First-Mover Advantage

SKILL.md

---
name: first-mover-advantage
description: "Activate when: user asks 'should we move first or wait?', 'is it too late to enter this market?', 'how long can they hold their lead?', 'what makes the first mover hard to beat here?', or needs to assess how durable a market leader's position is or map where a pioneer's advantages are weakest. Do NOT activate when: no one has entered the market yet and the question is whether the market exists at all; or when the decision is primarily about execution quality rather than entry timing."
---

# First-Mover Advantage

## Overview

Lieberman and Montgomery's 1988 landmark paper established both the mechanisms of first-mover advantage and, with equal rigor, the mechanisms of first-mover *disadvantage* that make late entry rational and sometimes superior. The three advantage sources are: (1) technological leadership, (2) preemption of scarce assets, and (3) buyer switching costs. The three disadvantage mechanisms are: free-rider problem, resolution of market/technology uncertainty, and incumbent inertia. First-mover advantage is not a fact to assert — it is a structural condition to diagnose.

Compose with: [switching-costs](../switching-costs/SKILL.md) · [network-effects](../network-effects/SKILL.md) · [blue-ocean-strategy](../blue-ocean-strategy/SKILL.md) · [disruptive-innovation](../disruptive-innovation/SKILL.md).

## When to Use

Apply when: deciding to enter now or wait · assessing how defensible a market leader's position is · a late entrant maps where the pioneer is weakest · a first mover audits which accumulated advantages are durable.

**When NOT to use:** No one has entered yet. The core question is execution quality, not timing. The advantage claimed is brand/momentum alone with no structural lock-in mechanism.

## Coaching Novices (Adaptive Front Door)

**Engine mode:** specific market + named pioneer + strategic question → run The Process. **Coach mode:** "what is FMA / should we move first?" → guide step by step.
In Coach mode, respond one step at a time. Each [WAIT] is a hard stop — output only that step's question, then stop.

1. What-it-is: being first gives a head start on technology, key resources, and sticky customers — but forces you to teach the market so followers can learn for free.
2. Check fit. If the question is "can we execute?" redirect. If no actual pioneer exists yet, the tool doesn't apply.
3. Elicit their real case: "Which market, who is the first mover, and what advantage are you trying to assess or exploit?"
> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**
4. Run The Process one step at a time — start by identifying which of the three advantage sources is present, then wait for input before moving to durability.
> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**
5. Close by naming the strongest advantage source in their market and the corresponding first-mover disadvantage that creates the most viable follower route.
> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**

## The Process

Run the **FMA/SMA Assessment**. Identify advantage sources, assess durability, map follower strategy.

1. **Identify which advantage sources are present.** For each Lieberman-Montgomery mechanism: *Technological leadership* — does the pioneer have hard-to-replicate R&D output or a learning curve? *Resource preemption* — has the pioneer occupied scarce channels, licenses, talent, or geographic positions? *Buyer switching costs* — do buyers face meaningful financial, time, or data-continuity costs to switch?
2. **Assess durability of each source.** Rate each (strong / moderate / weak / absent) with a time estimate. Technological leadership: how soon can a follower close the gap? Resource preemption: how scarce and contractually locked? Switching costs: quantified if possible; are portability mandates present?
3. **Identify first-mover disadvantages and free-rider routes.** (a) Free-rider: what has the pioneer spent that followers use for free? (b) Uncertainty resolved: what does the follower know the pioneer couldn't? (c) Incumbent inertia: where is the pioneer structurally constrained from adapting?
4. **Map the follower's differentiated entry thesis.** Which FMA source is thinnest? What are the pioneer's identifiable mistakes? What is the late entrant's "second-mover innovation" dimension?
5. **Set a re-evaluation trigger.** Define conditions under which the assessment must be revisited: technology shift, regulation change, competitor scale milestone, user behavior signal.
6. **Stop-rule.** Can each claimed advantage be traced to a specific observable mechanism? If the claim rests on "they got there first and everyone knows them," that is incumbency and brand — label accurately.

