Define comparable segments
Specify customer, use case, geography and time horizon before rating anything. A segment that overlaps another one cannot be compared cleanly.
- Boundary and exclusion rule
- Decision horizon
- Unit of analysis
05 · Segment attractiveness
Segment attractiveness: compare opportunity and ability to win
WHAT TO CHECK
A documented attractiveness comparison, including evidence gaps and the condition for revisiting it.
- 01Define the segment boundary and decision horizon.
- 02Use the same measures and evidence date for every segment.
- 03Separate observed performance from assumptions about access or response.
Score opportunity and ability to win separately
Record each criterion, source, date and direction. Keep market potential distinct from access, capabilities and competitive intensity so a large but inaccessible segment is not silently favoured.
- Demand and economics
- Access and channel fit
- Competition and capabilities
Test the ranking
Vary debatable weights and assumptions, inspect rank changes and name the evidence most likely to reverse the choice.
- Sensitivity test
- Missing evidence
- Review trigger
VALIDATION DOSSIER
State the decision contract
Use the question “Which segments combine enough value potential with a credible ability to win?” as a contract: name the owner, deadline, scope and alternatives before collecting more material. Attractiveness is not market size alone. Compare demand quality, accessibility, economics, competitive pressure and the organisation’s ability to serve each segment using the same period and unit. Record what is deliberately outside scope, who can challenge the framing and what consequence follows from postponement. This prevents an attractive framework, actor list or market story from silently replacing the decision that the analysis is meant to support.
- Owner and deadline
- Comparable alternatives
- Explicit boundary
- Cost of delay
VALIDATION DOSSIER
Build an inspectable evidence register
For every material statement, retain the original source, publication date, observation period, method, unit and relevant population. Distinguish observed facts, calculated estimates, interview judgements and assumptions. Connect the register to the promised output: A documented attractiveness comparison, including evidence gaps and the condition for revisiting it. Missing or contradictory evidence remains visible with a responsible owner and a collection action; it is never converted into certainty merely to complete the page.
- Primary source
- Method and unit
- Confidence
- Evidence gap
VALIDATION DOSSIER
Apply one operating convention
Define the rules before applying the analysis: inclusion criteria, identifiers, comparison set, calculation or coding convention, treatment of missing values and version date. Reproduce the same convention across every option or actor. Use the page checks as acceptance tests, beginning with “Define the segment boundary and decision horizon.” A conclusion is usable only when another practitioner can reconstruct how the inputs became the displayed result and identify where judgement entered.
- Stable definitions
- Common comparison
- Versioned inputs
- Reproducible transformation
VALIDATION DOSSIER
Test uncertainty and rival interpretations
Challenge the preferred interpretation with at least one plausible alternative, contradictory observation and sensitivity test. Separate association from prediction and never infer intent, power or causality from a position, score or visual proximity alone. The standing limit remains: A weighted score makes trade-offs inspectable; it does not prove future profitability or customer demand. State which uncertainty is most likely to reverse the conclusion and what additional observation would discriminate between the competing explanations.
- Alternative explanation
- Counterevidence
- Sensitivity
- Decision-changing uncertainty
VALIDATION DOSSIER
Record the action and reopening rule
Turn the analysis into a dated decision record rather than a static page. Preserve the selected option, rejected alternatives, objections, accepted risks and first reversible action. Name the signal, numerical or qualitative threshold, review owner and review date that will confirm, adapt, pause or reopen the decision. Link every later update to its author and reason so that the history remains understandable when evidence or market conditions change.
- Decision trace
- First reversible step
- Review threshold
- Named owner
LIMIT
A weighted score makes trade-offs inspectable; it does not prove future profitability or customer demand.
- UK Government, The Green Book (opens in a new tab)Official guidance on options appraisal, uncertainty and sensitivity analysis.
- OECD, Competition Assessment Toolkit (opens in a new tab)Reference for examining market structure and competitive constraints.