strategic management
Instructions
| Instructions |
| These matrices were developed in October 1998 by Steve Wood and Jason Bourn at the Portsmouth Campus of |
| New Hampshire College. They are based on matrices developed by Robert C. Losik and published most recently |
| as STRATMAX, a LOTUS-based version. These matrices should be used to support strategic decisions |
| made in ADB421. This file is known as ADB421-SAW98.xls. |
| A limited Apple98.xls file can be viewed as a sample. The only matrix in that sample that is incomplete is |
| the "STRATEGIES" matrix. Normally a student would list more strategies (SEE OLD APPLE SAMPLE.) |
| The sample file (APPLE98.xls) needs to be opened separately. |
| Since this file contains blank templates to be used when preparing a new case, it should be opened and saved |
| immediately as a new file, perhaps named after the case. For example, "Norwood.xls". If you do this you will |
| always have a blank file for future use. |
| The "VEE-TOWS" and "QSPM SUMMARY" spreadsheets noted by the tabs below contain data that need |
| to be sorted once other spreadsheets are completed. To sort the data on these sheets just click the "SORT" |
| button located near the top of each of these pages. |
| Note to Instructors: |
| Refer students to the original "Case Guide" developed by Dr. Losik for assistance in preparing these templates. |
| Comments and questions are welcomed. You can e-mail Steve Wood, and ADB-421 instructor at the Portsmouth |
| Campus, at [email protected] |
IFEM
| Internal Factor Evaluation Matrix (IFEM)--Main Matrix A | |||
| Internal Key Factors | Rate | Weight | Total |
| Lagre inventory | 2 | 0.2 | 0.40 |
| short manufacturing cycle time | 3 | 0.2 | 0.60 |
| Idlel Capacity | 2 | 0.3 | 0.60 |
| Long setup times | 1 | 0.1 | 0.10 |
| Low porportion of stores stocking our bikes | 2 | 0.05 | 0.10 |
| High beaerkdown | 1 | 0.1 | 0.10 |
| high rework | 2 | 0.3 | 0.60 |
| Good starting capacity | 4 | 0.2 | 0.80 |
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| Totals | 1.45 | 3.30 | |
| FACTOR RATING SCALE | |||
| 1. Major Weakness 3. Minor Strength | |||
| 2. Minor Weakness 4. Major Strength | |||
| INTERNAL FACTOR CODE: | |||
| FN = FINANCE | |||
| MG = MANAGEMENT | |||
| MK = MARKETING | |||
| IS = INFORMATION SYSTEMS | |||
| PR = PRODUCTION OF A PRODUCT | |||
| RD = RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT | |||
| SV = THE PROVIDING OF A SERVICE | |||
| Internal Factor Evaluation Matrix (IFEM)--Sub Matrix B | |||
| Internal Key Factors | Rate | Weight | Total |
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| Totals | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Rating Summary | |||
| 1. Major Weakness 3. Minor Strength | |||
| 2. Minor Weakness 4. Major Strength | |||
| INTERNAL FACTOR CODE: | |||
| FN = FINANCE | |||
| MG = MANAGEMENT | |||
| MK = MARKETING | |||
| IS = INFORMATION SYSTEMS | |||
| PR = PRODUCTION OF A PRODUCT | |||
| RD = RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT | |||
| SV = THE PROVIDING OF A SERVICE | |||
| Internal Factor Evaluation Matrix (IFEM)--Sub Matrix C | |||
| Internal Key Factors | Rate | Weight | Total |
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| Totals | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Rating Summary | |||
| 1. Major Weakness 3. Minor Strength | |||
| 2. Minor Weakness 4. Major Strength | |||
| INTERNAL FACTOR CODE: | |||
| FN = FINANCE | |||
| MG = MANAGEMENT | |||
| MK = MARKETING | |||
| IS = INFORMATION SYSTEMS | |||
| PR = PRODUCTION OF A PRODUCT | |||
| RD = RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT | |||
| SV = THE PROVIDING OF A SERVICE |
EFEM
| External Factor Evaluation Matrix (EFEM)--Main Matrix A | |||
| External Key Factors | Rate | Weight | Total |
| untapped product categroies | 3 | 0.2 | 0.60 |
| many stores to hold products | 3 | 0.3 | 0.90 |
| low compeitior quality levels | 4 | 0.3 | 1.20 |
| other competitors in the adventure bikes field | 1 | 0.2 | 0.20 |
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| Totals | 1.00 | 2.90 | |
| FACTOR RATING SCALE | |||
| 1. Major Threat 3. Minor Opportunity | |||
| 2. Minor Threat 4. Major Opportunity | |||
| EXTERNAL FACTOR CODE: | |||
