Computers & Industrial Engineering 182 (2023) 109422

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Industrial Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/caie

Overall competitiveness efficiency: A quantitative approach to the five

forces model
Turan Paksoy a, Mehmet Akif Gunduz a, Sercan Demir b, *
a
Department of Aviation Management, Necmettin Erbakan University, 42140 Konya, Turkey
b
Department of Industrial Engineering, Harran University, 63290 Sanliurfa, Turkey

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study proposes Porter’s five forces model-based technique that measures a company’s competitiveness
Business performance through objective indicators and metrics. We introduce a novel model, the overall competitiveness efficiency,
Competitive advantage which points out that a company’s competitiveness level incorporates capabilities matching five environmental
Firm competitiveness
forces. The five forces are: bargaining power of suppliers, bargaining power of buyers, threats of substitutes,
Five forces model
Industry structure
threats of new entrants, and rivalry among existing competitors. The overall competitiveness efficiency model
Market competition also consists of five dimensions: bargaining power against suppliers, bargaining power against buyers,
competitive power against substitutes, competitive power against new entrants, and competitive power against
competitors. We develop three quantifiable indicators for each dimension and operationalize these indicators
with objective metrics. To show the models’ applicability, we conduct a case study in a hydraulics press industry
company by collecting quantitative data from document analysis, secondary data analysis, semi-structured in­
terviews, and observations. Our model gives managers insight into improving the company’s competitiveness by
focusing on weaknesses and capitalizing on the strengths through measurable competitiveness indicators and
metrics. The models’ implications guide managers in making strategic decisions on the competitive position in
the market.

1. Introduction
The notion of competition is widely used in the field of strategic
management. Since Porter (1980) originated the five forces model, it has
been adopted by many industries and markets. Scholars and practi­
tioners vastly use the five forces model on a sector-based scale; it rarely
focuses on the companies singularly. This observation is even more
surprising since Porter (2008) underlines the strategic nature of the
competition. This oversight is probably due to the industry orientation
of the model (Dobbs, 2014) or the methodological difficulties in
implementation (Narayanan and Fahey, 2005).
The existing literature on the five forces model particularly examines
the impact of environmental factors on industrial competition (Mahat,
2019); thus, the model’s output is a qualitative or quantitative analysis
of the level or characteristics of competition that a company engages in
or an industry or market hosts (Yunna and Yisheng, 2014). Despite a
large number of papers on the subject, a relatively small body of liter­
ature concerns companies’ responses to competitive forces (e.g.,
Dağdeviren and Yüksel, 2010; Hung, 2011; Miyamoto, 2015; Tammi
et al., 2020). In particular, Dağdeviren and Yüksel (2010) examine the
correlation between competitive forces, suggesting that competition
intensity among rivals and the threat of substitute products impact the
bargaining power of buyers and suppliers. Hung (2011) develops a
model that combines the analysis of competitive forces and market risk
to meet a company’s budget and revenue goals. Miyamoto (2015)
studies the relationships between each of the five forces and IT strategy
and business strategy in Japanese SMEs. Tammi et al. (2020) examine
the relationship between innovativeness and competitiveness associated
with company behavior, concluding that ethnocentric firms tend to be
less innovation-oriented. Previous studies on competition analysis at the
organizational level investigate the theoretical concept of competition
or companies’ strategic decisions (e.g., Baxter, 2019; Hamilton, 2020;
Singh et al., 2017). Porter’s five forces model is applied to areas from
healthcare and social assistance sector to travel industry. Lord et al.
(2020) analyze the relationship between market factors and nursing
home financial distress. Tanrıverdi and Lezki (2021) investigate the best
competitive strategy that can be implemented by the air cargo carriers
and assess the degree of change in the industry’s level of competitiveness

