Understanding Your Competitive Advantage
Models and Frameworks
When discussing competitive advantage, we often used terms like moat (largely used to identify barriers to potential competitors), differentiation, value proposition, and core competencies to describe what sets organizations apart. There are multiple analytic frameworks to help us understand the landscape like Porters Five Forces, SWOT, the balanced scorecard, McKinsey 7-S framework, BCG’s growth share matrix, and many others. My personal favorite is one that I’ve used both in business, and when I was trying to predict behavior in violent extremist groups around the world – the Center of Gravity (CoG). A simple, yet effective construct that was further developed by the Marine Corps – yep…bothered me too (Just kidding, they are the closest cousins to the Rangers in the military). But first, some background.
I spent an entire year in the School of Advanced Military Studies talking about it, analyzing it, and punishing myself to try and better understand Center of Gravity. The original idea comes from the modern West’s premier military theorist Carl von Clausewitz. Because of my professional education I read his work cover to cover twice. I even have a copy in the original German that I’ve attempted to stumble through on occasion.
Carl von Clausewitz was a 19th-century Prussian military theorist best known for his book On War, which remains one of the most influential works on military strategy of our time. In it, he introduced the concept of the center of gravity (CoG) as the key source of an enemy’s strengths such as its army, leadership, or economy. Clausewitz argued that by identifying and attacking this central point, a military force could effectively weaken or defeat its opponent. Over time, his ideas evolved and were refined by modern military thinkers like Dr. Joe Strange.
While Clausewitz’s idea was revolutionary for its time, it lacked clarity when applied to non-state threats like terrorist organizations. This limitation led Dr. Joe Strange and the Marine Corps War College to refine CoG into a more structured framework that could be applied to modern warfare. Strange’s model breaks CoG into three essential components: Critical Capabilities (CC)—the key functions that sustain the CoG; Critical Requirements (CR)—the resources and conditions that support those capabilities; and Critical Vulnerabilities (CV)—the weaknesses in those requirements that can be exploited.
Today, Western military doctrines, including those of the U.S. and NATO, use CoG analysis (and Strange’s model) to plan operations, ensuring that forces focus on the most critical vulnerabilities of an adversary rather than wasting resources on less important targets. These ideas continue to shape how wars are fought, from conventional battles to counterinsurgency and cyber warfare.
When I was first introduced to the subject, we were at war in both Afghanistan and the Middle East and we discussed the threat’s center of gravity while analyzing our own. The problem of course is that the enemy wasn’t a nation-state, so identifying its center of gravity was difficult in Clausewitz’s construction. What could be applied was Strange’s model.
What made the thinking so poignant was that our center of gravity had been attacked on 9/11. Bin Laden had identified our economy as our CoG, and in a multi-step plan began to erode it. The strategic raids were the first strike, but the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, growth in our security apparatus, and the inspiration of multiple groups to form and foment chaos and threaten US interests was all laid out in his original strategy (it’s the stuff no one likes to talk about – but that is something we will save for another day).
Strange’s construction is both simple and elegant. He refined the Center of Gravity (CoG) to provide a clearer, more structured way to analyze and target an adversary’s key strength. He broke it down into three components: Critical Capabilities (CC), which are the essential functions that allow a CoG to operate; Critical Requirements (CR), which are the resources and conditions necessary for those capabilities; and Critical Vulnerabilities (CV), which are weaknesses in the requirements that, if exploited, could undermine the CoG.
This method helps military planners focus their efforts on strategic points rather than dispersing resources inefficiently. A modern example is the U.S. strategy against ISIS in the mid-2010s. The CoG of ISIS was its ability to control territory and project power. Its Critical Capabilities included governance, recruitment, and military operations. These relied on Critical Requirements like financial resources (oil revenues), safe havens, and propaganda networks. The Critical Vulnerability was its dependence on a centralized command structure and oil infrastructure, which the U.S.-led coalition systematically targeted, leading to the group's territorial collapse.
We also used Strange’s model to predict behavior in North Africa and used it to identify potential cooperation between groups. Whereas if one organization possessed a critical capability and another had a critical requirement and their vision, mission, and endgame were the same there was a probability that they would join forces. If their critical vulnerability was the same, we would concentrate our collection efforts on the vulnerability to ascertain cooperation and potential collaboration. As it turned out we did predict collaboration before any of our sister organizations did. In fact, we tried to convince others and failed until months later attacks had occurred, and the cooperation became obvious.
In business I’ve used it to assess my own organization to better understand how to compete better. When you think in terms of a critical capability, critical requirement, and critical vulnerabilities in your organization it unlocks two different, but necessary cognitive frameworks needed for focused and creative thought; it also helps you prioritize what to reinforce and what to protect.
The Theory of Structured Imagination (Finke, Ward, & Smith, 1992) argues that creativity is guided by mental constraints, as individuals generate novel ideas by working within structured knowledge and existing cognitive frameworks. Similarly, The Path of Least Resistance Theory (Fritz, 1989) suggests that human thought naturally follows established mental structures, meaning creativity emerges not from unrestricted freedom but by reshaping these underlying patterns. Both theories emphasize that constraints fuel creativity by directing thought processes, rather than hindering them. For example, scientific breakthroughs often arise within strict theoretical limits, while artistic innovation, such as jazz improvisation, flourishes within structured musical frameworks. These perspectives challenge the assumption that creativity thrives in boundless freedom, instead highlighting the productive role of constraints in shaping novel ideas.
Thinking in terms of Center of Gravity and Dr. Joe Strange’s model creates constraints in your thinking when analyzing your own organization. You must segment what is important to the success of your team and describe it in a way that forces you to consider resources (requirements) and weaknesses (vulnerabilities is a better way to think about it I’ve found). The process is recursive as it also forces you to review each criticality again after completing one to ensure it aligns.
I have used the concept to think about my organization and the marketplace. I haven’t found it worth the time to apply it to competitors, and that may be why it hasn’t garnered wider use. We all like a ‘one size fits all’ model, and I’m not sure Strange’s construct fits the bill.
Bottom line is that it is hat’s off to the USMC War College and Dr. Joe Strange for giving us a great tool. Thinking about a Center of Gravity in terms of Critical Capabilities, Critical Requirements, and Critical Vulnerabilities has given me great insights into my own organization as well as when I modeled external phenomenon.
Hopefully it will help you too.