{
  "docId": "019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-e26cdc958fc3",
  "docSlug": "b942289a7e81547e",
  "documentTitle": "Defense disrupted: New players, new pressures, new possibilities",
  "authorId": "Accenture",
  "authorName": "Accenture",
  "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck",
  "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck",
  "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting",
  "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting",
  "presentationDate": null,
  "orientation": "landscape",
  "aspectRatio": 1.778,
  "pageNumber": 19,
  "pageCount": 30,
  "prevPage": 18,
  "nextPage": 20,
  "slideType": "competitive_analysis",
  "function": "diagnose",
  "density": "overcrowded",
  "nDataPoints": 3,
  "notes": "The slide uses a bar chart to quantify survey results regarding incumbent competitive tactics.",
  "elementsJson": [
    "action_title",
    "paragraph",
    "bar_chart_horizontal",
    "headline_text"
  ],
  "metadataConfidence": 1,
  "imagePath": null,
  "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-e26cdc958fc3/19",
  "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-e26cdc958fc3",
  "deckJsonHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-e26cdc958fc3.json",
  "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-e26cdc958fc3#slide-19",
  "components": [
    {
      "bbox": null,
      "kind": "callout",
      "text": "Despite all the buzz about disruptive startups and changing requirements, the reality today is that the biggest defense programs still overwhelmingly flow to the traditional primes.",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": null,
      "toolName": "Visual emphasis",
      "toolSlug": "visual-emphasis",
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "019dd951-a673-77f6-86af-30d348c609f0",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.285,
        "w": 0.385,
        "x": 0.098,
        "y": 0.445
      },
      "kind": "chart",
      "text": "Lobbying for stricter procurement rules (65%), Strong grip on supply chains (58%), Legal actions over IP (53%)",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "bar-horizontal",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "c9169534-ee42-4e54-aac3-851fca946b06",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": null,
      "kind": "metric",
      "text": "% respondents rating strength as top three: 65%",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "primary",
      "toolName": "Quantification",
      "toolSlug": "quantification",
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "019dd951-a673-77f6-86af-357f06a8cf59",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.085,
        "w": 0.385,
        "x": 0.098,
        "y": 0.211
      },
      "kind": "paragraph",
      "text": "Not surprisingly, established defense suppliers are not passively ceding ground to new entrants. They are using their influence and resources to protect market share and navigate competitive pressures.",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "paragraph",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "0b91d18b-bdbc-4f0e-a18c-7ce382d7c7a3",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.185,
        "w": 0.345,
        "x": 0.558,
        "y": 0.555
      },
      "kind": "paragraph",
      "text": "Despite all the buzz about disruptive startups and changing requirements, the reality today is that the biggest defense programs still overwhelmingly flow to the traditional primes.",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "paragraph",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "2440822e-58ad-4706-97ed-5737b451639f",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.045,
        "w": 0.385,
        "x": 0.098,
        "y": 0.368
      },
      "kind": "paragraph",
      "text": "Figure 6: Top 3 strengths of established defense suppliers impacting new marker entrants' ability to gain market share.",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "paragraph",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "a73a27de-ce6b-4376-8945-e2830495e02e",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.085,
        "w": 0.345,
        "x": 0.558,
        "y": 0.211
      },
      "kind": "paragraph",
      "text": "Advocacy for stricter regulations: Through deep-rooted government connections, large firms help inform procurement policies in ways that reflect their capabilities.",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "paragraph",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "acec812c-4ecc-4801-a252-8ce1668bf19f",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.065,
        "w": 0.345,
        "x": 0.558,
        "y": 0.445
      },
      "kind": "paragraph",