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: tpaksoy@yahoo.com (T. Paksoy), akifgunduz@gmail.com (M.A. Gunduz), sercanxdemir@gmail.com (S. Demir).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2023.109422
Received 22 February 2023; Received in revised form 14 June 2023; Accepted 3 July 2023
Available online 6 July 2023
0360-8352/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T. Paksoy et al.
on a national and international scale. Some other studies evaluated the
competition level of lodging sector with regards to the parameters of
Porter’s Five Competition Force (Goral, 2015; Birru et al., 2022). To the
best knowledge of the authors, there is no study addressing a quantita­
tive competitiveness measurement framework at company level. Our
study aims to fill up this evident gap in industrial competition literature.
We extend the five forces model to the company competitiveness level to
introduce overall competitiveness efficiency (OCE) model. As a pio­
neering study, we propose a novel methodology based on the five forces
model that quantitatively analyzes competitiveness at the firm level.
Appendix A compares the previous work and highlights the literature
gap.
Quantifying competitiveness using Porter’s Five Forces Model is
important because it helps businesses understand the dynamics of their
industry and make informed decisions about how to compete effectively.
For instance, by analyzing the threat of new entrants, a business can
determine how difficult it will be for new competitors to enter the
market and compete with incumbent players. This can inform decisions
about pricing, marketing, and investment in new products or services.
Similarly, analyzing the bargaining power of suppliers and buyers can
help businesses understand the cost structure of their industry and
negotiate better deals with suppliers and customers. By understanding
the competitive dynamics of their industry through the lens of Porter’s
Five Forces Model, businesses can develop effective strategies to
compete and succeed in their market.
In this paper, we view OCE as a business capability in which com­
panies respond to environmental forces’ impact to achieve a competitive
edge in the market. Our OCE framework integrates various indicators
related to the environmental factors of the five forces model and in­
troduces a practicable methodology to be utilized by firms for sustain­
able success under rigid competitive circumstances.
The remaining part of the paper proceeds as follows. The second
section deals with the conceptual framework of OCE. The third section is
concerned with the methodology used for this study. The fourth section
describes the case study. The fifth section examines the secondary data,
documents, semi-structured interviews, and observations undertaken
during the data collection process, discusses the analysis results, and
renders managerial and theoretical implications. The final section con­
cludes the study, presents the limitations and gives directions for future
studies.
2. Literature review
This section outlines the conceptual background of the OCE model
and critically evaluates the components of the five forces model, and the
factors and antecedents of firm competitiveness.
In this section, we applied structured literature review in order to
comprehensively analyze and synthesize the existing literature on the
subject under discussion, and to identify gaps, inconsistencies, and
contradictions in the literature. We also ensure that all relevant litera­
ture is identified, evaluated, and analyzed in a systematic and objective
manner. Besides, by synthesizing the findings of multiple studies, a
structured literature review provide us with a more complete and
nuanced understanding of a topic under discussion.
Additionally, by synthesizing the findings of multiple studies, a
structured literature review provided us with a more comprehensive
view of the topic. It enabled us to develop a more robust and valid
framework. This approach was the best option to ensure that we did not
miss any relevant research work and to enhance the theoretical validity
of our model. An electronic search was conducted in Scopus and Web of
Science databases (up to 4 February 2023) using the keyword index
terms “five forces” and “competitiveness”. The article search procedure
included English-only journal papers. The total number of identified
documents through database searching was 209. After removing dupli­
cates, articles were screened independently by three reviewers. Any
disagreements regarding the selection or exclusion of the papers were
2
Computers & Industrial Engineering 182 (2023) 109422
solved by consensus. By excluding off-topic papers, 97 articles are
reviewed.
2.1. Five forces model
Strategic tools have the primary function of developing strategic
reasoning and guiding decision-makers (Godet, 2000). Business strategy
is the set of decisions regarding resource allocation and long-term plans
for companies to gain an edge over competitive forces (Collis and
Montgomery, 1999). Shifts in competitive forces lead to structural
changes in environmental conditions and affect business strategies
alongside other external factors (Porter and Heppelmann, 2014). Ac­
cording to Porter (1997), analysis of the five forces of market structure
makes it possible for a company to achieve a strategic position in the
business environment. The five forces model aims to evaluate the prof­
itability of an industry by analyzing how the industry structure affects
the competitive intensity and market attractiveness and to support
strategic business planning (Porter, 2008). The five forces model’s core
is the competition between companies with different product and mar­
keting strategies (Dobbs, 2014). The sources of five main forces affecting
this competition are suppliers, customers, substitute sectors, new en­
trants to the market, and the ongoing competition among existing
competitors (Porter, 1997). Fig. 1 illustrates five competitive forces and
their impact on industrial competition.
2.2. Bargaining power of suppliers
The bargaining power of suppliers is a critical element of the market
structure in which a business operates. Several studies explore the
impact of suppliers’ bargaining power on firms’ profitability. For
instance, Kotlar et al. (2014) argue that the higher bargaining power of
suppliers is associated with lower profitability. Cho et al. (2019) claim
that suppliers’ bargaining power negatively impacts firm performance.
The bargaining power of suppliers is also studied in the context of firm
strategy (e.g., Bakir et al., 2019; Baxter, 2019; Boudreaux, 2019; Do,
2020; Grundy, 2006; Kompalla et al., 2017; Singh et al., 2017). Bayr­
aktar et al. (2017) report that firms with the higher bargaining power of
suppliers are more likely to adopt a cost leadership strategy. Likewise,
Nair et al. (2011) conclude that the bargaining power of suppliers is
positively associated with firms’ innovation strategies. In addition to the
impact of the bargaining power of suppliers on firm performance and
strategy, researchers have also studied the effect of supplier power on
the relationship between buyers and suppliers. Huq et al. (2014) point
out that the bargaining power of suppliers has a positive impact on the
trust between buyers and suppliers. Sheu (2015) demonstrates that the
bargaining power of suppliers affects the relationship quality between
buyers and suppliers. Finally, researchers have also studied the impact
of the bargaining power of suppliers on industry structure. Moatti et al.
(2014) argue that the bargaining power of suppliers is associated with
the level of concentration in an industry. Similarly, De Fontenay and
Gans (2005) claim that the bargaining power of suppliers is related to
the degree of vertical integration in an industry.
2.3. Bargaining power of buyers
The bargaining power of buyers remains a pressing issue in the
modern marketplace that has resulted in many changes in how busi­
nesses interact with their customers (Hui et al., 2012). Since the intro­
duction of globalization and other market trends, many customers now
have excellent capabilities to leverage certain positions (Singh and
Kumar, 2020). They can bargain for lower prices, better terms, and more
favorable outcomes to get the most out of the transaction (Ribbink and
Grimm, 2014; Wieseke et al., 2014). Moreover, customers’ bargaining
power is also often associated with the emergence of new channels, such
as technology companies that disrupt traditional retail structures (Bar­
utçu and Tunca, 2012). According to many scholars, the various
T. Paksoy et al.
Fig. 1. Porter’s five forces model (.).
Source: Porter, 1997, p. 13
implications of customers’ bargaining power’s effect on businesses can
be significant. (e.g., Baron et al., 2015; Choi and Triantis, 2013; Fabbri
and Klapper, 2016; Li, 2012; Nair et al. 2011). For example, a common
issue is the inability of firms to raise prices beyond a certain threshold
due to pressure from customers’ price sensitivity (Doyle, 2001). Busi­
nesses often find themselves in a situation where they are unable to pass
on costs to customers, resulting in reduced profits (Gebauer et al., 2005).
Moreover, customers’ bargaining power often decreases product and
service quality, as firms must invest more deeply in R&D activities or
innovation strategies (Porter, 2008). In addition to the economic im­
plications, it is also essential to consider the psychological implications
of customers’ bargaining power. Customers’ bargaining power often
creates tension between buyers and suppliers due to the perception of
unequal negotiations (Cheng and Hsieh, 2009). This can lead to a
negative perception of the supplier, as customers are unlikely to be
satisfied with the services provided (Siddhartha and Stephen, 2002). To
manage this issue, it is necessary to have a deep understanding of the
causes and implications. For example, businesses must familiarize
themselves with the latest trends in the market, such as new technolo­
gies disrupting traditional business models (Voelpel et al., 2005). Busi­
nesses must also take proactive steps to remain competitive in pricing,
terms, and product offerings (Narver et al., 2004). Additionally, com­
panies should establish strong customer relationships to ensure trust and
loyalty (Laroche et al., 2013). Finally, companies should also use data
analytics efficiently to make better decisions, such as understanding
customers’ preferences (Corrigan et al., 2014).
2.4. Threat of substitutes
The threat of substitutes determines how a business’s product or
service competes with similar products or services available in the
market for the same usage (Porter, 2008). The idea of substitution is
usually related to the bargaining power of buyers. When several sub­
stitutes are available to the customer, they leverage this power to
3
Computers & Industrial Engineering 182 (2023) 109422
negotiate a better price (Levis and Papageorgiou, 2007). The threat of
substitutes is likely to be greater when there is a moderate range of
pricing between the various substitutes’ attractiveness (Azar, 2011;
Hosier and Kipondya, 1993), when the cost of switching between the
various substitutes is low (McLaren et al., 2002), when the time taken to
switch between substitutes is low (Carlsson et al., 2022), and when the
potential substitutes offer attractive features or values (Campo et al.,
2004; Schuur et al., 2021). The pricing levels are affected if a product or
service substitute is available in the market (Walters, 1991). The
availability and quality of the substitutes affect the intensity of market
competition and the price setting of substitutes (Boubaker et al., 2018).
If a substitute offers a lower price or a better value, it will be favored by
many customers. In other words, customers prefer switching to cheaper
and good-quality products or services. Therefore, businesses should be
aware of any new technology and new product developments in their
industry as they can create the threat of substitutes disruptively
(Edwards, 2004; Lawson et al., 2015).
2.5. Threat of new entrants
The threat of new entrants is defined as the risk associated with entry
into a market by potential competitors and the barriers to entry that
exist to protect incumbent companies from the competition (Porter,
1980). In order for an industry to be profitable, new entrants must be
prevented from entering the market and taking away market share
(Geroski, 1995). Entry barriers for some industries can include capital
costs, technology, government regulations and licensing, knowledge,
switching costs, and differences in production and distribution processes
(Faeth, 2009; Porter, 1980, 1985; Teece, 2000). Entry barriers can be
reduced through strategic choices by firms in the industry, such as
product differentiation (Pehrsson, 2009), predatory pricing (Dixit et al.,
2006), and supply chain collaboration (Ramesh et al., 2010). Significant
entry barriers are technology capabilities, brand recognition, cost of
R&D, the market leader’s power, and government policies (Chen and
T. Paksoy et al.
Zeng, 2004; Niu et al., 2012; Pehrsson, 2009; Rasiah et al., 2010; Shi,
2001). Other strategies to reduce the threat of new entrants include
creating a strategic alliance and vertical integration (De Man and Duy­
sters, 2005; Murray, 2001; Rothaermel et al., 2006; Todeva and Knoke,
2005).
2.6. Rivalry among existing competitors
The rivalry among existing competitors is an essential factor as it
determines the intensity of competition in an industry (Dağdeviren and
Yüksel, 2010). The rivalry among competing firms is mainly affected by
four elements: product differentiation (Hoberg and Phillips, 2016),
market share (Mayer et al., 2014), logistics costs (Zeng and Rossetti,
2003), and exit barriers (Hoyt and Sherman, 2004). In the five forces
model context, these elements affect industry profits, firm growth, and
market share. Tavitiyaman et al. (2011) provide insights into how two
different strategies, Porter’s five forces and resource-based approaches,
can be used to measure business performance. The authors show that
hotels with a competitive advantage have strong human resources and
information technology strategies, while those with an edge over
existing competitors do not. The competitiveness of brand image strat­
egy does not influence business performance, yet human resources and
information technology strategies indicate an increase in performance.
Companies use different criteria, e.g., price and proximity, to define
their competitors, thus needing a practical resource-based approach.
Delios et al. (2007) evaluate the dominant theories of inter-
organizational mimetic behavior: sociological-based information the­
ory and economics-based competitive rivalry theory. The authors
consider how information-based theories are moderated by the
competitive context of the industry at home. The study finds evidence
that the competitive context of the focal firm affects its propensity to
imitate the actions of rival firms.
2.7. Firm competitiveness
As reported in the previous sections, the five forces model is one of
the most well-known tools for assessing industrial competition and
market structure. This paper seeks to harmonize the five forces model
and firm competitiveness. Thus, we offer an overview of the firm
competitiveness concept in this section.
Firm competitiveness has become increasingly important as com­
panies seek to differentiate and remain competitive in markets (Intihar
and Pollack, 2012). Firm competitiveness is an indicator of overall
business performance (Le and Ikram, 2022; Prieto and Revilla, 2006). It
allows the company to improve its profitability, growth, and market
position (Adomako and Tran, 2022; Hassan, 2000; Kumar et al., 2013;
Porter, 1980; Slater and Narver, 1994). For this purpose, researching the
factors of competitiveness and its antecedents continues to be one of the
primary goals of companies seeking to gain a competitive edge.
Firm competitiveness is widely studied in the literature (Falciola
et al., 2020). The highly seminal paper by Porter (1980) defines
competition as an influential factor that determines a firm’s investments
and ability to compete successfully against other firms in its industry or
market. This definition is widely accepted in the literature and is the
basis for most subsequent research.
Several studies have explored the determinants of firm competi­
tiveness. The most discussed determinants include company size,
ownership structure, and resources (Bruque et al., 2003; Davcik and
Sharma, 2016; Nyuur et al., 2019). Company size is often seen as
essential in determining a company’s competitiveness (Nyuur et al.,
2019). As company size increases, they can access more resources,
leading to a greater competitive advantage (Demeter, 2003; Nyuur et al.,
2019). The ownership structure is also considered essential in deter­
mining firm competitiveness (Bruque et al., 2003). Scholars find that
companies with a greater degree of ownership concentration tend to
have higher levels of competitiveness (Bruque et al., 2003; Ho, 2005).
4
Computers & Industrial Engineering 182 (2023) 109422
Finally, resources are a critical determinant of firm competitiveness
(Davcik and Sharma, 2016). Access to resources such as capital, tech­
nology, and human capital can give companies a competitive advantage
(Davcik and Sharma, 2016; Guo and Chen, 2021; Huang et al., 2022).
Besides, industry-level and macroeconomic factors are also identified as
important determinants of firm competitiveness (Chaudhuri and Ray,
1997). Studies show that macroeconomic factors such as the environ­
ment, the business cycle, and the level of economic integration can in­
fluence a company’s competitiveness (Alon et al., 2017; McDonald and
Vertova, 2001). For example, a weak macroeconomic environment can
reduce competition in a market and vice versa (Liu et al., 2020). Simi­
larly, economic integration can increase competition as companies from
different countries can access the same markets and resources (Gardiner
et al., 2004). Finally, the literature also explores the impact of firm
competitiveness on performance. Studies reveal that companies with
higher levels of competitiveness tend to have higher profitability and
market share (Voulgaris and Lemonakis, 2014) and be more resilient to
external shocks, such as economic downturns (Brancati et al., 2021).
Competitive advantage, a closely related term to firm competitive­
ness, is critical to any company’s success. As competition intensifies and
organizations look for ways to stay ahead of the pack, the company-level
competitive advantage becomes an important strategic focus (Dreyer
and Grønhaug, 2004). Building competitive advantage is a process that
requires good management and strategic decisions to ensure that out­
comes will result in increased profitability and success (Olson and Slater,
2002; Roberts, 2003). Previous studies reveal the complexities involved
in achieving competitive advantage. An et al. (2021) explore the role of
company attributes in competitive advantage. The results of their study
indicate that although industry background and endowment of assets
significantly affect the firms’ competitive advantage, not all companies
exploit industry characteristics to achieve a competitive advantage.
Priem et al. (2011) suggest that developing a strong capability portfolio
by focusing on customer preferences, technology, distribution channels,
and brand reputation is more important than industry characteristics in
providing firms with a competitive advantage. In a study by Asrar-ul-
Haq et al. (2017), analysis results determine how employee attitudes
toward organizational commitment and job satisfaction influence
competitive advantage. Authors argue that employees’ job satisfaction
and organizational commitment significantly affect a company’s
competitive advantage. Their study also shows that firms with higher
levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment outperformed
those with lower levels of competitiveness. The authors suggest that
increasing job satisfaction and employee commitment through better
business practices may be one way to ensure a competitive edge. The
importance of business intelligence in building competitive advantage is
also explored in a study by Peters et al. (2016). The authors examine
how organizations use business intelligence systems to optimize their
competitive edge and find that it was influential in gaining competitive
differentiation and increasing operational efficiency. Trkman et al.
(2010) suggest that organizations can use business analytics to out­
source tasks, enabling them to exploit their core resources and capa­
bilities. Vecchiato (2012) contributes to the discussion on competitive
advantage by examining the relationship between environmental un­
certainty and strategic tools. The author’s findings suggest that organi­
zations facing high levels of environmental uncertainty must develop
comprehensive strategic foresight to increase their chances of promptly
detecting opportunities and threats and reacting more effectively as
soon as they emerge. Finally, Tapinos (2012) proposes that such tools go
beyond traditional strategic planning and include formulating foresight
techniques and scenario planning to help the organization navigate the
changing environment.
To conclude, previous studies in the literature show that organiza­
tions can gain a competitive edge by investing in information technology
and business analytics and developing competitive intelligence and
strategic foresight systems. Achieving competitiveness at the company
level requires strategic decision-making, effective management, and an
T. Paksoy et al.
understanding of specific industry backgrounds. Professional services
can also be used to outsource and optimize tasks, while strategic tools
can be used to ensure success in a changing and uncertain business
environment. An organization’s ability to effectively manage and
respond to changing market conditions will determine the ability to gain
a competitive advantage.
3. The conceptual framework: Overall competitiveness
efficiency
Overall competitiveness efficiency, a novel model introduced in this
study, inverts the five forces model’s direction of relationships. The
rationale behind this is that whereas the five forces model expresses the
impact of environmental forces on industrial competition, the OCE
model casts the firm’s competitiveness, or response, to these environ­
mental forces. Accordingly, the OCE model inverts the relationship di­
rections and replaces the effects of competitive forces with the firm’s
competitiveness power. Fig. 2 illustrates the proposed OCE model.
The OCE model has five dimensions matching each of the five forces
model’s environmental factors: bargaining power against suppliers,
bargaining power against buyers, competitive power against substitutes,
competitive power against new entrants, and competitive power against
competitors. Next, we clarify the dimensions of the OCE model.
3.1. Bargaining power against suppliers
The bargaining power against suppliers refers to the ability of a
company to negotiate due to suppliers’ influence on the company and in
the market. This bargaining power is influenced by the company’s
purchasing advantages (Barney, 2012; Chen et al., 2014), advantages
due to the long-term and sustainable relationships with suppliers
(Beheshti et al., 2020; Prajogo et al., 2012), the availability of supplier
companies, input materials, and consolidated supplier base in the
Fig. 2. Proposed overall competitiveness efficiency model.
5
Computers & Industrial Engineering 182 (2023) 109422
industry (Azadegan et al., 2021; Beheshti et al., 2020; Carvalho et al.,
2022).
3.2. Bargaining power against buyers
The bargaining power against buyers refers to the ability of a com­
pany to negotiate with customers regarding their demand for a lower
price and better terms. The level of bargaining power against buyers
depends on customer loyalty (Wieseke et al., 2014), customer engage­
ment (Levy and Gvili, 2020), availability of the company’s products
(Sharma and Krishnan, 2001), the number of customers in the market
(Fabbri and Klapper, 2016), and the size of the orders relative to a firm’s
total business (Gurnani and Shi, 2006).
3.3. Competitive power against substitutes
The competitive power against substitutes refers to the ability of a
company to reduce the likelihood of a customer switching to another
product to fulfill their needs. Substitute products can be in different
forms, such as another product or service, or they can be offered at a
much lower price to attract customers away from the firm’s products
(Porter, 1989). The level of competitive power against substitutes de­
pends on the availability of substitute products (Karagiannopoulos et al.,
2005; Rosato, 2016), their relative prices (Fornari et al., 2016; Gupta
et al., 2021), and the customers’ purchasing behavior (Gupta et al.,
2021; Lee, 2000).
3.4. Competitive power against new entrants
The competitive power against new entrants refers to the ability of a
company to reduce the likelihood of new competitors entering the
market. New entrants tend to add to the competition, often making it
harder for existing firms to stay competitive (Porter, 2008). The level of
T. Paksoy et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 182 (2023) 109422

competitive power against new entrants is determined primarily by the Step 1. Calculating bargaining power against suppliers
barriers to entry (Chang and Wu, 2014). Examples of barriers to entry
include know-how and capital requirements (McAfee et al., 2004), ad­ Company i’s bargaining power against suppliers (αi ) is computed by
vantages of incumbency (Han et al., 2001), switching costs (Gómez and averaging its supply redundancy (α1i ), on-time order delivery rate (α2i ),
Maicas, 2011), and access to necessary resources (Lindsay et al., 2017). and purchase price advantage (α3i ) as shown in Eq. (1):
α1i + α2i + α3i
3.5. Competitive power against competitors αi = (1)
3

