The worth considering fact put by the authors is that core competence neither signifies outspending competitors on R&D, nor indicated shared costs. It is necessary that core competence must make an imperative contribution to the alleged consumer advantages of the end product. For the purpose of generating a strategic architecture, a substantial amount of time is required from the top management so that objectives of competence building can be set and this strategic architecture must make resource allocation precedence apparent to the complete organisation. Overall, core competence is the source of new business development, and thus, they should compose the centre for strategy at the corporate level.
The similarity between both the articles is that both of them are focussed on the strategy formulation in corporations so that they attain competitive advantage. Authors of both the articles have presented distinctive viewpoints for directing companies so that they strategically position themselves in the market and overpower their competitors. It is worthy to mention that the more benchmarking companies do with the help of their strategies and core competencies, the more competitive convergence they will gain.
However, the difference lies between both the articles is that Porter (1996) has directed his article on the formulation of accurate strategy by highlighting the dissimilarity between organisational effectiveness and strategy. In contrast to this, Prahalad and Hamel (1990) have asserted the significance of properly fitting core competencies in the organisational strategy for competitive advantage. In this manner, both the authors have somehow elucidated about strategy formulation or strategic positioning, but in their own different manner by espousing on different stances.