Page 229 -

CHAPTER 6 • STRATEGY ANALYSIS AND CHOICE 195

4 = highly attractive. By attractive, we mean the extent that one strategy, compared
to others, enables the firm to either capitalize on the strength, improve on the
weakness, exploit the opportunity, or avoid the threat. Work row by row in devel-
oping a QSPM. If the answer to the previous question is no, indicating that the
respective key factor has no effect upon the specific choice being made, then do
not assign Attractiveness Scores to the strategies in that set. Use a dash to indicate
that the key factor does not affect the choice being made. Note: If you assign an
AS score to one strategy, then assign AS score(s) to the other. In other words, if
one strategy receives a dash, then all others must receive a dash in a given row.
Step 5 Compute the Total Attractiveness Scores. Total Attractiveness Scores (TAS) are
defined as the product of multiplying the weights (Step 2) by the Attractiveness
Scores (Step 4) in each row. The Total Attractiveness Scores indicate the relative
attractiveness of each alternative strategy, considering only the impact of the
adjacent external or internal critical success factor. The higher the Total
Attractiveness Score, the more attractive the strategic alternative (considering
only the adjacent critical success factor).
Step 6 Compute the Sum Total Attractiveness Score. Add Total Attractiveness Scores in
each strategy column of the QSPM. The Sum Total Attractiveness Scores (STAS)
reveal which strategy is most attractive in each set of alternatives. Higher scores
indicate more attractive strategies, considering all the relevant external and internal
factors that could affect the strategic decisions. The magnitude of the difference
between the Sum Total Attractiveness Scores in a given set of strategic alternatives
indicates the relative desirability of one strategy over another.

In Table 6-7, two alternative strategies—(1) buy new land and build new larger store and
(2) fully renovate existing store—are being considered by a computer retail store. Note by sum
total attractiveness scores of 4.63 versus 3.27 that the analysis indicates the business should buy
new land and build a new larger store. Note the use of dashes to indicate which factors do not
affect the strategy choice being considered. If a particular factor affects one strategy but not the
other, it affects the choice being made, so attractiveness scores should be recorded for both
strategies. Never rate one strategy and not the other. Note also in Table 6-7 that there are no dou-
ble 1’s, 2’s, 3’s, or 4’s in a row. Never duplicate scores in a row. Never work column by column;
always prepare a QSPM working row by row. If you have more than one strategy in the QSPM,
then let the AS scores range from 1 to “the number of strategies being evaluated.” This will
enable you to have a different AS score for each strategy. These are all important guidelines to
follow in developing a QSPM. In actual practice, the store did purchase the new land and build
a new store; the business also did some minor refurbishing until the new store was operational.
There should be a rationale for each AS score assigned. Note in Table 6-7 in the first row
that the “city population growing 10 percent annually” opportunity could be capitalized on best
by strategy 1, “building the new, larger store,” so an AS score of 4 was assigned to Strategy 1.
AS scores, therefore, are not mere guesses; they should be rational, defensible, and reasonable.
Avoid giving each strategy the same AS score. Note in Table 6-7 that dashes are
inserted all the way across the row when used. Also note that double 4’s, or double 3’s, or
double 2’s, or double 1’s are never in a given row. Again work row by row, not column by
column. These are important guidelines to follow in constructing a QSPM.

Positive Features and Limitations of the QSPM
A positive feature of the QSPM is that sets of strategies can be examined sequentially or
simultaneously. For example, corporate-level strategies could be evaluated first, followed
by division-level strategies, and then function-level strategies. There is no limit to the
number of strategies that can be evaluated or the number of sets of strategies that can be
examined at once using the QSPM.
Another positive feature of the QSPM is that it requires strategists to integrate per-
tinent external and internal factors into the decision process. Developing a QSPM
makes it less likely that key factors will be overlooked or weighted inappropriately.
A QSPM draws attention to important relationships that affect strategy decisions.