| CP = COMPETITIVE | |||
| CL = CULTURAL | |||
| DM = DEMOGRAPHIC | |||
| EC = ECONOMIC | |||
| GE = GEOGRAPHIC | |||
| GV = GOVERNMENT | |||
| IN = INDUSTRY | |||
| LG = LEGAL | |||
| PL = POLITICAL | |||
| SC = SOCIAL | |||
| TC = TECHNOLOGICAL | |||
| External Factor Evaluation Matrix (EFEM)--Sub Matrix B | |||
| External Key Factors | Rate | Weight | Total |
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| Totals | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| FACTOR RATING SCALE | |||
| 1. Major Threat 3. Minor Opportunity | |||
| 2. Minor Threat 4. Major Opportunity | |||
| EXTERNAL FACTOR CODE: | |||
| CP = COMPETITIVE | |||
| CL = CULTURAL | |||
| DM = DEMOGRAPHIC | |||
| EC = ECONOMIC | |||
| GE = GEOGRAPHIC | |||
| GV = GOVERNMENT | |||
| IN = INDUSTRY | |||
| LG = LEGAL | |||
| PL = POLITICAL | |||
| SC = SOCIAL | |||
| TC = TECHNOLOGICAL | |||
| External Factor Evaluation Matrix (EFEM)--Sub Matrix C | |||
| External Key Factors | Rate | Weight | Total |
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| 0.00 | |||
| Totals | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| FACTOR RATING SCALE | |||
| 1. Major Threat 3. Minor Opportunity | |||
| 2. Minor Threat 4. Major Opportunity | |||
| EXTERNAL FACTOR CODE: | |||
| CP = COMPETITIVE | |||
| CL = CULTURAL | |||
| DM = DEMOGRAPHIC | |||
| EC = ECONOMIC | |||
| GE = GEOGRAPHIC | |||
| GV = GOVERNMENT | |||
| IN = INDUSTRY | |||
| LG = LEGAL | |||
| PL = POLITICAL | |||
| SC = SOCIAL | |||
| TC = TECHNOLOGICAL |
VEE-TOWS
| VEE-TOWS MATRIX | |||||||
| STRENGTHS (S) | Rating | Weight | WEAKNESSES (W) | Rating | Weight | ||
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 1 | 0 | 9 | 9.00 |
| 2 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 2 | Lagre inventory | 2 | 0.20 |
| 3 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 3 | 0 | 9 | 9.00 |
| 4 | short manufacturing cycle time | 3 | 0.20 | 4 | 0 | 9 | 9.00 |
| 5 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 5 | Long setup times | 1 | 0.10 |
| 6 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 6 | 0 | 9 | 9.00 |
| 7 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 7 | 0 | 9 | 9.00 |
| 8 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 8 | 0 | 9 | 9.00 |
| 9 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 9 | Idlel Capacity | 2 | 0.30 |
| 10 | Good starting capacity | 4 | 0.20 | 10 | Low porportion of stores stocking our bikes | 2 | 0.05 |
| 11 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 11 | 0 | 9 | 9.00 |
| 12 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 12 | 0 | 9 | 9.00 |
| 13 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 13 | High beaerkdown | 1 | 0.10 |
| 14 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 14 | high rework | 2 | 0.30 |
| 15 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 15 | 0 | 9 | 9.00 |
| 16 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 16 | 0 | 9 | 9.00 |
| 17 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 17 | 0 | 9 | 9.00 |
| 18 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 18 | 0 | 9 | 9.00 |
| 19 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 19 | 0 | 9 | 9.00 |
| OPPORTUNITIES (O) | Rating | Weight | THREATS (T) | Rating | Weight | ||
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 1 | 0 | 9 | 9.00 |
| 2 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 2 | 0 | 9 | 9.00 |
| 3 | untapped product categroies | 3 | 0.20 | 3 | other competitors in the adventure bikes field | 1 | 0.20 |
| 4 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 4 | 0 | 9 | 9.00 |
| 5 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 5 | 0 | 9 | 9.00 |
| 6 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 6 | 0 | 9 | 9.00 |
| 7 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 7 | 0 | 9 | 9.00 |
| 8 | low compeitior quality levels | 4 | 0.30 | 8 | 0 | 9 | 9.00 |
| 9 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 9 | 0 | 9 | 9.00 |
| 10 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 10 | 0 | 9 | 9.00 |
| 11 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 11 | 0 | 9 | 9.00 |
| 12 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 12 | 0 | 9 | 9.00 |
