Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Chen (1996): Map Rivals → Explain Behavior → Remap - Coggle Diagram
Chen (1996): Map Rivals → Explain Behavior → Remap
01 INPUTS | Define the pair and map the relationship [S1–S3]
PAIRWISE UNIT | A → B, then B → A [S1]
Industry averages can hide firm-to-firm rivalry
Choose focal firm A and rival B; reverse the view to test asymmetry
MARKET COMMONALITY | Where do A and B meet? [S2]
Shared markets weighted by their importance to each firm
Raises awareness and motivation to protect key markets
RESOURCE SIMILARITY | What tools can each firm use? [S3]
Comparable resource types and amounts; not which firm is better
Raises capability to carry out or match a move
2 × 2 POSITIONS | High/low market commonality and resource similarity [S1]
I: High M, High R → direct mutual rivals
II: High M, Low R → shared customers, different tools
III: Low M, Low R → currently distant rivals
IV: Low M, High R → similar tools, different markets
02 DECISION | Inputs → AMC → Attack / Response [S2–S3]
AWARENESS | Does the firm notice the rival or move? [M and R]
MOTIVATION | Is there a reason to act? [mainly M]
CAPABILITY | Can the firm carry it out? [mainly R]
Interaction: motivation and capability matter together; neither guarantees action
BEHAVIOR | Initiation versus response
BEFORE A ATTACKS B
High M → A less likely to attack first: mutual forbearance [S2]
High R → A less likely to attack: B could match or retaliate [S3]
IF A ATTACKS AND B NOTICES
High M → B more motivated to respond when a key market is at stake [S2]
High R → B more capable of a similar response [S3]
Response is more likely, not automatically immediate or fierce
CINEMA ILLUSTRATION [S3; hypothetical]
A adds late screenings; B has comparable screens, night staff and booking systems
A anticipates B could match; if A acts and B is motivated, B can add screenings
Chen proposes M as a stronger predictor than R; these behavior propositions were not tested here
03 INTERPRET & UPDATE | Asymmetry → Outcomes → Remap [S4–S5]
ASYMMETRY | A’s view of B ≠ B’s view of A [S4]
Unequal market importance and resource positions make the two directions differ
Airline illustration: Hawaiian may focus on American / United; American focuses on United
Airline mapping and survey support the constructs; behavioral predictions need further testing
OUTCOMES | Moves can change market share, returns and resource positions [S5]
MANAGERIAL USE | Monitor rivals; choose battles; assess alliances; reverse the view [S5]
FEEDBACK | Updated positions → remap M and R → reconsider AMC [S5]