Michael Porter is the Nester and the Doyen of competitive strategy. His 1979, HBR article “How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy” (FFM) started a revolution in the field. In last three decades, Porter‘s works has brought an original view into strategic mangement but moreover an economic perspective to the study of competitive strategy not only for corporations but for regions, nations, health care, philanthropy, and more recently to the competitiveness of America, competing not only on multiple fronts but moreover simultaneously with many forces (Kamran, 2011). No other strategist has proclaimed that level of justified status in strategic management literature (Margetta, 2012; Kiechel 2010, Kamran, 2010, 2011). To understand competitive strategy, it begins with Porter's work. Porter's mission to go after the most consequential problems and asking why some firms are more profitable than others, and delivering groundbreaking insights therefore (Porter, 1985), gives Porter a special place in the Olympus of strategy scientists. The essential reason why his work has endured for decades and still has not left its vital utility (Rumelt, 2011) is that unique interdisciplinarity he applies found in economics and business administration (BA). In the fashionable world of business literature gurus vanish in very short time, but Porter's legacy has withstood the test of time. Not only is the most cited author in BA literature, but moreover his insights are among the most widely applied in the real world by practitioners. FFM is a fundamental part of the curriculum of all MBA programs (Mintzberg et al, 1998; Kiechel, 2010). Connecting a business to its industry environment and making it viable against the forces, was a major breakthrough. Porter (2008) states that understanding his work begins with FFM. Thus, it is the objective of the paper to observe FFM through the lenses of cybernetics, enhance it's applicablility to the current era of complexity (Hawking 2000; Pagels, 2012) and introduce the diverse works and his greatest contributions of Porter, but also his greatest shortcomings (Mintzberg et al, 1998; Kim, Mauborgne, 2005; Kiechel 2010; Rumelt, 2011; Kamran, 2010, 2011). Above all the author identifies the grand shift in Porter's strategic mindset (Porter 2011, 2012), which promises that his best works are yet to come