| 13 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 13 | 0 | 9 | 9.00 |
| 14 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 14 | 0 | 9 | 9.00 |
| 15 | many stores to hold products | 3 | 0.30 | 15 | 0 | 9 | 9.00 |
| 16 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 16 | 0 | 9 | 9.00 |
| 17 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 17 | 0 | 9 | 9.00 |
| 18 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 18 | 0 | 9 | 9.00 |
| 19 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 19 | 0 | 9 | 9.00 |
SORT
I&E Matrix
| THE INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL FACTOR MATRIX (I/E) | |||||||
| IFEM TOTAL WEIGHTED SCORES | |||||||
| INTERNAL FACTOR SPACE | |||||||
| HIGH | LOW | ||||||
| EFEM | 3 | 2 | 1 | ||||
| TOTAL | |||||||
| WEIGHTED | HIGH | ||||||
| SCORES | |||||||
| EXTERNAL | |||||||
| FACTOR | |||||||
| FAVORABLENESS | |||||||
| EFEM Total: | 2.90 | ||||||
| LOW | |||||||
| IFEM Total: | 3.30 | ||||||
| STRATEGY AREA: | |||||||
| 3.10 | |||||||
| *NOTE: DIVESTITURE, LIQUIDATION, RETRENCHMENT, | |||||||
| AND RESTRUCTURING SHOULD BE ONGOING STRATEGIES, | |||||||
| REGARDLESS OF THE ORGANIZATION'S STRATEGIC POSTURE. | |||||||
| POSSIBLE STRATEGIES: | GROW & | HOLD & | HARVEST & | ||||
| BUILD | MAINTAIN | DIVEST | |||||
| BACKWARD INTEGRATION................ | X | ||||||
| CONCENTRIC DIVERSIFICATION......... | X | X | X(?) | ||||
| CONGLOMERATE DIVERSIFICATION....... | X | X(?) | |||||
| DIVESTITURE.......................... | X* | X* | X* | ||||
| FORWARD INTEGRATION............... | X | ||||||
| HORIZONTAL DIVESIFICATION........... | X | X(?) | |||||
| HORIZONTAL INTEGRATION........... | X | X(?) | |||||
| LIQUIDATION.................... | X* | X* | X* | ||||
| MARKET DEVELOPMENT................ | X | X(?) | |||||
| MARKET PENETRATION................ | X | X | |||||
| PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT..................... | X | X(?) | |||||
| RESTRUCTURING..................... | X* | X* | X* | ||||
| RETRENCHMEMT...................... | X* | X* | X* | ||||
| (?) DEPENDS ON THE FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE ORGANIZATION |
I&E Matrix
IFEM
EFEM
I&E Chart
SPACE
| THE SPACE MATRIX | |||||||||
| RATINGS: +6 IS THE BEST; +1 IS THE WORST. | RATINGS: -1 IS THE BEST; -6 IS THE WORST. | ||||||||
| FINANCIAL STATUS | RATING | (+1 ,+6) | COMPETITIVE STATUS | RATING | (-1,-6) | ||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| MEAN | 0.00 | MEAN | 0.00 | ||||||
| RATINGS: -1 IS THE BEST; -6 IS THE WORST. | RATINGS: +6 IS THE BEST; +1 IS THE WORST. | ||||||||
| ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS | RATING | (-1, -6) | INDUSTRY STATUS | RATING | (+1,+6) | ||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| Mean | 0.00 | MEAN | 0.00 | ||||||
| X Coordinate | 0.00 | ||||||||
| Y Coordinate | 0.00 |
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
SPACE
Conservative
Aggressive
Defensive
Competitive
SPACE Matrix
STRATEGIES
| THE TOWS MATRIX STRATEGIES |
| BUSINESS CORPORATE (B/C) AND FUNCTIONAL AREA (F) STRATEGIES |
| STRENGTH/OPPORTUNITY (SO) STRATEGIES |
| WEAKNESS/OPPORTUNITY (WO) STRATEGIES |
| STRENGTH/THREAT (ST) STRATEGIES |
| WEAKNESS/THREAT (WT) STRATEGIES |
QSPM
| The Quantitative Strategic Planning Matrix (QSPM) | |||||||||||||
| QSPM NR 1: STRATEGIES 1 THROUGH 6. | |||||||||||||
| STRATEGY 1 | STRATEGY 2 | STRATEGY 3 | STRATEGY 4 | STRATEGY 5 | STRATEGY 6 | ||||||||
| Internal Key Factors | Rate | SC | TSC | SC | TSC | SC | TSC | SC | TSC | SC | TSC | SC | TSC |
| Lagre inventory | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| short manufacturing cycle time | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| Idlel Capacity | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| Long setup times | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| Low porportion of stores stocking our bikes | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| High beaerkdown | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| high rework | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| Good starting capacity | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| External Key Factor | Rate | AS | TAS | AS | TAS | AS | TAS | AS | TAS | AS | TAS | AS | TAS |