Competitive power against competitors refers to the ability of a

company to overcome the competitive effect of the existing firms in the (i) Supply redundancy
market. The level of competitive power against competitors is deter­
mined by factors such as the number of competitors (Menezes and Supply redundancy (α1i ) is calculated by Eq. (2), which divides the
Quiggin, 2012), their relative size, strength, and market position (Burke, company i’s targeted number of suppliers (a11i ) by the total number of
2011; Damanpour, 2010), and competitive intensity (Auh and Menguc, suppliers in the industry (a12i ). Since dividing the targeted number of
2005). suppliers by the total number of suppliers is a reverse metric, i.e., as the
ratio increases, the competitiveness decreases, we subtract the ratio
4. Methodology from 1. Suppose the ratio is greater than or equal to 1, which means the
company builds no competitive advantage due to supply redundancy; in
In this paper, we introduce a novel model for quantifying firm that case, we take the indicator value as 0, making no contribution to
competitiveness, the OCE, conceptually based on Porter’s five forces bargaining power against suppliers.
model. This section presents the methodological steps to establish a ⎧ [ ]〈
measurement technique for the OCE model. ⎪ 1 − a11i , a11i 1
⎪
⎪
⎨ a12i a12i
We first specify the numerical indicators of the OCE model’s five α1i = [ ] (2)
⎪ a11i
dimensions to operationalize the proposed conceptual model. In this ⎪
⎪
⎩ 0, ≥1
sense, the company i’s overall competitiveness efficiency (ωi ) is a12i
computed by the arithmetic mean of its bargaining power against sup­
pliers (αi ), bargaining power against buyers (βi ), competitive power (ii) On-time order delivery rate
against substitutes (γi ), competitive power against new entrants (δi ), and
competitive power against competitors (εi ). We define objective in­ On-time order delivery rate (α2i ) is calculated by Eq. (3), which di­
dicators for each dimension of the OCE model. These indicators calcu­ vides the quantity of the company i’s orders received on time (a21i ) by
late each dimension. We select three measurable indicators for each the total quantity of company i’s orders placed (a22i ).
dimension based on the literature review. Fig. 3 illustrates the di­
a21i
mensions and indicators of the OCE model, and Table 1 summarizes the α2i = (3)
a22i
objective indicators used in this study. The remaining parts of the pre­
sent section describe the methodological steps of calculating OCE. These
methodological steps build upon to propose a measurement system that (iii) Purchase price advantage
clearly specifies indicators and metrics for each competitiveness effi­
ciency dimension. Purchase price advantage (α3i ) is calculated by Eq. (4), which divides
the unit purchase price of the company i’s procurements (a31i ) by the

Fig. 3. Dimensions and indicators of overall competitiveness efficiency.

6
T. Paksoy et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 182 (2023) 109422

Table 1
Summary of overall competitiveness efficiency indicators.
Denotation Indicator Methodological definition Description Source

α1 Supply The ratio of targeted number of suppliers to A supply chain capability of having multiple upstream suppliers
Azadegan et al. (2021)
redundancy the total number of suppliers in the industry. so that if suppliers fail, the company can still access materials from
another source.
α2 On-time order The ratio of orders received on-time to the A resilience capability to receive upstream supply chain demands
Carvalho et al. (2022)
delivery rate total number of placed orders. on time effectively.
α3 Purchase price The ratio of purchased goods’ unit price to A supply chain procurement capability in which materials costs
Chen (2011)
advantage their average market price. are reduced through improved efficiency or negotiations with
suppliers.
β1 Share of The ratio of quantity of category sales to total A marketing performance metric defined as the percentage of
Jung et al. (2016)
requirements quantity of customers’ category purchases. customers’ needs fully satisfied by the company’s products and
services.
β2 Penetration The ratio of number of company’s customers A marketing performance metric that measures the percentage of
Jung et al. (2016)
share to total number of customers in the available a target market purchasing the company’s products or services.
market.
β3 Price The ratio of unit price of company’s category An ability of a company to offer competitive prices for its products
Fornari et al. (2016)
competitiveness products to average unit price of customers’ or services.
category purchases.
γ1 Substitute The ratio of number of substitute product A measure of the degree of substitute product providers’
Karagiannopoulos
proliferation providers to total number of industry product competitive effect in a market.
providers. et al. (2005)
γ2 Substitute The ratio of customers’ average substitute A customer’s trial, i.e., first-time purchase or use, of a substitute
Gupta et al. (2021)
trial ratio trials to the available market customers’ product may result in a switch to substitutes on occasion,
average substitute trials. negatively affecting the company’s competitive power against the
substitutes.
γ3 Substitute The ratio of unit price to average unit price of A relative indicator of competitive pricing against substitute
Gupta et al. (2021)
price ratio customers’ substitute purchase products.
δ1 New entrant The ratio of number of new industry entrants Occurs when a market is growing and profitable, has low barriers
Porter (1980)
proliferation to total number of industry firms. to entry, or hosts a relatively low level of competition.
δ2 Know-how The ratio of know-how investments required Refers to the lack of proprietary technology and knowledge of
Ekeledo and
barrier to entry for industry entry to required total business practices.
investments. Sivakumar (2004)
δ3 Capital barrier The ratio of industry firms’ average liabilities The cost of capital, and specifically access to capital, that prevents
McAfee et al. (2004)
to entry to capital requirements for industry entry. new businesses from entering an industry or market.
ε1 Relative market The ratio of company’s market share to An indicator of the competitive position of a business relative to
Szymanski et al.
share largest competitor’s market share. its competitors by comparing the sales volumes of its products or
services within the industry. (1993)
ε2 Relative usage The ratio of company’s sales per customer to A marketing performance metric which is defined as a company’s
Farris et al. (2010)
index largest competitor’s sales per customer. unit sales per customer ratio to the market’s unit sales per
customer relative to its competitors.
ε3 Inverted One minus the sum of squares of industry A market concentration metric which takes a value between 0 and
Farris et al. (2010)
Herfindahl players’ individual market shares. 1. This index refers that as the value approaches to 1 in markets
index dominated by large competitors, the competition gets intensified.
Contrarily, the value approaches to 0 in markets hosts numerous
relatively small players, which means the competition is gentle.

average market price of the company i’s purchased goods (a32i ). Note
that purchase price advantage is calculated for only A-item goods ac­ (i) Share of requirements
cording to the ABC inventory classification (Torabi et al., 2012). To
reflect a prominent competitive advantage stemming from relative Share of requirements (β1i ) is calculated by Eq. (6), which divides the
purchasing price, we take the company-market procurement price ra­ quantity of the company i’s category sales (b11i ) by the total quantity of
tio’s (a31i /a32i ) power of 2e. Since the company-market procurement the company i’s customers’ category purchases (b12i ).
price ratio is a reverse metric, we subtract the ratio from 1. Also, we take
b11i
this indicator’s value as 0 in case of the ratio is greater than or equal to 1, β1i = (6)
b12i
indicating that the company derives no bargaining power against sup­
pliers from the relative purchase price.
⎧ ( )2e [ ]〈 (ii) Penetration share
⎪
⎪ 1 − a31i , a31i 1
⎪
⎪
⎨ a32i a32i Penetration share (β2i ) is calculated by Eq. (7), which divides the
α3i = [ ] (4)
⎪
⎪
⎪ a31i number of the company’s customers (b21i ) by the total number of cus­
⎪
⎩ 0,
a32i
≥ 1 tomers in the available markets (b22i ). We limit this indicator to the
available market since it compromises the set of customers who have
access to the product, which is a subset of the potential market, defined
Step 2. Calculating bargaining power against buyers as the set of customers who are interested in purchasing the product
(Kotler and Keller, 2012).
Company i’s bargaining power against buyers (βi ) is computed by
averaging its share of requirements (β1i ), penetration share (β2i ), and b21i
β2i = (7)
price competitiveness (β3i ) as shown in Eq. (5): b22i

β1i + β2i + β3i

βi = (5) (iii) Price competitiveness
3

7
T. Paksoy et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 182 (2023) 109422

Price competitiveness (β3i ) is calculated by Eq. (8), which divides the Step 4. Calculating competitive power against new entrants
unit price of the company i’s category products (b31i ) by the average unit
price of the company i’s customers category purchases (b32i ). We take Company i’s competitive power against new entrants (δi ) is calcu­
the company-market sale price ratio’s (b31i /b32i ) power of 2e to highlight lated by averaging new entrant proliferation (δ1i ), know-how barrier to
the competitive advantage from the relative sale price. Since the entry (δ2i ), and capital barrier to entry (δ3i ) as shown in Eq. (13):
company-market sale price ratio is a reverse metric, we subtract the ratio
δ1i + δ2i + δ3i
from 1. Also, we take this indicator’s value as 0 in case of the ratio is δi = (13)
3
greater than or equal to 1, indicating that the company derives no bar­
gaining power against buyers from the company-market sale price ratio.
⎧ i. New entrant proliferation
( )2e [ ]〈
⎪
⎪ b31i b31i
⎪
⎪1 − , 1
⎨ b32i b32i New entrant proliferation (δ1i ) is calculated by Eq. (14), which di­
β3i = (8)
⎪
⎪
[
b31i
] vides the number of new industry entrants in the last three years (d11i )
⎪
⎪
⎩ 0,
b32i
≥1 by the total number of existing industry firms (d12i ). We take the new
√̅̅̅
entrant ratio’s (d11i /d12i ) root of 1/ e to heighten the competitive
advantage derived from being protected from potential new entrants.
Step 3. Calculating competitive power against substitutes Since the new entrant proliferation is a reverse metric, we subtract the
ratio from 1. Fig. 4. illustrates the presumptive values of new entrant
Company i’s competitive power against substitutes (γi ) is computed proliferation with respect to the new entrant ratio. In the figure, the x-
by averaging substitute proliferation (γ1i ), substitute trial ratio (γ2i ), and axis represents the new entrant ratio, and the y-axis represents the new
substitute price ratio (γ3i ) as shown in Eq. (9): entrant proliferation. As Tisdell (2004) suggests, the relationship be­
γ 1i + γ 2i + γ3i tween the variables is monotonously decreasing, which reflects the
γi = (9) decreasing effect of the number of initial entrants on the level of
3
competition.
( )1/√̅e
i. Substitute proliferation d11i
δ1i = 1 − (14)
d12i
Substitute proliferation (γ1i ) is calculated by Eq. (10), which divides
the number of substitute product providers (c11i ) by the total number of ii. Know-how barrier to entry
product providers in the industry (c12i ). Since the substitute proliferation
ratio is a reverse metric, we subtract the ratio from 1. Know-how barrier to entry (δ2i ) is calculated by Eq. (15), which di­
[ ]〈 vides the average know-how investments required for industry entry in
⎧
⎪
⎪ c11i c11i the last three years (d21i ) by average total investments required for in­
⎨ 1 − c12i , c12i 1
⎪
dustry entry in the last three years (d22i ).
γ 1i = [ ] (10)
⎪
⎪ c11i d21i
⎪
⎩ 0,
c12i
≥1 δ2i = (15)
d22i

ii. Substitute trial ratio iii. Capital barrier to entry

Substitute trial ratio (γ2i ) is calculated by Eq. (11), which divides the Capital barrier to entry (δ3i ) is calculated by Eq. (16), which divides
average quantity of the company i’s customers’ substitute product trials the average total liabilities of industry firms (d31i ) by average capital
(c21i ) by the average quantity of available market customers’ substitute requirements for industry entry in the last three years (d32i ).
product trials (c22i ). Since the substitute trial ratio is a reverse metric, we ⎧ ( )2e [ ]〈
subtract the ratio from 1. ⎪
⎪ 1 − d31i , d31i 1
⎪
⎪
⎨ d32i d32i
γ 2i = 1 −
c21i
(11) δ3i = [ ] (16)
c22i ⎪
⎪ d31i
⎪
⎪ 0, ≥ 1
⎩
d32i
iii. Substitute price ratio
Step 5. Calculating competitive power against competitors
Substitute price ratio (γ3i ) is calculated by Eq. (12), which divides the
unit price of the company i’s industry products (c31i ) by the average unit Company i’s competitive power against competitors (εi ) is calculated
price of the company i’s customers’ substitute product trials (c32i ). We by averaging its relative market share (ε1i ), relative usage index (ε2i ),
take the relative substitute price ratio’s (c31i /c32i ) power of 2e to high­ and inverted Herfindahl index (ε3i ) as shown in Eq. (17):
light the competitive advantage. Since the substitute price ratio is a
ε1i + ε2i + ε3i
reverse metric, we subtract the ratio from 1. Also, we take this in­ εi = (17)
3
dicator’s value as 0 in case of the ratio is greater than or equal to 1,
indicating that the company derives no competitive power against
substitutes from the relative price ratio. i. Relative market share
⎧ ( )2e [ ]〈
⎪
⎪
⎪ c31i c31i Relative market share (ε1i ) calculated by Eq. (18), which divides the
⎪1 − , 1
⎨ c32i c32i company i’s market share (e11i ) by the company i’s largest competitor’s
γ 3i = (12)
⎪
⎪
[
c31i
] market share (e12i ). We take this indicator’s value as 1 in case of the ratio
⎪
⎪
⎩ 0,
c32i
≥1 is greater than or equal to 1, indicating that the company derives
maximum competitive power against competitors from the relative
market share.