      "text": "Legal and IP tactics: Finally, some incumbents turn to legal and intellectual property tactics—using patent litigation and IP challenges as tools to stifle competition.",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "paragraph",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "c9fed66f-b0b6-49a9-bea6-62748073110a",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.085,
        "w": 0.345,
        "x": 0.558,
        "y": 0.315
      },
      "kind": "paragraph",
      "text": "Dominance in supply chain: Beyond advocacy, established companies maintain tight control over critical parts of the defense supply chain, leveraging long-standing relationships.",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "paragraph",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "e63b6744-8772-4114-9256-f70f074dcad4",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.075,
        "w": 0.335,
        "x": 0.098,
        "y": 0.125
      },
      "kind": "title",
      "text": "Strategic friction: How incumbents maintain the advantage",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "headline",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "469752a9-9594-4886-8947-6ca635eee224",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    }
  ],
  "metrics": [
    {
      "metricRaw": "% respondents rating strength as top three",
      "numberRaw": "65%",
      "numberKind": "percent",
      "actionTitle": "Strategic friction: How incumbents maintain the advantage",
      "calloutText": "Despite all the buzz about disruptive startups and changing requirements, the reality today is that the biggest defense programs still overwhelmingly flow to the traditional primes.",
      "numberScale": null,
      "numberValue": 65,
      "metricFamily": "survey_sentiment",
      "numberCurrency": null
    }
  ],
  "tools": [
    {
      "name": "Action Titles",
      "slug": "action-titles",
      "agent": "Architect",
      "layer": "slide",
      "matchId": "019dd95a-0c43-7422-b2f5-773ecb7d4616",
      "evidence": "'Strategic friction: how incumbents maintain the advantage'.",
      "confidence": 78
    },
    {
      "name": "Annotation",
      "slug": "annotation",
      "agent": "Designer",
      "layer": "slide",
      "matchId": "019dd95a-0c43-7422-b2f5-7ca6fc1e7ffe",
      "evidence": "Bars annotated with respondent shares.",
      "confidence": 70
    },
    {
      "name": "Chart Selection Guide",
      "slug": "chart-selection-guide",
      "agent": "Designer",
      "layer": "slide",
      "matchId": "019dd95a-0c43-7422-b2f5-79c9c205746a",
      "evidence": "Bar chart of three incumbent strengths (65/58/53%).",
      "confidence": 80
    },
    {
      "name": "Concrete Language",
      "slug": "concrete-language",
      "agent": "Storyteller",
      "layer": "slide",
      "matchId": "019dd95a-0c43-7422-b2f5-812a039906c3",
      "evidence": "Names NGAD, B-21, GCAP, FCAS, MGCS as marquee programs.",
      "confidence": 65
    }
  ],
  "frameworks": [],
  "arcBeats": [
    {
      "to": 19,
      "from": 14,
      "beatId": "019dd95a-0680-7418-820a-3832547e4474",
      "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit",
      "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit",
      "beatName": "Problem & Complication",
      "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-problem-complication",
      "evidence": "Adaptation gap section: incumbents inert, entrants barriered, friction.",
      "position": 2,
      "confidence": 85,
      "parentBeatName": "Complication",
      "parentBeatSlug": "complication"
    },
    {
      "to": 19,
      "from": 14,
      "beatId": "019dd95a-0680-7418-820a-4e4fd7b11886",
      "arcName": "The Triple Take",
      "arcSlug": "triple-take",
      "beatName": "The Implications (So What)",
      "beatSlug": "triple-take-the-implications-so-what",
      "evidence": "Adaptation gap diagnosis on both sides of the market.",
      "position": 2,
      "confidence": 70,
      "parentBeatName": "Reflection",
      "parentBeatSlug": "reflection"
    }
  ],
  "loops": [
    {
      "to": 19,
      "from": 15,
      "name": "Segmentation Split",
      "slug": "34-segmentation-split",
      "bestFor": "Customer analysis, market research, resource allocation",
      "matchId": "019dd95a-07fd-712f-b773-c23f8e0f0020",
      "evidence": "p15 'neither side adapting'; p16 incumbent barriers; p17-18 entrant strengths/barriers; p19 incumbent counter-moves.",
      "position": 3,
      "objective": "Split the adaptation problem into incumbent vs. new-entrant segments and read the difference",
      "structure": "The Aggregate View -> Segment A Behavior -> Segment B Behavior -> The Insight in the Difference",
      "confidence": 80,
      "description": "Divide a whole into meaningful segments to reveal hidden patterns"
    }
  ],
  "imagePathAlt": null,
  "thumbSrc": null,
  "thumbSrcAlt": null,
  "locked": true
}