| untapped product categroies | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| many stores to hold products | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| low compeitior quality levels | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| other competitors in the adventure bikes field | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| Percent of Maximum Possible Score | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| Total Spt % of MPSS & Total Arg % of MPAS | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| QSPM CODE | |||||||||||||
| DESCRIPTION OF THE STRATEGIES: | STRATEGY | SC=SUPPORT SCORE | INT SUPPORT OR EXT ARGUMENT SCORE | ||||||||||
| 0 | 1 | TSC=TOTAL SUPPORT SCORE | SCORE INTERPRETATION | SCORE | |||||||||
| 0 | 2 | AS=ARGUMENT SCORE | DOES NOT SPT OR ARGUE FOR | 0 | |||||||||
| 0 | 3 | TAS=TOTAL ARGUMENT SCORE | SLIGHTLY STRG SPT OR ARGUE FOR | 1 | |||||||||
| 0 | 4 | MPS=MAX POSSIBLE SCORE | MODERATE STRG SPT OR ARGUE FOR | 2 | |||||||||
| 0 | 5 | MPSS=MAX POS SUPT SCORE | VERY STRONG SPT OR ARGUE FOR | 3 | |||||||||
| 0 | 6 | MPAS=MAX POS ARG SCORE | EXTREMELY STRG SPT OR ARGUE FOR | 4 | |||||||||
| The Quantitative Strategic Planning Matrix (QSPM)--Page 2 | |||||||||||||
| QSPM NR 1: STRATEGIES 7 THROUGH 12. | |||||||||||||
| STRATEGY 7 | STRATEGY 8 | STRATEGY 9 | STRATEGY 10 | STRATEGY 11 | STRATEGY 12 | ||||||||
| Internal Key Factors | Rate | SC | TSC | SC | TSC | SC | TSC | SC | TSC | SC | TSC | SC | TSC |
| Lagre inventory | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| short manufacturing cycle time | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| Idlel Capacity | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| Long setup times | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| Low porportion of stores stocking our bikes | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| High beaerkdown | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| high rework | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| Good starting capacity | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| External Key Factor | Rate | AS | TAS | AS | TAS | AS | TAS | AS | TAS | AS | TAS | AS | TAS |
| untapped product categroies | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| many stores to hold products | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| low compeitior quality levels | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| other competitors in the adventure bikes field | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| Percent of Maximum Possible Score | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| Total Spt % of MPSS & Total Arg % of MPAS | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| QSPM CODE | |||||||||||||
| DESCRIPTION OF THE STRATEGIES: | STRATEGY | SC=SUPPORT SCORE | INT SUPPORT OR EXT ARGUMENT SCORE | ||||||||||
| 0 | 7 | TSC=TOTAL SUPPORT SCORE | SCORE INTERPRETATION | SCORE | |||||||||
| 0 | 8 | AS=ARGUMENT SCORE | DOES NOT SPT OR ARGUE FOR | 0 | |||||||||
| 0 | 9 | TAS=TOTAL ARGUMENT SCORE | SLIGHTLY STRG SPT OR ARGUE FOR | 1 | |||||||||
| 0 | 10 | MPS=MAX POSSIBLE SCORE | MODERATE STRG SPT OR ARGUE FOR | 2 | |||||||||
| 0 | 11 | MPSS=MAX POS SUPT SCORE | VERY STRONG SPT OR ARGUE FOR | 3 | |||||||||
| 0 | 12 | MPAS=MAX POS ARG SCORE | EXTREMELY STRG SPT OR ARGUE FOR | 4 | |||||||||
| The Quantitative Strategic Planning Matrix (QSPM)--Page 3 | |||||||||||||
| QSPM NR 1: STRATEGIES 13 THROUGH 18. | |||||||||||||
| STRATEGY 13 | STRATEGY 14 | STRATEGY 15 | STRATEGY 16 | STRATEGY 17 | STRATEGY 18 | ||||||||
| Internal Key Factors | Rate | SC | TSC | SC | TSC | SC | TSC | SC | TSC | SC | TSC | SC | TSC |
| 0 | |||||||||||||
| Lagre inventory | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| short manufacturing cycle time | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Idlel Capacity | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Long setup times | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Low porportion of stores stocking our bikes | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| High beaerkdown | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| high rework | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Good starting capacity | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| External Key Factor | Rate | AS | TAS | AS | TAS | AS | TAS | AS | TAS | AS | TAS | AS | TAS |