8
T. Paksoy et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 182 (2023) 109422

Fig. 4. The presumptive effect of the new entrant ratio.

⎧ [ ]〈
⎪ e11i e11i 5. Case study: Calculating the OCE of a hydraulic press company
⎪
⎨ e12i e12i 1
⎪ ,
ε1i = [ ] (18) We applied the proposed overall competitiveness efficiency model
⎪
⎪ e11i
⎪
⎩ 1, ≥1 within a company that operates in the hydraulic press sector to
e12i
demonstrate its applicability. The company XYZ was founded in the
1970 s and is now one of Turkiye’s largest pump manufacturers. Due to
ii. Relative usage index the company’s confidentiality policy, the company name is disguised
and renamed XYZ. The company produces various products such as
Relative usage index (ε2i ) calculated by Eq. (19), which divides the cylinders, pumps, hydraulic valves, hydraulic kits, oil tanks, and power
company i’s total yearly sales per customer (e21i ) by the company i’s takeoffs (see Fig. 5). The company exports its products to over 5000
largest competitor’s total yearly sales per customer (e22i ). We take this customers in 75 countries. The main machinery and processes of the
indicator’s value as 1 in case of the ratio is greater than or equal to 1, company are aluminum forging, steel forging, CNCs, 3D printers, cata­
indicating that the company derives maximum competitive power phoretic coating, robotic arms, CAD/CAM/CAE applications, electro­
against competitors from the relative usage index ratio. static painting, and ERP. Besides, XYZ adopts lean manufacturing
⎧ [ ]〈 principles, uses TQM tools, and possesses ISO 9001:2015, ISO
⎪ e21i , e21i 1
⎪
⎪ 27001:2013, and various declaration of conformity certifications spe­
⎨ e22i e22i
ε2i = [ ] (19) cific to their product range. The company recognizes the value of sus­
⎪
⎪
⎪ e21i tainability applications such as eco-friendly filter systems for painting
⎩ 1, ≥1
e22i and coating operations. The business adheres to ISO 14005:2019 stan­
dards to reduce negative environmental impact and OHSAS 18001
standards to ensure occupational health and safety.
iii. Inverted Herfindahl index
The company wants to assess its overall competitiveness efficiency to
understand its competitive position in the market. With approval from
Inverted Herfindahl index (ε3i ) is calculated by Eq. (20), which adds
the company’s top management, the model introduced in this study is
up squares of industry players’ individual market shares, i.e., the market
applied to the business. The conclusions drawn from using the suggested
share of company i’s competitor j (e31ij ). Since the Herfindahl index is a
reverse metric, the market competition intensifies as the value increases;
we subtract the value from 1.
∑n
ε3i = 1 − j=1
e31ij 2 (20)

Step 6. Calculating overall competitiveness efficiency

In the final step, we calculate the company i’s OCE (ωi ) using Eq.
(21), by taking the arithmetic mean of its bargaining power against
suppliers (αi ), bargaining power against buyers (βi ), competitive power
against substitutes (γi ), competitive power against new entrants (δi ), and
competitive power against competitors (εi ). OCE score takes values be­
tween 0 and 1. As the OCE score approaches 0, the competitiveness of
the firm decreases, and as it approaches 1, its competitiveness increases.
αi + βi + γi + δi + εi
ωi = (21)
5

Fig. 5. Samples of products (a: hydraulic cylinder, b: gear pump, c: closed loop
valve, d: trailer type hydraulic kit, e: side-mounted oil tank).

9
T. Paksoy et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 182 (2023) 109422

model assist the company managers in understanding the strength of the Table 2
company’s level of competitiveness and aid them in making strategic Results of the case study.
choices regarding their competitive position in the market. The OCE Dimension Indicator Metric
framework is designed to be implemented by a group of five individuals
Bargaining power Supply redundancyα1 = Targeted number of
working in the same organization or company. The arithmetic mean is against 0.500 suppliersa11 = 500
used to compute the OCE indicators, but the framework also allows for suppliersα = 0.614 Total number of suppliers in
using other methods, such as the median or mode. Additionally, the the industrya12 = 1, 000
framework can be adapted to different organizational contexts, allowing On-time order delivery Quantity of orders received on-
rateα2 = 0.640 timea21 = 16, 000
for implementing the OCE framework in various settings. The OCE Total quantity of orders
framework aims to provide organizations with a comprehensive and placeda22 = 25, 000
holistic view of their competitive environment, allowing them to iden­ Purchase price Unit purchase price of
tify areas of strength and weakness and develop strategies to improve advantageα3 = 0.703 procurementsa31 = 80
Average market price of
their overall competitiveness. The OCE model can be used to assess an
purchased goodsa32 = 100
organization’s current competitive position and develop an action plan Bargaining power Share of Quantity of category
to improve its competitive advantage. The OCE score reflects the overall against buyersβ = requirementsβ1 = salesb11 = 180, 000
organization’s vision by considering the opinions of multiple stake­ 0.507 0.600 Total quantity of customers’
holders, including employees, managers, and executives. The frame­ category purchasesb12 = 300,
000
work also allows for using different methods to ensure that the OCE Penetration shareβ2 = Number of customersb21 = 5,
score accurately reflects the organization’s vision. 0.333 000
In the study, detailed information about the company is needed for Total number of customers in
the implementation of the OCE framework. We recommend direct (semi- the available marketsb22 = 15,
000
structured or unstructured) interview and analysis of documented in­
Price Unit price of company’s
formation of companies as a method of obtaining such data. In the competitivenessβ3 = category productsb31 = 85
example presented in the study, the data were collected by these 0.587 Average unit price of
methods. The reason for choosing these methods is that some of the data customers’ category
included in the research is sensitive and has a high privacy level. OCE purchasesb32 = 100
Competitive power Substitute Number of substitute product
score is obtained through Eq. (21) by integrating five competitiveness
against proliferationγ1 = 0.700 providersc11 = 30
efficiency dimensions and their indicators. The results of the case study substitutesγ = Total number of product
are presented in the next section. 0.629 providers in the industryc12 =
100
Substitute trial ratioγ2 = Average quantity of customers’
6. Results, discussion, and managerial implications
0.750 substitute trialsc21 = 25
Average quantity of available
This section presents and discusses the overall competitiveness effi­ market customers’ substitute
ciency model’s case study application. The proposed model and its product trialsc22 = 100
pertinent conclusions have several management implications. In order Substitute price Unit price of company’s
ratioγ3 = 0.436 industry productsc31 = 90
to gain competitive advantage and outperform competitors in the mar­ Average unit price of
ket, managers and decision-makers must understand how each indicator customers’ substitute products
within a dimension provides a partial competitive advantage and how trialsc32 = 100
these indicators can be improved. In this sense, our methodology helps Competitive power New entrant Number of new industry
against new proliferationδ1 = 0.838 entrantsd11 = 5
firms plan their strategic priority while detecting negative factors that
entrantsδ = 0.705 Total number of existing
threaten their competitive position in the market. Table 2 presents the industry firmsd12 = 100
results of the case study. Note that the data is distorted due to the Know-how barrier to Average know-how
company’s privacy policy. entryδ2 = 0.300 investments required for
Among the dimensions, competitive power against new entrants has entryd21 = 30
Average total investments
the highest score (δ = 0.705), followed by competitive power against required for entryd22 = 100
competitors (ε = 0.633), competitive power against substitutes (γ = Capital barrier to Average total liabilities of
0.629), bargaining power against suppliers (α = 0.614), and bargaining entryδ3 = 0.977 industry firmsd31 = 50
power against buyers (β = 0.507). Capital barrier to entry (δ3 = 0.977) Average capital requirements
for entryd32 = 100
and new entrant proliferation (δ1 = 0.838) indicators have the greatest
Competitive power Relative market Company’s market sharee11 =
impact on the competitive power score against new entrants. In contrast, against shareε1 = 0.500 3
the know-how barrier to entry (δ2 = 0.300) has the lowest impact. competitorsε = Largest competitor’s market
Relative usage index (ε3 = 0.750) and inverted Herfindahl index (ε2 = 0.633 sharee12 = 6
0.650) are the factors with the most effects on the competitive power Relative usage Total yearly sales per
indexε2 = 0.750 customere21 = 75
against competitors, while relative market share (ε1 = 0.500) has the Largest competitor’s total
least effect. Substitute trial ratio (γ2 = 0.750) and substitute prolifera­ yearly sales per customere22 =
tion (γ1 = 0.700) have the greatest impact on the competitive power 100
against substitutes, while substitute price ratio (γ3 = 0.436) has the Inverted Herfindahl indexε3 = 0.650
Overall competitiveness efficiencyω = 0.618
minimal impact. Purchase price advantage (α3 = 0.703) and on-time
delivery rate (α2 = 0.640) have a significant impact on bargaining
power against suppliers, while supply redundancy contributes to the dimensions.
lowest effect on bargaining power against suppliers. Among the in­ The OCE score can be used as a basis for deciding where to act at five
dicators that form bargaining power against buyers, the share of re­ force level and at the specific level of each indicator. This is very clear
quirements (β1 = 0.600) and price competitiveness (β3 = 0.587) in radar diagrams. The radar chart in Fig. 6 demonstrates focal com­
generate the highest impact, while penetration share (β2 = 0.333) makes pany’s score for each competitiveness efficiency dimension and com­
the lowest impact in this dimension. The OCE score is calculated (ω = pares them with the company’s OCE score. While the bargaining power
0.618) by averaging the scores of five competitiveness efficiency

10
T. Paksoy et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 182 (2023) 109422

Fig. 6. Dimension scores of the focal company.

against buyers (β = 0.507) scores below the average, the competitive
power against new entrants (δ = 0.705) scores above the OCE score (ω =
0.618). The other three dimensions are around the OCE score.
This result implies that the company should improve its bargaining
power capability against buyers in order to be more competitive in the
market. Significantly the penetration share indicator can be improved
by reaching more customers. By doing so, as Verhoef (2003) suggests,
the company should develop customer loyalty programs to ensure
customer retention. Also, market penetration pricing could help increase
the company’s penetration share (Indounas, 2020). Lastly, digital mar­
keting tools such as direct marketing, advertising on new digital pub­
lishing platforms, digital marketing campaigns, search engine
optimization, and content creation (Bala and Verma, 2018; Vieira et al.,
2019) could help extend customer lifetime value (Weinberg and Berger,
2011).
The radar chart in Fig. 7 compares focal company’s competitiveness
efficiency indicator scores by considering the company’s OCE score as a
benchmark. For instance, capital barrier to entry (δ3 = 0.977), new
entrant proliferation (δ1 = 0.838), substitute trial ratio (γ2 = 0.750), and
relative usage index (ε2 = 0.750) scores are above 0.750. On the other
hand, substitute price ratio (γ3 = 0.436), penetration share (β2 = 0.333),
and know-how barrier to entry (δ2 = 0.300) scores are below 0.500.
These low dimension scores are red flags that highlight the weak points
in market competition.
Since competitiveness is a versatile capability (Amaro et al., 1999),
we recommend that the company focus on weaknesses instead of
strengths. It is more difficult to upgrade a strong capability; however,
the company can easily improve the weak capabilities. In order to

Fig. 7. Indicator scores of the focal company.

11
T. Paksoy et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 182 (2023) 109422

improve the bargaining power against suppliers, the company must
establish collaborative buyer–supplier relationships (Corsten and Felde,
2005; Wandfluh et al., 2016; Espadinha-Cruz et al., 2019) and long-term
supply contracts (De Toni and Nassimbeni, 2000) complying with lean
and just-in-time manufacturing philosophy (Demeter et al., 2009),
consolidate the supply base (Foerstl et al., 2020), use a supplier evalu­
ation system (Mondini et al., 2014), install vertical integration systems
(Mpoyi, 2003), reduce the targeted number suppliers (O’Connor et al.,
2018).
7. Conclusions
We propose Porter’s five forces model-based novel methodology that
assesses the competitiveness efficiency of a firm through objective in­
dicators. We introduce the concept of overall competitiveness efficiency,
which emphasizes that a company’s level of competitiveness depends on
its ability to respond to five industrial forces: bargaining power of sup­
pliers, bargaining power of buyers, threats of substitutes, threats of new
entrants, and rivalry among existing competitors. Previous research on
competition analysis at the organizational level examines the theoretical
notion of competition or businesses’ competitive strategy choices.
Hence, our paper fills the gap by introducing a quantitative framework
that evaluates businesses’ performance in relation to the influence of
competitive forces. In our paper, overall competitiveness efficiency is
considered a business capability that allows companies to react to the
effects of external forces in order to gain a competitive edge.
The proposed model in our study provides insights to the managers
and decision-makers on allocating company resources on competitive
efficiency dimensions by computing dimension values based on OCE
indicators and their related metrics. Hence, the implications obtained
through applying the proposed model guide managers to comprehend
the strength of their companies’ competitiveness level and help them
make strategic decisions on competitive position in the market. Our
model enables managers to compare the current status of competitive
dimensions and indicators to the target level. In this sense, the company
can successfully perceive its position in the market by determining the
current competitive performance and projected competitive strength
levels. Thus, managers will make the appropriate strategic decisions on
time, leading to achieving their market competition goals rapidly.
Despite its contributions to the literature, our model has some limi­
tations to be addressed for future research. This paper introduces a novel
methodology based on Porter’s five forces model to assess a company’s
competitiveness efficiency via measurable metrics. We applied our
model to a company that operates in the hydraulic press industry to
show its applicability. Future research activities can be extended to
other companies in different sectors. The competitiveness of firms in
specific sectors or segments can be analyzed comparatively by imple­
menting statistical methods such as structural equation modeling,
multiple regression analysis, factor analysis, canonical correlation
analysis, and discriminant analysis with larger samples. Furthermore,
the weights of the OCE model’s dimensions and indicators can be
calculated using multi-criteria decision-making methods. The strength
and direction of interaction among dimensions can be analyzed using
multivariate statistical methods.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Turan Paksoy: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision.
Mehmet Akif Gunduz: Methodology, Writing – original draft. Sercan
Demir: Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – review & editing,
Visualization.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
The data that has been used is confidential.

