Competitive Analysis Process — Worked Example
All companies, products, URLs, and figures are fictional. This example shows the umbrella doing its actual job — orchestration decisions, not research mechanics. The research itself lives in the worked examples of the delegated skills, which share this same scenario: Fieldlight, a scheduling tool for trades businesses, deciding how to expand into field service management. Follow the links to see each step's artifact in full.
Invocation: Run the competitive analysis process on mid-market FSM software — decision: whether Fieldlight expands into full FSM, and what the first module is. We have nothing yet.
The orchestration transcript (condensed)
Step 0 — Scope. The decision is two-part (enter? and with what module?), the competitor set is unknown, and no prior intelligence exists. The orchestrator recommended:
Based on your decision, here's the plan I recommend:
- Full six-step pass — you're making an entry decision with no existing intelligence; skipping steps here means guessing (Recommended)
- Steps 1, 2, 6 only — faster read if the deadline is this week, at the cost of the customer-voice and perception layers
- Steps 1 and 2 only, decide, then backfill — fastest, riskiest
- Something else
Choose a number, or tell me your deadline and I'll re-scope.
User chose 1, with a note: "board meeting in three weeks." The orchestrator sequenced Steps 1-2 in week one, 3-4 in week two, 5-6 plus outputs in week three.
Step 1 — Landscape. Delegated to market-landscape-scan
(its worked example is this run's artifact).
Decision point resolved: deep-dive on Wrenchline (the incumbent we'd collide with) and
DispatchCrow (running our playbook two years ahead). Vantiga FSM added at snapshot time for its
downmarket move. Orchestration note: the scan's vendor/buyer segmentation disagreement
(dispatcher-employment, not trade vertical) reframed the whole engagement — every later step
inherited that segment language.
Step 2 — Product comparison. Delegated to competitive-research-snapshot
(artifact). The JTBD lens earned its
mention: Wrenchline and DispatchCrow both "have scheduling," but a capability map by job showed
they serve different jobs — running a dispatcher's board vs. getting an owner off paper. Feature
parity theater, exposed.
Step 3 — Customer-need fulfillment. Delegated to voice-of-customer-miner
(artifact). The promise-delivery gap for
Step 5: Wrenchline promises "the operating system for the trades" while its own users' techs
resist the app that operating system runs on.
Step 4 — Business baseline. Delegated to company-intel per deep-dive competitor. Orchestration
decision: ran it on Wrenchline only — DispatchCrow's baseline was adequately covered by funding
coverage in the snapshot, and Vantiga's evidence quality was already flagged low; two more
eleven-section deep dives would have blown the three-week budget for one board slide. Skips are
recorded, not silent.
Step 5 — Perception & positioning. Contrasted Step 2's stated positioning against Step 3's
customer language. The uncontested space: nobody's promise speaks to the technician — every
vendor positions to the owner or dispatcher, while app stores prove the tech decides adoption.
Counter-move drafted with positioning-statement: Fieldlight as "the FSM your techs won't fight."
Step 6 — Strategic direction. Fused signals per the disciplines compendium: DispatchCrow's two
ex-Wrenchline dispatch hires (HUMINT) + "coming to Pro" capacity-view note (SIGINT) + payments
gate moved down-tier (SIGINT) = a committed bet on going upmarket while monetizing via payments —
three signals, one story, briefed as act. Wrenchline's Essentials tier + backfill-only hiring +
slowed changelog = margin defense, briefed as monitor. Cadence installed:
competitive-intel-watch monthly (its worked example
is run one).
Step 7 — Outputs.
| Output | Built | Owner / consumer | Fed by steps |
|---|---|---|---|
| Battle card: Fieldlight vs Wrenchline | ✅ (artifact) | sales | 2, 3, 5 |
| Executive comparison matrix | ✅ (Step 2's matrix, lifted for the board deck) | exec staff | 2 |
| Positioning counter-move | ✅ ("the FSM your techs won't fight") | PMM | 3, 5 |
| Threat assessment brief | ✅ (DispatchCrow: act; Wrenchline: monitor; Vantiga: ignore-with-tripwire) | leadership | 6 |
Maintenance cadence installed: monthly competitive-intel-watch; pricing-packaging-tracker
monthly on the same set; quarterly direction re-read.
Why this example works
- The value shown is orchestration, not research. Every research artifact lives in a delegated skill's own example; what this document adds is the sequencing, the scoping menu, and the skips.
- Skips are decisions with reasons. Step 4 ran on one competitor, not three — recorded with the budget logic. "Permission to skip" is the orchestrator's gift; silent skipping is its failure mode.
- Findings compound across steps. The scan's segmentation insight renamed Step 2's comparison axes; Step 3's app-store voice became Step 5's uncontested space; Step 6 stacked three disciplines into one "act" call. Six lenses, one narrative.
- It ended by installing a cadence. The engagement closes with watches scheduled — the difference between a process that ended and one that just stopped.