirational/commercial-maturity reference.
Distribution / channel — direct/retail vs agent/distributor network vs online/digital. Signals reach and go-to-market maturity.
Distinctiveness posture — conventional/undifferentiated vs deliberately positioned (a clear promise, brand, or process). The differentiated end is key for distinctiveness benchmarking in any sector.
Evidence / credibility model — outcome-led (verifiable volumes, named clients, certifications) vs reputation-led (word of mouth, local standing). Tells you how each player earns trust.
Brand strength of the operator — interchangeable/informal vs known, trusted name (including strong sole proprietors who prove the "trusted-name" model works at small scale).
Market / reach — local/regional vs national vs cross-border (EAC); note whether they win the same customers the client targets.

Plot each candidate on the relevant axes; a competitor is direct when it sits near the client on positioning, specialisation, size, and market at once.

Competitive tiers (how the set resolves)

Group the final set into three tiers — this structure carries through to the report:

Direct — same band, overlapping offer, same customer targets. The realistic head-to-head.
Adjacent — partial overlap (one product line, or a different customer segment/size) that pressures at the edges.
Aspirational — players the client is not competing with today but whose commercial maturity or brand sets the bar to aim at (e.g. a national or regional player, for a client currently operating locally).
(Watch also for substitutes: informal/unregistered suppliers, imports, DIY/self-supply, or a customer's "do nothing" option — note as a threat vector, not a profiled competitor, unless materially relevant.)

Data sources (where to look)

Match the source to the dimension needed. Verification in East African markets is often thinner than in mature digital markets — plan for primary and semi-formal sources, not just websites:

Competitor's own site / social pages / WhatsApp Business profile — primary source for positioning, offer, pricing posture, named clients.
Physical site visit or market survey — for informal/retail competitors with no digital footprint; price checks, stock levels, footfall.
Trade/business directories and registries — URSB company search, sector associations, chamber of commerce listings.
Review platforms and social proof — Google reviews, Facebook, marketplace ratings where present.
Supplier/distributor conversations — often the strongest signal for volumes and market share in low-data markets (see meta-due-diligence/references/osint-business-intelligence.md for the 5-layer OSINT method).
Regulatory/certification bodies — UNBS, NEMA, sector regulators — confirms compliance-based credibility claims.
News, trade press, conference/association presence — thought-leadership and market-standing signals.

Always verify claims across at least two sources before treating a competitor attribute as fact (self-reported claims or a single site visit ≠ verified outcome). Carry the never-fabricate-a-number rule (rules/common/core.md) into this stage: an estimated competitor market share or revenue figure must be labelled as an estimate, not presented as fact.

Scoring matrix template (selection stage)

A lightweight pre-filter to decide who graduates into full benchmarking. Score 1–5; keep candidates that score high on either distinctiveness or credibility — the client's strategic tension means both poles are instructive.

Candidate	Positioning stance	Specialisation	Size band	Tier	Offer overlap (1–5)	Distinctiveness (1–5)	Commercial credibility (1–5)	Include?

Rules of thumb (apply per the client's scoping consequence in the positioning brief):

High distinctiveness and high credibility → must-profile (proves the client's target tension is achievable).
High distinctiveness, low credibility → cautionary case (memorable but unproven — a potential failure mode to learn from).
High credibility, low distinctiveness → "competent but forgettable" mass the client defines itself against.
Low on both → drop unless needed for landscape breadth.

Output of this stage

A scoped, tiered competitor set (typically 8–15 candidates → 5–10 profiled given data availability in EA markets), each tagged with its axis positions, tier, and source links, ready to hand to benchmark-methodology.

Required Inputs

Input artefact	Source/provider	Required	Behaviour when absent
Client positioning brief with offer, target customers, differentiator, and strategic tension	Client or authorised engagement lead	Yes	Stop scoping and elicit the missing brief; do not invent a competitive lens.
Engagement context: business, industry, country, size band, and target market	`00-client-intake` and client evidence	Yes	Return the missing context to intake and mark tier decisions `NOT_ASSESSED`.
Candidate evidence and source trail	Approved research notes, registries, site observations, and named contacts	Conditional	Keep the candidate qualified or exclude it pending evidence; do not infer market share or revenue.

Outputs

Artefact	Consumer	Observable acceptance condition
Scoped candidate register	Benchmark-methodology author	Each candidate has inclusion rationale, source trail, axis positions, and an explicit Direct, Adjacent, Aspirational, or substitute treatment.
Tiered competitor set	Client decision-maker and benchmark author	The set is pruned, decision-relevant, and explains who is excluded and why.
Scoping handoff note	Downstream competitive-intelligence skills	States the positioning brief, evidence gaps, verification status, and the next scoring action.