Appendix A. . Summary of five forces studies

Study Aim Competitive Scope Research Data collection Case

focus design

Gold et al. (2004) Exploring the competitive environment of the Competition Market Qualitative Case study Agroforestry market
agroforestry market.
Koo et al. (2004) Examining the market strategies of electronic Competition Market Quantitative Survey Electronic market
market companies and the relationship companies
between their competitive strategies and
business performance.
Narayanan and Analyzing the competitive forces by using the Competition Market Conceptual N/A Emerging economy
Fahey (2005) Toulmin method. markets
Grundy (2006) Mapping and prioritizing competitive forces Competition Market Conceptual N/A N/A
varying over the market.
Pines (2006) Analyzing the competitive forces to provide Competition Industry Conceptual N/A Emergency care industry
an insight into emergency care economics.
Gold et al. (2008) Analyzing the competitive forces influencing Competition Market Quantitative Survey Shiitake mushroom
the shiitake mushroom market. market
Dağdeviren and Measuring the sectoral competition level of Competition Company Quantitative Case study A manufacturing company
Yüksel (2010) an organization.
Benson and Examining key dynamics of the research Competition Market Mixed Questionnaire, Volunteer tourism
Henderson volunteer market. method observations, and organizations
(2011) interviews
Fernández et al. Analyzing the critical external factors Competition Sector Quantitative Secondary data Hotel businesses
(2011) influencing innovation and information and
communication technology investment in
hotel businesses.
Hung (2011) Developing a model that addresses the Competition Company Quantitative Case study A communication device
challenging problem of planning the manufacturing company
(continued on next page)

12
T. Paksoy et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 182 (2023) 109422

(continued )
Study Aim Competitive Scope Research Data collection Case
focus design

production allocation for higher competitive

advantage in the risky global market.
Pringle and Analyzing the competitive forces to develop Competition Industry Conceptual N/A Higher education industry
Huisman strategies considering the impact of
(2011) technology and globalization.
Ross et al. (2011) Analyzing the competitive forces that affect Competition Market Conceptual N/A Collector mineral market
the profitability of the collector mineral
market.
Han et al. (2012) Examining the impact of industry Competition Industry Quantitative Secondary data Manufacturing industries
competition on contract manufacturing.
Lee et al. (2012) Proposing an approach to transform the five Competition Industry Quantitative Case study Web portal industry
forces model into the analytical network
process model.
Nithisathian Analyzing sustainable competitiveness Competitiveness Industry Quantitative Secondary data Gold jewelry industry
et al. (2012) strategies in a turbulent business
environment.
Perdana et al. Investigating the industry structure and Competition Industry Quantitative Survey and secondary Teak industry
(2012) identifying opportunities to develop data
marketing strategies.
Rajasekar and Al Examining the competitive structure of the Competition Industry Quantitative Secondary data Telecommunications
Raee (2013) telecommunications industry. industry
Zhuang (2013) Examining the competitive forces that drive Competition Industry Quantitative Secondary data Retail industry
structural changes in the retail industry.
Dobbs (2014) Providing a set of templates to apply the five Competition Industry Conceptual N/A N/A
forces model for industry analysis.
Goh and Yip Reviewing the ship classification industry and Competition Industry Qualitative Interviews Maritime industry
(2014) identifying how to add value to the maritime
industry.
Votteler et al. Determining the industry structure of the Competition Industry Qualitative Interviews Solar service provider
(2014) solar service provider value chain. industry
Liu and Chuang Analyzing digitization policy by reporting its Competition Industry Quantitative Secondary data Cable TV industry
(2015) effectiveness, environmental changes, and
the industry structure.
Miyamoto Examining the relationship between Competition Company Quantitative Survey SMEs
(2015) competitive forces, value chain activities, and
information technology strategy.
Bhatia (2016) Analyzing industrial trends to provide a Competition Industry Quantitative Secondary data Passenger car industry
situational inventory.
Dixit (2016) Discovering strategic management practices Competition Industry Conceptual N/A Healthcare industry
in the healthcare industry.
Moreno- Analyzing the pricing strategy of low-cost Competition Sector Quantitative Secondary data Air transport sector
Izquierdo et al. carriers.
(2016)
Thompson et al. Examining the service delivery dynamics and Competition Industry Quantitative Secondary data and Airport service industry
(2016) various elements impacting competition in questionnaire
the airport service industry.
Zhao et al. Assessing the competitiveness of the biomass Competitiveness Industry Quantitative Secondary data and Biomass power industry
(2016) power industry. questionnaire
Kompalla et al. Reviewing the business strategies of original Competition Industry Mixed Document analysis and Automotive industry
(2017) equipment manufacturers regarding method secondary data
digitalization and service-oriented business
models.
Singh et al. Identifying the technological and non- Competition Company Conceptual N/A N/A
(2017) technological factors impacting the digital
strategy of an organization.
Ulubeyli (2017) Developing a fuzzy force assessment model or Competition Industry Quantitative Questionnaire Cement industry
quantifying industry-wide competition
conditions.
Baxter (2019) Examining an all-cargo airline company’s Competition Company Mixed Case study An air cargo airline
strategic position in the global air cargo method organization
supply chain.
Benjamin (2018) Discovering the characteristics of industry Competition Sector Qualitative Interviews Suborbital space tourism
structure. sector
Pezzutto et al. Proposing a methodology to predict long- Competition Market Quantitative Questionnaire Electricity market
(2018) term electricity market prices.
Bakir et al. Investigating the strategic accuracy of Competition Industry Quantitative Survey SMEs
(2019) technological SME innovations.
Helal et al. Developing an algorithm that assesses the Competition Industry Quantitative Secondary data Biomass-based industry
(2019) attractiveness of biomass-based products.
Irfan et al. (2019) Developing a value chain model that assesses Competition Industry Mixed Interviews, document Wind power industry
the competitiveness of the wind power method analysis, and secondary
industry. data
Mahat (2019) Establishing the extent to which competitive Competition Sector Qualitative Interviews and case Medical education sector
forces drive the management of medical studies
schools
(continued on next page)

13
T. Paksoy et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 182 (2023) 109422

(continued )
Study Aim Competitive Scope Research Data collection Case
focus design

Anastasiu et al. Examining factors affecting strategic human Competition Sector Conceptual N/A N/A
(2020) resources management.
Banerjee and Examining industrial competitive advantages Competitiveness Industry Qualitative Interviews Majuli weaving industry
Buhroy (2020) and disadvantages.
Boudreaux Examining the importance of the industry to Competition Industry Quantitative Survey Multiple industries
(2019) strategic entrepreneurship outcomes.
Do (2020) Reviewing the strategic management of Competition Sector Conceptual N/A Higher education
higher education institutions. institutions
Hafezi et al. Analyzing the dynamic and complex Competition Market Qualitative Case study A natural gas company
(2020) structure of the global natural gas market.
Hamilton (2020) Proposing a method that articulates a Competitiveness Company Qualitative Case study A digital marketing
company’s capabilities and competitiveness company
stemming from the market intelligence
framework.
Hou et al. (2020) Analyzing the competitiveness of distributed Competitiveness Market Quantitative Secondary data Distributed energy market
energy resources.
Tammi et al. Examining the inverted-U relationship Competition Company Quantitative Survey SMEs
(2020) between competition and innovation is
related to SME behavior in public
procurement.
Wellner and Investigating the profitability potential of the Competition Industry Qualitative Case study Railway industry
Lakotta (2020) railway industry by evaluating the
competitive forces.
de Widt et al. Analyzing the contrasting market Competition Market Qualitative Interviews and Audit markets for local
(2021) developments and underlying factors in local documentary analysis government
public audit markets.
Lee et al. (2020) Proposing the technology roadmap by Competition Industry Qualitative Document analysis and TFT-LCD industry
describing strengths, limitations, and future secondary data
potential.
Lord et al. (2020) Examining the relationship between market Competition Industry Quantitative Secondary data Nursing home industry
factors and nursing home financial distress.
Shi et al. (2021) Analyzing the sustainability of the Competition Industry Quantitative Survey Multiple industries
competitive forces and their integration into
the entrepreneurial economy.
Tanrıverdi and Analyzing the competitive forces affecting Competition Industry Quantitative Secondary data Air cargo industry
Lezki (2021) the air cargo carriers.
Ji et al. (2022) Proposing a framework that utilizes the Competition Sector Mixed Interviews and Tour operators and travel
relationships between and across subgroups method secondary data agencies
and competitors to explain the formation of
homogeneous package tours.
Mizik and Balogh Examining competitive industrial advantage Competitiveness Industry Quantitative Secondary data Wine industry
(2022) by addressing revealed comparative
advantage, relative trade advantage, and
revealed competitiveness.
Pezzutto et al. Investigating insights concerning the future Competition Market Quantitative Questionnaire Cooling market
(2022) of the cooling market.
Schweinsberg Reviewing the competitive forces affecting Competition Industry Qualitative Document analysis Tourism industry
et al. (2022) the tourism industry’s competitive
positioning.
This study Proposing a quantitative technique to Competitiveness Company Quantitative Document analysis, Hydraulic press sector
measure a company’s competitiveness. secondary data,
interviews, and
observations

References Anastasiu, L., Gavriş, O., & Maier, D. (2020). Is human capital ready for change? A
strategic approach adapting porter’s five forces to human resources. Sustainability,
12(6), 2300. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062300
Adomako, S., & Tran, M. (2022). Sustainable environmental strategy, firm
Asrar-ul-Haq, M., Kuchinke, K. P., & Iqbal, A. (2017). The relationship between corporate
competitiveness, and financial performance: Evidence from the mining industry.
social responsibility, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment: Case of
Resources Policy, 75, Article 102515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Pakistani higher education. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 2352–2363. https://
resourpol.2021.102515
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.040
Alon, I., Madanoglu, M., & Shoham, A. (2017). Strategic agility explanations for
Auh, S., & Menguc, B. (2005). Balancing exploration and exploitation: The moderating
managing franchising expansion during economic cycles. Competitiveness Review: An
role of competitive intensity. Journal of Business Research, 58(12), 1652–1661.
International Business Journal, 27(2), 113–131. https://doi.org/10.1108/cr-04-2016-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2004.11.007
0022
Azadegan, A., Modi, S. B., & Lucianetti, L. (2021). Surprising supply chain disruptions:
Amaro, G. M., Hendry, L., & Kingsman, B. G. (1999). Competitive advantage,
Mitigation effects of operational slack and supply redundancy. International Journal
customisation and a new taxonomy for non make-to-stock companies. International
of Production Economics, 240, Article 108218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Journal of Operations & Production Management, 19(4), 349–371. https://doi.org/
ijpe.2021.108218
10.1108/01443579910254213
Azar, O. H. (2011). Do people think about absolute or relative price differences when
An, J., Kim, H., & Hur, D. (2021). Keeping the competitive edge of a convention and
choosing between substitute goods? Journal of Economic Psychology, 32(3), 450–457.
exhibition center in MICE environment: Identification of event attributes for long-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2011.03.010
run success. Sustainability, 13(9), 5030. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095030
Bakir, D., Engels, F., & Bakir, J. (2019). Innovators 5 forces approach to increase the
strategic accuracy of technological SME-innovations. International Journal for Quality
Research, 13(4), 875–886. https://doi.org/10.24874/ijqr13.04-09.

