RESULT OBTAINED
Main pathway
Decision use cases
What must be established
A useful analysis keeps its controls visible.
- 01
Name the decision-maker, the deadline and the question to settle.
- 02
Separate the available facts from the information still missing.
- 03
Set the choice criteria and the review conditions.
Decision reference
Make the next choice more explicit.
DECISION SUPPORTED
How to move from a concrete situation to a documented decision?
DELIVERABLE TO KEEP
A short pathway linking context, method, tool and expected decision.
NEXT ELEMENT TO EXAMINE
Complete strategy exampleExplore →44 · ORIGINAL ASSET
Three decisions, their renunciations and their review rules
End-to-end calculated cases
These cases are illustrative simulations, not client references. Every calculation is visible and reproducible; replace the scores with qualified evidence before any real decision.
Download the brief ↓Choosing an entry mode into an adjacent market
- Situation
- A B2B team hesitates between direct entry, a partnership and a limited pilot. The figures are simulated on a scale of 0 to 10.
- Options
- Direct entry · Partnership · Limited pilot
- State of the evidence
- Simulated assumptions: attractiveness, accessibility, ability to win and risk control. No real observation is used.
- Reproducible calculation
- Score = attractiveness × 35% + access × 25% + ability × 25% + risk control × 15%.
Scores in criterion order: Direct entry 8 / 4 / 5 / 3 · Partnership 7 / 8 / 6 / 6 · Limited pilot 6 / 7 / 7 / 8.
Direct entry 5.50 · Partnership 6.85 · Limited pilot 6.80. - Renunciation
- The partnership gives up part of the commercial control to reduce the cost and the lead time to access.
- Decision
- Choose the partnership, subject to validating demand and the split of customer data.
- Review rule
- Review if the partner does not supply two qualified opportunities within 60 days, or if the estimated acquisition cost exceeds €4,500.
Repositioning an offer that has become interchangeable
- Situation
- A fictitious offer must choose between a functional promise, a vertical specialisation and premium support.
- Options
- Functional promise · Vertical specialist · Premium support
- State of the evidence
- Simulated scores on preference, evidence credibility and ability to defend. They serve only to reproduce the calculation.
- Reproducible calculation
- Score = preference × 40% + credibility × 35% + defence × 25%.
Scores in criterion order: Functional 6 / 8 / 5 · Vertical specialist 8 / 7 / 7 · Premium 7 / 6 / 8.
Functional 6.45 · Vertical specialist 7.40 · Premium 6.90. - Renunciation
- Vertical specialisation gives up a universal promise and accepts a narrower addressable market.
- Decision
- Test the vertical specialisation on a pilot segment before changing the whole range.
- Review rule
- Drop this choice if fewer than 30% of pilot interviews recognise the specific problem, or if no credible evidence supports the promise.
Allocating a portfolio under a capital constraint
- Situation
- A fictitious portfolio compares four moves: strengthen, explore, maintain or stop. The criteria are scored from 0 to 10.
- Options
- Strengthen · Explore · Maintain · Stop
- State of the evidence
- Value, fit with capabilities, risk control and reversibility are simulated assumptions, to be replaced with the real portfolio data.
- Reproducible calculation
- Score = value × 35% + fit × 25% + risk control × 20% + reversibility × 20%.
Scores in criterion order: Strengthen 8 / 8 / 6 / 6 · Explore 7 / 6 / 8 / 9 · Maintain 5 / 7 / 7 / 8 · Stop 2 / 4 / 8 / 10.
Strengthen 7.20 · Explore 7.35 · Maintain 6.50 · Stop 5.30. - Renunciation
- Exploring gives up immediate full funding and holds back part of the capital until the next piece of evidence.
- Decision
- Fund a limited exploration with a budget cap, rather than a full deployment.
- Review rule
- Switch to strengthen if two evidence milestones are met; stop if the first milestone is missed at the 90-day deadline.
Teaching case · simulated data · no real-world market conclusion.
DECISION SUPPORT METHOD
Use-case router by decision
A use case is useful only if it starts from a real decision and leads to a suitable method. This grid avoids choosing a tool because it is familiar. It guides the reader according to the nature of the choice, the level of uncertainty, the dominant constraint and the available evidence.
Start with the first row matching the decision. If the level of evidence is below the stated minimum, do not produce a definitive recommendation: choose the experiment or the collection that reduces the most costly uncertainty. Two cases can use the same method, but they share neither the assumptions nor the decision thresholds.
| Decision to make | Starting method | Exit condition |
|---|---|---|
| Enter a market | Market definition then TAM/SAM/SOM | Ability to win and access lock documented. |
| Prioritise a segment | Attractiveness × capability grid | Thresholds, weights and sensitivity of the ranking visible. |
| Choose a growth option | Build, buy, partner comparison | Renunciations, timeframe and reversibility compared. |
| Reposition an offer | Map of alternatives and differentiation evidence | Relevant and credible gap for the target retained. |
| React to a weak signal | Register of assumptions and scenarios | Observable trigger linked to a reversible action. |
The grid produces a working path and a stopping condition. It does not replace judgement: it makes visible the reasons why a method is chosen and those that would require changing it.
MOVE FROM ANALYSIS TO YOUR DECISION
Compare the method with three fully calculated decisions
MOVE FROM ANALYSIS TO YOUR DECISION
Compare the method with three fully calculated decisions
RETURN TO THE DECISION SYSTEM
See the canonical definition of marketing strategy→