| untapped product categroies | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| many stores to hold products | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| low compeitior quality levels | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| other competitors in the adventure bikes field | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Percent of Maximum Possible Score | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| Total Spt % of MPSS & Total Arg % of MPAS | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| QSPM CODE | |||||||||||||
| DESCRIPTION OF THE STRATEGIES: | STRATEGY | SC=SUPPORT SCORE | INT SUPPORT OR EXT ARGUMENT SCORE | ||||||||||
| 0 | 13 | TSC=TOTAL SUPPORT SCORE | SCORE INTERPRETATION | SCORE | |||||||||
| 0 | 14 | AS=ARGUMENT SCORE | DOES NOT SPT OR ARGUE FOR | 0 | |||||||||
| 0 | 15 | TAS=TOTAL ARGUMENT SCORE | SLIGHTLY STRG SPT OR ARGUE FOR | 1 | |||||||||
| 0 | 16 | MPS=MAX POSSIBLE SCORE | MODERATE STRG SPT OR ARGUE FOR | 2 | |||||||||
| 0 | 17 | MPSS=MAX POS SUPT SCORE | VERY STRONG SPT OR ARGUE FOR | 3 | |||||||||
| 0 | 18 | MPAS=MAX POS ARG SCORE | EXTREMELY STRG SPT OR ARGUE FOR | 4 |
BIMODAL
| BI-MODAL STRATEGIC MATRIX | |||||
| HI | LO--------------EFFECTIVE RESOURCE USE-------------HI | HI | |||
| | | "S" | | | |||
| | | ATTENUATE THREATS | | | MAKE STRENGTHS EFFECTIVE | | | |
| | | (III) | | | (I) | | | |
| | | | | O | |||
| T | * * | S | * * | P | |
| H | S,T S,t | | | S,o S,O | P | |
| R | | | O | |||
| E | | | R | |||
| A | | | T | |||
| T | | | U | |||
| | | * * | s | * * | N | |
| | | s,T s,t | | | s,o s,O | I | |
| | | | | T | |||
| | | | | Y | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| | | "T"--T---------t--------------------o---------4---"O" | --X-- | ------------------o----------------------O---"O" | | | |
| | | | | | | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| A | | | C P | |||
| T P | | | O O | |||
| T O | | | N T | |||
| E T | * * | w | * * | V E | |
| N E | w,T w,t | | | w,o w,O | E N | |
| U N | | | R T | |||
| A T | | | S I | |||
| T I | | | I A | |||
| I A | | | O L | |||
| O L | * * | W | * * | N | |
| N | W,T W,t | | | W,o W,O | | | |
| | | (IV) | | | (II) | | | |
| | | SURVIVE OR RESTRUCTURE | | | CONV WEAK OR REPOSITION | | | |
| | | "W" | | | |||
| LO | HI-------------VULNERABILITY TENDENCY--------------LO | LO | |||
| GEN/CODE STRATEGY DESCRIPTION | BMS CODE | ||||
| 1 | |||||
| 2 | |||||
| 3 | |||||
| 4 | |||||
| 5 | |||||
| 6 | |||||
| 7 | |||||
| 8 | |||||
| 9 | |||||
| 10 | |||||
| 11 | |||||
| 12 | |||||
| 13 | |||||
| 14 | |||||
| 15 | |||||
| 16 | |||||
| 17 | |||||
| 18 |
QSPM SUMMARY
| The QSPM SUMMARY SHEET | ||||
| STRATEGY DESCRIPTION | MPS | MPSS | MPAS | |
| 1 | 0 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 2 | 0 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 3 | 0 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 4 | 0 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 5 | 0 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 6 | 0 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 7 | 0 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 8 | 0 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 9 | 0 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 10 | 0 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 11 | 0 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 12 | 0 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 13 | 0 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 14 | 0 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 15 | 0 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 16 | 0 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 17 | 0 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 18 | 0 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| SCORE DESCRIPTIONS | ||||
| 80 - 100 % Extremely strong | ||||
| 70 - 80 % Very Strong | ||||
| 60 - 70 % Strong | ||||
| 50 - 60 % Moderate | ||||
| 40 - 50 % Weak | ||||
| 30 - 40 % Very Weak | ||||
| < 30% Extremely Weak |
SORT