Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Competitive Positioning
Market Attractiveness
Market Size (Value in bubble)
Range
1-9
1-9
1-5
Metro Munic
3.3
3.1
5
District Munic
6.6
4.6
2
Local Munic
5.3
6.4
3
Water Boards
5.5
4.5
2
District Munic
Local Munic
Water Boards
9.0
Low
Medium
High
Market Attractiveness
6.0
3.0
Low
Medium
0.0
0.0
3.0 HighCompetitive
6.0
9.0Positioning
M
Coy:
ABC Software
Unit:
A
Municipal Accounting
MARKET ATTRACTIVENESS
A.1
A.2
A.3
A.4
A.5
A.6
Value
80
5%
40%
10%
1-V-High
2-V-Low
Metro Munic
Rating
Weight
9
6
1
3
1
2
1
3
3
3
3
1
3.14
COMPETITIVE POSITIONING
Value
Rating
Weight
B.1
B.2
B.3
B.4
B.5
B.6
Market Share
Growth Trend in Market Share
Brand Equity
Access to Distribution Channels
Production Capacity
Profit Margins vs Competition
0%
0%
7-Low
3-Low
3-Low
4 -5%
1
5
3
3
3
4
1
2
3
3
2
1
3.25
80
Munic
Description
Value
Normal
Critical
Critical
Critical
Critical
Normal
30
5%
30%
25%
3-M-High
7-M-High
District Munic
Rating
Weight
4
6
3
6
3
7
Local Munic
Description
Value
1
3
3
3
3
1
Normal
Critical
Critical
Critical
Critical
Normal
50
5%
10%
25%
6-L-Med
8-High
4.64
Description
Value
Rating
Weight
Description
Value
Normal
Important
Critical
Critical
Important
Normal
20%
35%
3-M-High
7-M-High
6-H-Med
6 +5%
3
8
7
7
6
6
1
2
3
3
2
1
Normal
Important
Critical
Critical
Important
Normal
10%
5%
3-M-High
4-L-Med
5-Med
7 +10%
6.58
30
50
S
Local Munic
Rating
Weight
6
6
7
6
6
8
1
3
3
3
3
1
Description
Value
Normal
Critical
Critical
Critical
Critical
Normal
30
5%
20%
15%
3-M-High
5-Med
6.36
Water Boards
Rating
Weight
4
6
5
4
3
5
Description
1
3
3
3
3
1
Normal
Critical
Critical
Critical
Critical
Normal
4.50
Rating
Weight
Description
Value
Rating
Weight
Description
2
6
7
4
5
7
1
2
3
3
2
1
Normal
Important
Critical
Critical
Important
Normal
20%
5%
5-Med
5-Med
7-M-High
7 +10%
3
6
5
5
7
7
1
2
3
3
2
1
Normal
Important
Critical
Critical
Important
Normal
5.33
3
5.50
30
Description
Rating
Score
Weight
Ref
Description
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Market Share
-100%
-35%
-20%
-5%
0%
5%
20%
35%
50%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Rating
WEIGHTING FACTORS
Score
Weight
Ref
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
-100%
-35%
-20%
-5%
0%
5%
20%
35%
50%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Market Size
Market Growth
Demand Variability
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Brand Equity
1-V-High
2-High
3-M-High
4-H-Med
5-Med
6-L-Med
7-Low
8-V-Low
9-Zero
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Industry Profitability
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Channel Access
1-Zero
2-V-Low
3-Low
4-L-Med
5-Med
6-H-Med
7-M-High
8-High
9-V-High
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Industry Rivalry
1-V-High
2-High
3-M-High
4-H-Med
5-Med
6-L-Med
7-Low
8-V-Low
9-Zero
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Production Capacity
1-Zero
2-V-Low
3-Low
4-L-Med
5-Med
6-H-Med
7-M-High
8-High
9-V-High
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Global Opportunities
1-Zero
2-V-Low
3-Low
4-L-Med
5-Med
6-H-Med
7-M-High
8-High
9-V-High
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Profitability vs Comp
1 -20%
2 -15%
3 -10%
4 -5%
5-Same
6 +5%
7 +10%
8 +15%
9 +20%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Importance
Normal
Important
Critical
Ref
A
MARKET SEGMENTS
Mkt Size
Score
Ref
0
20
40
60
80
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
Segment Name
Metro Munic
District Munic
Local Munic
Water Boards