14
T. Paksoy et al.
Bala, M., & Verma, D. K. (2018). A critical review of digital marketing. Social Science
Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID3545505_cod
e3380228.pdf?abstractid=3545505&mirid=1.
Banerjee, A., & Buhroy, S. (2020). Majuli weaving cluster: A study on weaver dropout
using industry competitive analysis and concepts of behavioral economics. Fashion
Practice. https://doi.org/10.1080/17569370.2020.1769353
Barney, J. B. (2012). Purchasing, supply chain management and sustained competitive
advantage: The relevance of resource-based theory. Journal of Supply Chain
Management, 48(2), 3–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493x.2012.03265.x
Baron, O., Berman, O., & Wu, D. (2015). Bargaining within the supply chain and its
implications in an industry. Decision Sciences, 47(2), 193–218. https://doi.org/
10.1111/deci.12189
Barutçu, S., & Tunca, M. (2012). The impacts of E-SCM on the E-tailing industry: An
analysis from Porter’s five force perspectives. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 58, 1047–1056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.1085
Baxter, G. (2019). A strategic analysis of cargolux airlines international position in the
global air cargo supply chain using Porter’s five forces model. Infrastructures, 4(1), 6.
https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures4010006
Bayraktar, C. A., Hancerliogullari, G., Cetinguc, B., & Calisir, F. (2017). Competitive
strategies, innovation, and firm performance: An empirical study in a developing
economy environment. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 29(1), 38–52.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2016.1194973
Beheshti, H. M., Clelland, I. J., & Harrington, K. V. (2020). Competitive advantage with
vendor managed inventory. Journal of Promotion Management, 26(6), 836–854.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2020.1794507
Benjamin, S. D. (2018). Exploration to exploitation: An industry analysis of suborbital
space tourism. New Space, 6(1), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1089/space.2017.0041
Benson, A. M., & Henderson, S. (2011). A strategic analysis of volunteer tourism
organisations. Service Industries Journal, 31(3), 405–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02642060902822091
Bhatia, J. (2016). Porter’s five forces industry analysis of Indian passenger car industry.
Available at: Pacific Business Review International, 8(7), 113–123 www.pbr.co.in/2
016/2016_month/January/13.pdf.
Birru, A. C., Sudarmiatin, S., & Hermawan, A. (2022). Competitive strategies in the
lodging service sector: Five porter analyses and case study SWOT analysis. Journal of
Business and Management Review, 3(1), 001–017. https://doi.org/10.47153/jbmr3
1.2732022.
Boubaker, S., Saffar, W., & Sassi, S. (2018). Product market competition and debt choice.
Journal of Corporate Finance, 49, 204–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jcorpfin.2018.01.007
Boudreaux, C. J. (2019). The importance of industry to strategic entrepreneurship:
Evidence from the kauffman firm survey. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade,
20(1), 93–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10842-019-00310-7
Brancati, E., Brancati, R., Guarascio, D., & Zanfei, A. (2021). Innovation drivers of
external competitiveness in the great recession. Small Business Economics, 58(3),
1497–1516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-021-00453-0
Bruque, S., Moyano, J., Vargas, A., & Hernández, M. J. (2003). Ownership structure,
technological endowment and competitive advantage: Do democracy and business
fit? Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 15(1), 65–79. https://doi.org/
10.1080/0953732032000046051
Burke, S. L. (2011). Competitive positioning strength: Market measurement. Journal of
Strategic Marketing, 19(5), 421–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0965254x.2011.581385
Campo, K., Gijsbrechts, E., & Nisol, P. (2004). Dynamics in consumer response to product
unavailability: Do stock-out reactions signal response to permanent assortment
reductions? Journal of Business Research, 57(8), 834–843. https://doi.org/10.1016/
s0148-2963(02)00486-1
Carlsson, F., Kataria, M., & Lampi, E. (2022). How much does it take? Willingness to
switch to meat substitutes. Ecological Economics, 193, Article 107329. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107329
Carvalho, H., Naghshineh, B., Govindan, K., & Cruz-Machado, V. (2022). The resilience
of on-time delivery to capacity and material shortages: An empirical investigation in
the automotive supply chain. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 171, Article
108375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2022.108375
Chang, S., & Wu, B. (2014). Institutional barriers and industry dynamics. Strategic
Management Journal, 35(8), 1103–1123. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2152
Zhao, Z., Zuo, J., Wu, P., Yan, H., & Zillante, G. (2016). Competitiveness assessment of
the biomass power generation industry in China: A five forces model study.
Renewable Energy, 89, 144–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.12.035
Zhuang, G. (2013). Structural change in China’s retail industry in the first decade of the
new century. Journal of Marketing Channels, 20(3–4), 288–324. https://doi.org/
10.1080/1046669x.2013.803429
Chaudhuri, S., & Ray, S. (1997). The competitiveness conundrum: literature review and
reflections. Economic and Political Weekly, 32(48), M83-M91. Available at: https://
www.jstor.org/stable/4406121.
Chen, G. Y. H., Wee, H. M., & Lee, C. Y. (2014). Supplier selection and competitiveness —
A case study on the surface mount industry. Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Systems, 13(03), 155–179. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219686714500103
Chen, S. S., & Zeng, M. (2004). Japanese investors’ choice of acquisitions vs. startups in
the US: The role of reputation barriers and advertising outlays. International Journal
of Research in Marketing.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2003.06.002
Chen, Y. (2011). Structured methodology for supplier selection and evaluation in a
supply chain. Information Sciences, 181(9), 1651–1670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ins.2010.07.026
Cheng, M. M., & Hsieh, C. (2009). Transfer price negotiation in the presence of unequal
bargaining power: The effect of a peer evaluation scheme on inter-divisional profit
15
Computers & Industrial Engineering 182 (2023) 109422
distribution. Australian Accounting Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1835-
2561.2009.00057.x
Cho, W., Ke, J. Y. F., & Han, C. (2019). An empirical examination of the use of bargaining
power and its impacts on supply chain financial performance. Journal of Purchasing
and Supply Management, 25(4), Article 100550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
pursup.2019.100550
Choi, A. H., & Triantis, G. G. (2013). The effect of bargaining power on contract design.
Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2010083
Collis, D. J., & Montgomery, C. A. (1999). Competing on resources: Strategy in the 1990s.
Elsevier EBooks, 25–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-7506-7088-3.50005-x
Corrigan, H., Craciun, G., & Powell, A. M. (2014). How does target know so much about
its customers? Utilizing customer analytics to make marketing decisions. Marketing
Education Review, 24(2), 159–166. https://doi.org/10.2753/mer1052-8008240206
Corsten, D., & Felde, J. (2005). Exploring the performance effects of key-supplier
collaboration: An empirical investigation into Swiss buyer-supplier relationships.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 35(6), 445–461.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030510611666
Dağdeviren, M., & Yüksel, İ.Ö. (2010). A fuzzy analytic network process (ANP) model for
measurement of the sectoral competititon level (SCL). Expert Systems With
Applications, 37(2), 1005–1014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.05.074
Damanpour, F. (2010). An integration of research findings of effects of firm size and
market competition on product and process innovations. British Journal of
Management, 21(4), 996–1010. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2009.00628.x
Davcik, N. S., & Sharma, P. (2016). Marketing resources, performance, and competitive
advantage: A review and future research directions. Journal of Business Research, 69
(12), 5547–5552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.169
De Fontenay, C., & Gans, J. S. (2005). Vertical integration in the presence of upstream
competition. The RAND Journal of Economics, 36(3), 544–572. http://repec.org/esN
AWM04/up.23406.1041909179.pdf.
De Man, A., & Duysters, G. (2005). Collaboration and innovation: A review of the effects
of mergers, acquisitions and alliances on innovation. Technovation, 25(12),
1377–1387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2004.07.021
De Toni, A., & Nassimbeni, G. (2000). Just-in-time purchasing: An empirical study of
operational practices, supplier development and performance. Omega, 28(6),
631–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0305-0483(00)00016-5
de Widt, D., Llewelyn, I., & Thorogood, T. (2021). Liberalising audit markets for local
government: The five forces at work in England and the Netherlands. Financial
Accountability and Management, 38(3), 394–425. https://doi.org/10.1111/
faam.12302
Delios, A., Gaur, A. S., & Makino, S. (2007). The timing of international expansion:
Information, rivalry and imitation among japanese firms, 1980–2002. Journal of
Management Studies, 0(0), 071115153913001-??? https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
6486.2007.00742.x.
Demeter, K. (2003). Manufacturing strategy and competitiveness. International Journal of
Production Economics, 81–82, 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0925-5273(02)
00353-5
Demeter, K., Losonci, D., Matyusz, Z., & Jenei, I. (2009). The impact of lean management
on business level performance and competitiveness. Springer, London EBooks,
177–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-748-6_15
Dixit, A., Gundlach, G. T., Malhotra, N. K., & Allvine, F. (2006). Aggressive and predatory
pricing: Insights and empirical examination in the airline industry. Journal of Public
Policy & Marketing, 25(2), 172–187. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.25.2.172
Dixit, S. (2016). Strategic management in hospitals – Theory and practice: Orthopedic
and spine services. International Journal of Healthcare Management. https://doi.org/
10.1179/2047971915y.0000000004
Do, N. M. (2020). An overview of strategic responses of Vietnamese higher education
institutions. International Journal of Educational Management, 34(1), 35–44. https://
doi.org/10.1108/ijem-02-2019-0074
Dobbs, M. R. (2014). Guidelines for applying Porter’s five forces framework: A set of
industry analysis templates. Competitiveness Review, 24(1), 32–45. https://doi.org/
10.1108/cr-06-2013-0059
Doyle, P. (2001). Shareholder-value-based brand strategies. Journal of Brand
Management, 9(1), 20–30. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.bm.2540049
Dreyer, B., & Grønhaug, K. (2004). Uncertainty, flexibility, and sustained competitive
advantage. Journal of Business Research, 57(5), 484–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/
s0148-2963(02)00315-6
Edwards, K. (2004). Strategic substitution of new materials for old: Applications in
automotive product development. Materials in Engineering, 25(6), 529–533. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2003.12.008
Ekeledo, I., & Sivakumar, K. (2004). International market entry mode strategies of
manufacturing firms and service firms. International Marketing Review, 21(1),
68–101. https://doi.org/10.1108/02651330410522943
Fabbri, D., & Klapper, L. F. (2016). Bargaining power and trade credit. Journal of
Corporate Finance, 41, 66–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2016.07.001
Faeth, I. (2009). Determinants of foreign direct investment–a tale of nine theoretical
models. Journal of Economic Surveys, 23(1), 165–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-6419.2008.00560.x
Falciola, J., Jansen, M., & Rollo, V. (2020). Defining firm competitiveness: A
multidimensional framework. World Development, 129, Article 104857. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104857
Farris, P. W., Bendle, N., Pfeifer, P. E., & Reibstein, D. (2010). Marketing metrics: The
definitive guide to measuring marketing performance. Pearson Education.
Fernández, J. R. G., Cala, A. S., & Domecq, C. F. (2011). Critical External Factors behind
Hotels’ Investments in Innovation and Technology in Emerging Urban Destinations.
Tourism Economics, 17(2), 339–357. https://doi.org/10.5367/te.2011.0033
T. Paksoy et al.
Foerstl, K., Kähkönen, A. K., Blome, C., & Goellner, M. (2020). Supply market
orientation: A dynamic capability of the purchasing and supply management
function. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 26(1), 65–83. https://
doi.org/10.1108/scm-06-2019-0233
Fornari, D., Fornari, E., Grandi, S., & Menegatti, M. (2016). Leading national brands
facing store brands competition: Is price competitiveness the only thing that
matters? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 30, 234–241. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.02.001
Gardiner, B., Martin, R., & Peter, T. (2004). Competitiveness, productivity and economic
growth across the European regions. ERSA Conference Papers. https://ideas.repec.org
/p/wiw/wiwrsa/ersa04p333.html.
Gebauer, H., Fleisch, E., & Friedli, T. (2005). Overcoming the service paradox in
manufacturing companies. European Management Journal, 23(1), 14–26. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.emj.2004.12.006
Geroski, P. A. (1995). What do we know about entry? International Journal of Industrial
Organization, 13(4), 421–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-7187(95)00498-x
Godet, M. (2000). The art of scenarios and strategic planning. Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, 65(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0040-1625(99)00120-1
Goh, L. B., & Yip, T. L. (2014). A way forward for ship classification and technical
services. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 30(1), 51–74. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ajsl.2014.04.003
Gold, M. H., Cernusca, M. M., & Godsey, L. D. (2008). A competitive market analysis of
the United States shiitake mushroom marketplace. Horttechnology, 18(3), 489–499.
https://doi.org/10.21273/horttech.18.3.489.
Gold, M., Godsey, L. D., & Josiah, S. J. (2004). Markets and marketing strategies for
agroforestry specialty products in North America. Springer, Netherlands EBooks,
