| name | 7-powers-analysis |
| description | Analyze a business, product, or feature using Hamilton Helmer's 7 Powers framework to assess competitive advantage and strategic durability. Use when the user asks about competitive moats, strategic positioning, power analysis, defensibility, competitive advantage, or "7 Powers". |
7 Powers Competitive Analysis
Apply Hamilton Helmer's 7 Powers framework to evaluate whether a business, product, or feature possesses durable competitive advantages ("Powers") that enable persistent differential returns.
For detailed definitions, attributes, and examples of each Power, consult framework.md.
Workflow
-
Clarify the subject: Identify what's being analyzed — a company, product line, or specific feature. Ask the user if ambiguous.
-
Scan all 7 Powers: Evaluate the subject against each Power:
- Scale Economies
- Network Economies
- Counter-Positioning
- Switching Costs
- Branding
- Cornered Resource
- Process Power
-
Assess each Power using three dimensions:
- Present? Does the subject currently possess this Power?
- Strength: How strong is the barrier? (None / Weak / Moderate / Strong)
- Durability: How long will it last? (Fragile / Moderate / Durable)
-
Identify Power combinations that reinforce each other (e.g., Scale Economies + Network Effects create growth loops).
-
Recommend strategic actions: What should the business do to strengthen, develop, or defend its Powers?
Output Template
Use this structure for the analysis:
# 7 Powers Analysis: [Subject]
## Executive Summary
[1-2 sentences on overall strategic position and key Powers identified]
## Power Assessment
| Power | Present? | Strength | Durability | Notes |
|-------|----------|----------|------------|-------|
| Scale Economies | Yes/No | None-Strong | Fragile-Durable | [brief rationale] |
| Network Economies | Yes/No | None-Strong | Fragile-Durable | [brief rationale] |
| Counter-Positioning | Yes/No | None-Strong | Fragile-Durable | [brief rationale] |
| Switching Costs | Yes/No | None-Strong | Fragile-Durable | [brief rationale] |
| Branding | Yes/No | None-Strong | Fragile-Durable | [brief rationale] |
| Cornered Resource | Yes/No | None-Strong | Fragile-Durable | [brief rationale] |
| Process Power | Yes/No | None-Strong | Fragile-Durable | [brief rationale] |
## Deep Dive: Key Powers
[For each Power rated Moderate or Strong, provide 2-3 paragraphs covering:
- Evidence supporting the assessment
- How this Power creates a barrier for competitors
- Risks or vulnerabilities to this Power]
## Power Synergies
[Identify reinforcing combinations between Powers the subject holds]
## Strategic Recommendations
1. **Strengthen**: [How to deepen existing Powers]
2. **Develop**: [Which new Powers could be built, and how]
3. **Defend**: [What threatens current Powers and how to protect them]
Adapting the Analysis
For a new feature or product decision: Focus on Power Reinforcement (does this strengthen existing Powers?), Power Expansion (does it create new Powers?), and Power Defense (does it protect against threats?).
For competitive threat assessment: Focus on which Powers competitors possess, which emerging competitors are developing, and how existing Powers could be neutralized.
For early-stage companies: Focus on Power Potential — which Powers could form given the business model, and what's the timeline for development. Use the Power Progression lens: Potential → Realization → Persistent Returns.
Example
User: "Analyze Figma's competitive position"
Key findings would include:
- Network Economies (Strong/Durable): Multi-player collaboration creates direct network effects; plugin ecosystem creates indirect effects
- Switching Costs (Moderate/Durable): Team design systems, component libraries, and workflow integrations create procedural lock-in
- Counter-Positioning (Moderate/Fragile): Browser-native approach initially counter-positioned against Adobe's desktop model, but this advantage diminished post-acquisition
- Synergy: Network Economies + Switching Costs reinforce each other — more team adoption deepens both