### Output: FMA/SMA Assessment

```
# FMA/SMA Assessment: <market / company>
## Advantage Sources
| Source | Present? | Strength | Durability estimate |
|--------|----------|----------|---------------------|
| Technological leadership | | | |
| Resource preemption | | | |
| Buyer switching costs | | | |
Key evidence: <specific observable mechanism per source>
## Disadvantage Analysis
- Free-rider opportunity: <what followers use for free>
- Uncertainty resolved: <what follower knows that pioneer couldn't>
- Incumbent inertia: <where pioneer is structurally constrained>
## Follower Entry Thesis (if applicable)
- Weakest FMA source / pioneer's identifiable mistakes / late-mover differentiation dimension
## Timing Assessment
- Durable for: <1yr / 3yr / 5yr / indefinitely> · Primary threat: <leapfrog / substitute / regulatory>
- Re-evaluation trigger: <conditions that change this assessment>
## Verdict
- Entrant: <enter now / wait / enter with Y differentiation>
- Pioneer: <strongest advantage to reinforce / most vulnerable position>
```

*→ Method in Action: [Amazon E-Commerce (1994–present)](examples/amazon-e-commerce-1994-present.md)*

## Timing Packs

**Platforms/marketplaces** — assess multi-homing rate; high multi-homing = fragile despite apparent scale. **Regulated industries** — licenses are barriers until regulator changes the regime, new tech escapes regulation, or mandated access applies. **AI/software** — tech leadership has a 12–36 month half-life; durable advantage is data accumulation and developer ecosystem lock-in.

## Applying It Well

- Name the mechanism, not the position. "They were first" is not an analysis — first at *what*, with which lock-in mechanism?
- Disadvantages deserve equal time. Free-rider and leapfrog routes are where late movers win; incumbent inertia is where first movers predict their own vulnerabilities.
- Switching costs are the most durable and most buildable source. Convert your time advantage into switching costs before followers arrive.
- Frame the timing decision with explicit probabilities: early entry has option value but pioneer costs; late entry has information value but displacement costs.
- First-mover advantage is not a final state. Ask whether the advantage is compounding or decaying, and at what rate.

*→ Primary sources: [references/sources.md](references/sources.md)*

## Common Rationalizations

**[D] = designed upfront | [O] = observed in real use. [O] entries are more valuable.**

| Fake move | Reality |
|---|---|
| [D] "We were first, so we have first-mover advantage" | Entry order is not the advantage — the specific mechanism is. An early entrant without any of the three structural sources is just an incumbent. |
| [D] "They have network effects, so they can never be beaten" | Network effects amplify FMA but do not make it infinite. Assess against multi-homing rate and platform health. |
| [D] Treating brand recognition as a structural advantage | Brand erodes if product experience degrades. Must be paired with a specific lock-in mechanism. |
| [D] "It's too late — they have X million users" | Scale is a proxy. Large but low-switching-cost markets have been disrupted by late entrants repeatedly. |
| [D] Using current market share as evidence of durable advantage | Current share is past performance. Durability depends on whether mechanisms are strengthening or weakening. |
| [D] "We'll enter later when the market is bigger" | Markets become harder to enter as switching costs accumulate. Assess the growth rate explicitly. |
| [D] Assuming technological leapfrogging always works | Leapfrogging requires a superior next-gen platform AND the pioneer locked into old architecture. Pioneers can also migrate. |
| [D] FMA analysis without considering pioneer's response capability | Price cuts, product improvement, exclusive contracts, or acquisition can defend a position. Assess it. |
| [O] *→ Add [O] entries here after each real use — paste the actual failure pattern* | *What went wrong and why* |

## Red Flags

- FMA claimed without identifying which of the three Lieberman-Montgomery sources is present
- Switching costs asserted without quantification · Network effects cited without multi-homing rate
- Assessment ignores first-mover disadvantages entirely
- Durability estimate has no time horizon · Late-entry treats pioneer's position as fixed

## Verification

- [ ] All three advantage sources assessed with specific observable evidence; each rated with durability estimate + time horizon
- [ ] First-mover disadvantages analyzed: free-rider, uncertainty resolution, incumbent inertia
- [ ] Follower entry thesis identifies weakest FMA source and pioneer's specific mistakes
- [ ] Network effects paired with multi-homing rate · Re-evaluation trigger defined
- [ ] Stop-rule applied: each advantage traceable to a specific observable mechanism

---

*Part of **deciqAI Knowledge Skills** — open-source thinking skills that make rigor executable for AI agents. Built by deciqAI · https://deciqai.com · Contributions welcome — see the template at the repo root.*