371–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2424-1_26
Gómez, J., & Maicas, J. P. (2011). Do switching costs mediate the relationship between
entry timing and performance? Strategic Management Journal, 32(12), 1251–1269.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.931
Goral, R. (2015). Competitive analysis of the hotel industry in Konya by Using Porter’s
Five Forces Model. European Journal of Economics and Business Studies, 3(1),
106–115. https://doi.org/10.26417/ejes.v3i1.p106-115.
Grundy, T. (2006). Rethinking and reinventing Michael Porter’s five forces model.
Strategic Change, 15(5), 213–229. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.764
Guo, W., & Chen, M. (2021). Construction of structural dimensions of organizational
human capital competitive advantage. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 23(5),
1081–1106. https://doi.org/10.1108/jic-07-2020-0223
Gupta, V., Ivanov, D., & Choi, T. (2021). Competitive pricing of substitute products under
supply disruption. Omega, 101, Article 102279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
omega.2020.102279
Gurnani, H., & Shi, M. (2006). A bargaining model for a first-time interaction under
asymmetric beliefs of supply reliability. Management Science, 52(6), 865–880.
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0498
Hafezi, R., Wood, D. A., Akhavan, A. N., & Pakseresht, S. (2020). Iran in the emerging
global natural gas market: A scenario-based competitive analysis and policy
assessment. Resources Policy, 68, Article 101790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resourpol.2020.101790
Hamilton, J. (2020). The strategic change matrix and business sustainability across
COVID-19. Sustainability, 12(15), 6026. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156026
Han, C., Porterfield, T., & Li, X. (2012). Impact of industry competition on contract
manufacturing: An empirical study of U.S. manufacturers. International Journal of
Production Economics, 138(1), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.03.015
Han, J., Kim, N., & Kim, H. (2001). Entry barriers: A dull-, one-, or two-edged sword for
incumbents? Unraveling the paradox from a contingency perspective. Journal of
Marketing, 65(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.65.1.1.18133
Hassan, S. S. (2000). Determinants of market competitiveness in an environmentally
sustainable tourism industry. Journal of Travel Research, 38(3), 239–245. https://doi.
org/10.1177/004728750003800305
Helal, A., Kreimerman, R., Gutiérrez, S., & Torres, A. I. (2019). A market-driven
algorithm for the assessment of promising bio-based chemicals. AIChE Journal, 65
(12). https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.16775
Ho, C. (2005). Corporate governance and corporate competitiveness: An international
analysis. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 13(2), 211–253. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2005.00419.x
Hoberg, G., & Phillips, G. M. (2016). Text-based network industries and endogenous
product differentiation. Journal of Political Economy, 124(5), 1423–1465. https://doi.
org/10.1086/688176
Hosier, R., & Kipondya, W. (1993). Urban household energy use in Tanzania. Energy
Policy, 21(5), 454–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-4215(93)90035-e
Hou, J., Wang, C., & Luo, S. (2020). How to improve the competiveness of distributed
energy resources in China with blockchain technology. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, 151, Article 119744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techfore.2019.119744
Hoyt, J., & Sherman, H. (2004). Strategic groups, exit barriers and strategy decision
constraints in high-tech companies. The Journal of High Technology Management
Research, 15(2), 237–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hitech.2004.03.005
Huang, H. Y., Ku, E. C., & Chen, C. D. (2022). Cloud infrastructure enhancing product
competitive advantage of tourism SMEs on online consumption values of tourists.
Business Process Management Journal, 28(4), 1146–1163. https://doi.org/10.1108/
bpmj-05-2022-0246
Hui, K. L., Klasa, S., & Yeung, P. E. (2012). Corporate suppliers and customers and
accounting conservatism. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 53(1–2), 115–135.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2011.11.007
Hung, S. J. (2011). Activity-based divergent supply chain planning for competitive
advantage in the risky global environment: A DEMATEL-ANP fuzzy goal
16
Computers & Industrial Engineering 182 (2023) 109422
programming approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(8), 9053–9062. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.09.024
Huq, F. A., Stevenson, M., & Zorzini, M. (2014). Social sustainability in developing
country suppliers. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 34
(5), 610–638. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijopm-10-2012-0467
Indounas, K. (2020). New B2B product pricing. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
35(11), 1861–1869. https://doi.org/10.1108/jbim-05-2019-0187
Intihar, A., & Pollack, J. M. (2012). Exploring small family-owned firms’ competitive
ability. Journal of Family Business Management, 2(1), 76–86. https://doi.org/
10.1108/20436231211216439
Irfan, M., Zhao, Z. Y., Ahmad, M., Batool, K., Jan, A., & Mukeshimana, M. C. (2019).
Competitive assessment of Indian wind power industry: A five forces model. Journal
of Renewable and Sustainable Energy, 11(6), Article 063301. https://doi.org/10.1063/
1.5116237
Ji, M., Zeng, C. Y., King, B., & Reynolds, J. (2022). Why have package tour itineraries
been homogeneous? Insight from industry subgroup relations. Journal of Travel
Research, 004728752211418. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472875221141881
Jung, S., Zhu, J. J., & Gruca, T. S. (2016). A meta-analysis of correlations between market
share and other brand performance metrics in FMCG markets. Journal of Business
Research, 69(12), 5901–5908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.106
Karagiannopoulos, G., Georgopoulos, N. B., & Nikolopoulos, K. (2005). Fathoming
Porter’s five forces model in the internet era. Info, 7(6), 66–76. https://doi.org/
10.1108/14636690510628328
Kompalla, A., Geldmacher, W., Just, V., & Lange, S. (2017). Tailored automotive business
strategies in the context of digitalization and service-oriented models. Available at:
Quality-Access to Success, 18(156), 77 https://eds.s.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/
pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=dfecc85b-178d-4f19-87a8-3c06bf3b7321%40redis.
Koo, C. M., Koh, C. E., & Nam, K. (2004). An examination of Porter’s competitive
strategies in electronic virtual markets: A comparison of two on-line business
models. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 9(1), 163–180. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10864415.2004.11044316
Kotlar, J., Fang, H., De Massis, A., & Frattini, F. (2014). Profitability goals, control goals,
and the R&D investment decisions of family and nonfamily firms. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 31(6), 1128–1145. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12165
Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2012). Marketing management 14e. Pears Education.
Kumar, V., Mudambi, R., & Gray, S. (2013). Internationalization, innovation and
institutions: The 3 I’s underpinning the competitiveness of emerging market firms.
Journal of International Management, 19(3), 203–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
intman.2013.03.005
Laroche, M., Habibi, M. H., & Richard, M. (2013). To be or not to be in social media: How
brand loyalty is affected by social media? International Journal of Information
Management, 33(1), 76–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2012.07.003
Lawson, B., Tyler, B. B., & Potter, A. (2015). Strategic suppliers’ technical contributions
to new product advantage: Substitution and configuration options. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 32(5), 760–776. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12235
Le, T., & Ikram, M. (2022). Do sustainability innovation and firm competitiveness help
improve firm performance? Evidence from the SME sector in vietnam. Sustainable
Production and Consumption, 29, 588–599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
spc.2021.11.008
Lee, C. Y., Chang, H. C., & Wang, K. W. (2020). Business ecosystem and technology
roadmap for Taiwan’s TFT-LCD industry. Technology Analysis & Strategic
Management, 33(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2020.1722092
Lee, D. H. (2000). Retail bargaining behaviour of American and Chinese customers.
European Journal of Marketing, 34(1/2), 190–206. https://doi.org/10.1108/
03090560010306287
Lee, H., Kim, M. S., & Park, Y. (2012). An analytic network process approach to
operationalization of five forces model. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 36(4),
1783–1795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2011.09.012
Levis, A. A., & Papageorgiou, L. G. (2007). Active demand management for substitute
products through price optimisation. OR Spectrum, 29(4), 551–577. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00291-006-0064-1
Levy, S., & Gvili, Y. (2020). Online shopper engagement in price negotiation: The roles of
culture, involvement and eWOM. International Journal of Advertising, 39(2), 232–257.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2019.1612621
Li, X. (2012). Group buying, buyer heterogeneity, and sellers’ bargaining power. Decision
Sciences, 43(5), 761–783. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2012.00369.x
Lindsay, V. J., Rod, M., & Ashill, N. J. (2017). Institutional and resource configurations
associated with different SME foreign market entry modes. Industrial Marketing
Management, 66, 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.07.014
Liu, C. J., & Chuang, Y. F. (2015). From sluggish to brisk: An analysis of taiwan‫׳‬s cable
TV digitalization policy. Telecommunications Policy, 39(11), 980–995. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.telpol.2015.09.003
Liu, Z. J., Pypłacz, P., Ermakova, M., & Konev, P. (2020). Sustainable construction as a
competitive advantage. Sustainability, 12(15), 5946. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su12155946
Lord, J., Weech-Maldonado, R., Blackburn, J., & Carroll, N. (2020). Examination of
nursing home financial distress via Porter’s five competitive forces framework.
Health Care Management Review, 46(3), E50–E60. https://doi.org/10.1097/
hmr.0000000000000297
Mahat, M. (2019). The competitive forces that shape Australian medical education.
International Journal of Educational Management, 33(5), 1082–1093. https://doi.org/
10.1108/ijem-01-2018-0015
Mayer, T., Melitz, M. J., & Ottaviano, G. I. (2014). Market size, competition, and the
product mix of exporters. The American Economic Review, 104(2), 495–536. https://
doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.2.495
T. Paksoy et al.
McAfee, R. P., Mialon, H. M., & Williams, M. (2004). What is a barrier to entry? The
American Economic Review, 94(2), 461–465. https://doi.org/10.1257/
0002828041302235
McDonald, F. E., & Vertova, G. (2001). Geographical concentration and competitiveness
in the European Union. European Business Review, 13(3), 157–165. https://doi.org/
10.1108/09555340110391275
McLaren, T. S., Head, M., & Yuan, Y. (2002). Supply chain collaboration alternatives:
Understanding the expected costs and benefits. Internet Research, 12(4), 348–364.
https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240210438416
Menezes, F. M., & Quiggin, J. (2012). More competitors or more competition? Market
concentration and the intensity of competition. Economics Letters, 117(3), 712–714.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2011.11.001
Miyamoto, M. (2015). Application of competitive forces in the business intelligence of
Japanese SMEs. International Journal of Management Science and Engineering
Management, 10(4), 273–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/17509653.2014.966794
Mizik, T., & Balogh, J. M. (2022). The development of the Chinese wine industry and
trade. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 34(4), 643–660. https://doi.
org/10.1108/ijwbr-09-2021-0045
Moatti, V., Ren, C. R., Anand, J., & Dussauge, P. (2014). Disentangling the performance
effects of efficiency and bargaining power in horizontal growth strategies: An
empirical investigation in the global retail industry. Strategic Management Journal, 36
(5), 745–757. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2244
L.C. Mondini D.D.P.N. Machado M.R.S. Scarpin Dyad buyer-supplier and its relation to
financial performance 2014 https://doi.org/10.12660/joscmv7n1p30-46.
Moreno-Izquierdo, L., Ramón-Rodríguez, A., & Perles-Ribes, J. (2016). Pricing Strategies
of the European Low-Cost Carriers Explained Using Porter’s Five Forces Model.
Tourism Economics, 22(2), 293–310. https://doi.org/10.5367/te.2016.0551
Mpoyi, R. T. (2003). Vertical integration: Strategic characteristics and competitive
implications. Competitiveness Review, 13(1), 44–55. https://doi.org/10.1108/
eb046451
Murray, J. Y. (2001). Strategic alliance–based global sourcing strategy for competitive
advantage: A conceptual framework and research propositions. Journal of
International Marketing, 9(4), 30–58. https://doi.org/10.1509/jimk.9.4.30.19938
Nair, A., Narasimhan, R., & Bendoly, E. (2011). Coopetitive buyer-supplier relationship:
An investigation of bargaining power, relational context, and investment strategies.
Decision Sciences, 42(1), 93–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2010.00303.
x 114–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2014.01.004
Narayanan, V., & Fahey, L. (2005). The relevance of the institutional underpinnings of
Porter’s five forces framework to emerging economies: An epistemological analysis.
Journal of Management Studies, 42(1), 207–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
6486.2005.00494.x
Narver, J. C., Slater, S. F., & MacLachlan, D. L. (2004). Responsive and proactive market
orientation and new-product success. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21
(5), 334–347. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0737-6782.2004.00086.x
Nithisathian, K., Takala, J., Rattanakomut, S., Walsh, J., Wu, Q., & Liu, Y. (2012).
Operational competitiveness development in turbulent business environment: A case
study in Thailand fine gold jewelry export industry. Management and Production
Engineering Review, 3(3), 53–62. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10270-012-0024-y
Niu, Y., Dong, L. Q., & Chen, R. (2012). Market entry barriers in China. Journal of