Evidence Produced

Evidence	Format	Acceptance condition
Candidate inclusion record	Register row with source and rationale	Another reviewer can reproduce why the candidate contests the client's position.
Tier and axis assessment	Annotated matrix or decision note	Direct, Adjacent, Aspirational, and substitute distinctions are visible and tied to evidence.
Verification and uncertainty log	Source notes with dates and limitations	Two-source corroboration, asserted claims, and estimated values are clearly labelled.

Capability and Permission Boundaries

Read and search are required. The skill may analyse authorised public and engagement evidence and draft a scoped register; it may not contact competitors, represent itself as the client, purchase data, disclose confidential client information, or publish intelligence. Site visits, interviews, registry fees, or any external communication require explicit engagement-owner authority.

Degraded Mode

If the positioning brief, country context, candidate source, or corroboration is unavailable, stop the affected inclusion or tier decision, mark it NOT_ASSESSED or qualified, and issue the smallest evidence request for recovery. A thin digital footprint may support a clearly labelled candidate hypothesis, but it cannot establish a verified attribute or market-share figure. Continue only with the verified subset and state the downstream consequence.

Decision Rules

Condition	Action	Failure or risk avoided
The client lens is missing or generic	Return to positioning discovery and do not build a flat competitor list	Scoping noise that cannot inform strategy
A candidate overlaps only on product but not customers, size, or market	Classify it as Adjacent or exclude it, with the rationale recorded	Treating every similar offer as a head-to-head rival
A candidate is a maturity reference outside the current market	Classify it Aspirational and keep the commercial distance visible	Comparing unlike operators as if they share the same fight
A market-share or revenue figure is estimated	Label it an estimate with method and uncertainty, or remove it	An unsupported number becoming plan fact

Workflow

Confirm the client positioning brief, business context, country, permission boundary, and decision the competitor set must support; stop if a required input is missing.
Gather candidates across the source types already specified, then record size, niche, geography, engagement model, presentation, operational depth, brand strength, and evidence model.
Plot each candidate against the generic axes and apply Direct, Adjacent, Aspirational, or substitute treatment using the client's scoping consequence.
Apply the pre-filter, test the countercase and exclusion rationale, and verify material attributes across at least two sources where feasible.
Hand off the pruned set, source links, uncertainty, and recovery requests to benchmark-methodology; if the set is not defensible, return to step 1 rather than scoring it.

Quality Standards

Every included candidate has a named reason for inclusion, a tier, axis positions, and a source trail; exclusions are explainable.
The positioning brief remains the frame for inclusion, and the business-plan core rule on country and engagement context is honoured.
Direct, Adjacent, Aspirational, and substitute categories remain distinct, with the client's realistic head-to-head set clearly identified.
Self-reported claims, estimates, and single-source observations retain their uncertainty until corroborated; no market figure is silently promoted to fact.
The handoff exposes the strongest countercase, the evidence gaps, and the condition required before benchmarking can begin.

References

Anti-Patterns

Scoping without a positioning brief. Correction: stop and elicit the client's offer, audience, differentiator, and tension first.
Listing every similar business as a competitor. Correction: retain only candidates with a decision-relevant inclusion rationale.
Blurring Direct, Adjacent, and Aspirational tiers. Correction: state the customer, size, geography, and maturity distinction for each tier.
Treating a single site visit or self-reported claim as verification. Correction: label the observation and seek a second source.
Presenting estimated market share or revenue as fact. Correction: label the estimate with its method and uncertainty or remove it.
Scoping without a positioning brief. A competitor list built without the client's lens is noise. The brief determines what counts as a real rival.
Listing every similar business. The goal is a defensible, pruned candidate set, not a census. Breadth without pruning makes benchmarking unmanageable.
Blurring the Direct/Adjacent/Aspirational tiers. These tiers serve different strategic purposes. Mixing them produces a flat list that can't drive decisions.
Relying on a single source per competitor. A single site visit or self-reported claim is not verification. Confirm across at least two sources.
Jumping straight to scoring. This skill scopes and tiers the set. benchmark-methodology handles scoring. Don't conflate the two steps.
Treating an estimated market share or revenue figure as fact. Label it an estimate per rules/common/core.md.

Related Skills

pipeline/00-client-intake — establishes the business name, industry, and country context this skill assumes is already in place.
pipeline/06-competitive-analysis — use instead when the deliverable is the competitive-analysis section of a business plan, not a standalone competitive-intelligence report.
benchmark-methodology — the next step; takes the tiered set and scores each competitor across nine dimensions.
meta-due-diligence — OSINT methodology reference for gathering competitor intelligence in low-data East African markets.