Business Research, 65(1), 68–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.01.018
Nyuur, R. B., Ofori, D. F., & Amponsah, M. M. (2019). Corporate social responsibility and
competitive advantage: A developing country perspective. Thunderbird International
Business Review, 61(4), 551–564. https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.22065
O’Connor, N. G., Yang, Z., & Jiang, L. (2018). Challenges in gaining supply chain
competitiveness: Supplier response strategies and determinants. Industrial Marketing
Management, 72, 138–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.04.003
Olson, E. N., & Slater, S. F. (2002). The balanced scorecard, competitive strategy, and
performance. Business Horizons, 45(3), 11–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0007-6813
(02)00198-2
Pedro Espadinha-Cruz, António Grilo, The Business Interoperability Decomposition
Framework to analyse buyer-supplier dyads, Computers in Industry, Volume 109,
2019, Pages 165-181, ISSN 0166-3615, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compind.2019.04.007.
Pehrsson, A. (2009). Barriers to entry and market strategy: A literature review and a
proposed model. European Business Review, 21(1), 64–77. https://doi.org/10.1108/
09555340910925184
Perdana, A., Roshetko, J. M., & Kurniawan, I. (2012). Forces of competition:
Smallholding teak producers in Indonesia. International Forestry Review, 14(2),
238–248. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554812800923417
Peters, M. D., Wieder, B., Sutton, S. G., & Wakefield, J. (2016). Business intelligence
systems use in performance measurement capabilities: Implications for enhanced
competitive advantage. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 21,
1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2016.03.001
Pezzutto, S., Grilli, G., Zambotti, S., & Dunjic, S. (2018). Forecasting electricity market
price for end users in EU28 until 2020—Main factors of influence. Energies, 11(6),
1460. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11061460
Pezzutto, S., Quaglini, G., Zambito, A., Novelli, A., Riviere, P., Kranzl, L., &
Wilczynski, E. (2022). Potential evolution of the cooling market in the EU27+UK: An
outlook until 2030. Sustainability, 14(8), 4461. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su14084461
Pines, J. M. (2006). The economic role of the emergency department in the health care
continuum: Applying Michael Porter’s five forces model to emergency medicine. The
Journal of Emergency Medicine, 30(4), 447–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jemermed.2006.02.001
Porter, M. E. (1980). Industry structure and competitive strategy: Keys to profitability.
Financial Analysts Journal, 36(4), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.2469/faj.v36.n4.30
17
Computers & Industrial Engineering 182 (2023) 109422
Porter, M. E. (1985). Technology and competitive advantage. Journal of Business Strategy,
5(3), 60–78. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb039075
Porter, M. E. (1989). How competitive forces shape strategy. Macmillan Education UK.
Porter, M. E. (1997). Competitive strategy. Measuring Business Excellence, 1(2), 12–17.
https://doi.org/10.1108/eb025476
M.E. Porter The five competitive forces that shape strategy Harvard Business Review 86 1
2008 78–93, 137.
Porter, M. E., & Heppelmann, J. E. (2014). How smart, connected products are
transforming competition. Harvard Business Review, 92(11), 18. https://dialnet.
unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=5544175.
Prajogo, D. I., Chowdhury, M., Yeung, A. W. K., & Cheng, T. S. (2012). The relationship
between supplier management and firm’s operational performance: A multi-
dimensional perspective. International Journal of Production Economics, 136(1),
123–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.09.022
Priem, R. L., Li, S., & Carr, J. C. (2011). Insights and new directions from demand-side
approaches to technology innovation, entrepreneurship, and strategic management
research. Journal of Management, 38(1), 346–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0149206311429614
Prieto, I., & Revilla, E. (2006). Learning capability and business performance: A non-
financial and financial assessment. The Learning Organization, 13(2), 166–185.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09696470610645494
Pringle, J., & Huisman, J. (2011). Understanding universities in Ontario, Canada: An
industry analysis using Porter’s five forces framework. Canadian Journal of Higher
Education, 41(3), 58. https://doi.org/10.47678/cjhe.v41i3.2489.
Rajasekar, J., & Al Raee, M. (2013). An analysis of the telecommunication industry in the
Sultanate of Oman using Michael Porter’s competitive strategy model.
Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 23(3), 234–259. https://
doi.org/10.1108/10595421311319825
Ramesh, A., Banwet, D. K., & Shankar, R. (2010). Modeling the barriers of supply chain
collaboration. Journal of Modelling in Management, 5(2), 176–193. https://doi.org/
10.1108/17465661011061014
Rasiah, R., Gammeltoft, P., & Jiang, Y. (2010). Home government policies for outward
FDI from emerging economies: Lessons from Asia. International Journal of Emerging
Markets, 5(3/4), 333–357. https://doi.org/10.1108/17468801011058415
Ribbink, D., & Grimm, C. M. (2014). The impact of cultural differences on buyer-supplier
negotiations: An experimental study. Journal of Operations Management, 32(3),
Roberts, K. (2003). What strategic investments should you make during a recession to
gain competitive advantage in the recovery? Strategy & Leadership, 31(4), 31–39.
https://doi.org/10.1108/10878570310483960
Rosato, A. (2016). Selling substitute goods to loss-averse consumers: Limited availability,
bargains, and rip-offs. The RAND Journal of Economics, 47(3), 709–733. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1756-2171.12139
Ross, B., Dessureault, S., & Rieber, M. (2011). The Tucson Mineral Show and the market
for collector minerals: The potential for artisanal and small scale miners. Resources
Policy, 36(2), 168–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2010.11.001
Rothaermel, F. T., Hitt, M. A., & Jobe, L. A. (2006). Balancing vertical integration and
strategic outsourcing: Effects on product portfolio, product success, and firm
performance. Strategic Management Journal, 27(11), 1033–1056. https://doi.org/
10.1002/smj.559
Schuur, P., Badur, B., & Sencer, A. (2021). An explicit Nash equilibrium for a market
share attraction game. Operations Research Perspectives, 8, Article 100188. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.orp.2021.100188
Schweinsberg, S., Sharpley, R., & Darcy, S. (2022). Competitive positioning of tourism
academic knowledge. Tourism Management, 91, Article 104502. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tourman.2022.104502
Sharma, V. M., & Krishnan, K. (2001). Recognizing the importance of consumer
bargaining: Strategic marketing implications. The Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 9(1), 24–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2001.11501883
Sheu, J. B. (2015). Power shifts and relationship quality improvement of
producer–retailer green channel dyads under government intervention. Industrial
Marketing Management, 50, 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
indmarman.2015.04.010
Shi, C., Agbaku, C. A., & Zhang, F. (2021). How do upper echelons perceive Porter’s five
forces? Evidence from strategic entrepreneurship in China. Frontiers in Psychology,
12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.649574
Shi, Y. (2001). Technological capabilities and international production strategy of firms:
The case of foreign direct investment in China. Journal of World Business, 36(2),
184–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1090-9516(01)00048-7
Siddhartha, D., & Stephen, D. (2002). Equilibrium contracts in a bilateral monopoly with
unequal bargaining powers. International Economic Journal. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10168730200000003
Singh, G., Gaur, L., & Agarwal, M. (2017). Factors influencing the digital business
strategy. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 25(3), 1489–1500.
Singh, R., & Kumar, R. (2020). Strategic issues in supply chain management of Indian
SMEs due to globalization: An empirical study. Benchmarking: An International
Journal, 27(3), 913–932. https://doi.org/10.1108/bij-09-2019-0429
Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1994). Does competitive environment moderate the market
orientation-performance relationship? Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 46. https://doi.
org/10.2307/1252250
Szymanski, D. J., Bharadwaj, S. G., & Varadarajan, P. R. (1993). An analysis of the
market share-profitability relationship. Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 1–18. https://
doi.org/10.1177/002224299305700301
Tammi, T., Saastamoinen, J., & Reijonen, H. (2020). Public procurement as a vehicle of
innovation – What does the inverted-U relationship between competition and
T. Paksoy et al.
innovativeness tell us? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 153, Article
119922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119922
Tanrıverdi, G., & Lezki, E. (2021). Istanbul Airport (IGA) and quest of best competitive
strategy for air cargo carriers in new competition environment: A fuzzy multi-criteria
approach. Journal of Air Transport Management, 95, Article 102088. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jairtraman.2021.102088
Tapinos, E. (2012). Perceived environmental uncertainty in scenario planning. Futures,
44(4), 338–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2011.11.002
Tavitiyaman, P., Qu, H., & Zhang, H. (2011). The impact of industry force factors on
resource competitive strategies and hotel performance. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 30(3), 648–657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhm.2010.11.010
Teece, D. J. (2000). Strategies for managing knowledge assets: The role of firm structure
and industrial context. Long Range Planning, 33(1), 35–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/
s0024-6301(99)00117-x
Thompson, I., Pech, R. J., Oh, K., & Marjoribanks, T. (2016). An assessment of delivery
changes for UK terminal air navigation services. Journal of Air Transport Management,
57, 155–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2016.07.016
Tisdell, C. A. (2004). Economic competition and evolution: Are there lessons from
ecology? Contemporary Economic Policy, 22(2), 179–193. https://doi.org/10.1093/
cep/byh013
Todeva, E., & Knoke, D. (2005). Strategic alliances and models of collaboration.
Management Decision, 43(1), 123–148. https://doi.org/10.1108/
00251740510572533
Torabi, S. A., Hatefi, S., & Pay, B. S. (2012). ABC inventory classification in the presence
of both quantitative and qualitative criteria. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 63
(2), 530–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2012.04.011
Trkman, P., McCormack, K., De Oliveira, M. P. V., & Ladeira, M. B. (2010). The impact of
business analytics on supply chain performance. Decision Support Systems, 49(3),
318–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2010.03.007
Ulubeyli, S. (2017). Industry-wide competitiveness assessment through fuzzy synthetic
evaluation: The case of cement industry. Journal of Business Economics and
Management, 18(1), 35–53. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2016.1218927
Vecchiato, R. (2012). Environmental uncertainty, foresight and strategic decision
making: An integrated study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(3),
436–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2011.07.010
Verhoef, P. C. (2003). Understanding the effect of customer relationship management
efforts on customer retention and customer share development. Journal of Marketing,
67(4), 30–45. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.67.4.30.18685
18
Computers & Industrial Engineering 182 (2023) 109422
Vieira, V. A., De Almeida, M. B., Agnihotri, R., Silva, D. A. C. D., & N. S., & Arunachalam,
S.. (2019). In pursuit of an effective B2B digital marketing strategy in an emerging
market. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47(6), 1085–1108. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11747-019-00687-1
Voelpel, S. C., Leibold, M., Tekie, E. B., & Von Krogh, G. (2005). Escaping the red queen
effect in competitive strategy: Sense-testing business models. European Management
Journal, 23(1), 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2004.12.008
Votteler, R., Hough, J., & Venter, C. (2014). An analysis of the solar service provider
industry in the Western Cape, South Africa. Journal of Energy in Southern Africa, 25
(2), 70–80. https://doi.org/10.17159/2413-3051/2014/v25i2a2672.
Voulgaris, F., & Lemonakis, C. (2014). Competitiveness and profitability: The case of
chemicals, pharmaceuticals and plastics. The Journal of Economic Asymmetries, 11,
46–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeca.2014.04.003
Walters, R. G. (1991). Assessing the impact of retail price promotions on product
substitution, complementary purchase, and interstore sales displacement. Journal of
Marketing, 55(2), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299105500203
Wandfluh, M., Hofmann, E., & Schoensleben, P. (2016). Financing buyer–supplier dyads:
An empirical analysis on financial collaboration in the supply chain. International
Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 19(3), 200–217. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13675567.2015.1065803
Weinberg, B. A., & Berger, P. D. (2011). Connected customer lifetime value: The impact
of social media. Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice, 12(4), 328–344.
https://doi.org/10.1057/dddmp.2011.2
Wellner, S., & Lakotta, J. (2020). Porter’s five forces in the German railway industry.
Journal of Rail Transport Planning &Amp. Management, 14, Article 100181. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jrtpm.2020.100181
Wieseke, J., Alavi, S., & Habel, J. (2014). Willing to pay more, eager to pay less: The role
of customer loyalty in price negotiations. Journal of Marketing, 78(6), 17–37. https://
doi.org/10.1509/jm.13.0104
Yunna, W., & Yisheng, Y. (2014). The competition situation analysis of shale gas industry
in China: Applying Porter’s five forces and scenario model. Renewable & Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 40, 798–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.08.015
Zeng, A. Z., & Rossetti, C. (2003). Developing a framework for evaluating the logistics
costs in global sourcing processes. International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, 33(9), 785–803. https://doi.org/10.1108/
09600030310503334