meta-strategic-options-evaluation

Strategic Options Evaluation

Generate a small set of genuinely different strategic options, screen them for suitability, acceptability and feasibility, and commit to one, stated in a strategy statement of 35 words or fewer. The governing judgement: a plan with one option has not made a choice, and a strategy that cannot be stated briefly with an objective, a scope and an advantage is not yet a strategy.

Use When

A business plan, marketing plan or board paper must show the options considered, the one chosen and why the others were rejected.
Candidate strategies from a TOWS matrix, strategic audit or founder brainstorm need SAFe screening: suitability, acceptability (risk, return, stakeholder reactions) and feasibility (funds, people, capabilities).
The competitive position must be placed on the strategy clock with a three-year path, or the firm must decide how to respond to a low-cost entrant.
The plan's strategy statement must pass the 35-word gate before sections 01, 02 and 07 are drafted.

Do Not Use When

Use meta-strategic-factor-analysis instead when the weighted factor tables and TOWS candidates do not yet exist.
Use meta-critical-thinking-business-logic instead to review claim, evidence and warrant quality across a draft plan.
Use meta-business-model-design instead when the question is how the business makes money, not which strategic direction to take.
Use meta-international-market-entry instead when the options are countries and entry modes.
Use meta-valuation or 10-financial-projections for the financial models; this skill consumes their outputs.

Required Inputs

Input artefact	Source/provider	Required?	Behaviour when missing
Decision brief, objective and decision-maker	`00-client-intake`, owner or board	Yes	Stop; options cannot be screened against an unstated objective.
SFAS and TOWS candidates, or equivalent key factors	`meta-strategic-factor-analysis`, `meta-strategic-audit`	Yes	Build a short key-factor list with the owner, mark it provisional, and cap confidence.
Price and perceived-benefit evidence for the firm and rivals	Customer survey, `06-competitive-analysis`, `meta-pricing-strategy`	Conditional	Place the strategy clock on management judgement and flag it `VERIFY`.
Financial outline per option (investment, margin, cash timing, break-even)	`10-financial-projections`, finance owner	Yes for acceptability	Screen suitability only; mark acceptability and feasibility `not assessed`.
Stakeholder map (owners, lenders, regulators, staff, key customers)	Engagement owner, `12-risk-analysis`	Yes	List stakeholders from interviews and flag reactions as assumptions.

Workflow

Restate the objective and the performance gap: desired result minus the projection of the current strategy. The gap sets how ambitious the options must be.
Generate options from four sources: TOWS cells, Ansoff directions (penetration, product development, market development, diversification), strategy-clock positions, and methods (organic, alliance, acquisition). Keep three to five mutually exclusive options, always including "improve execution of the current strategy". Use the option-generation and SAFe procedure.
Suitability: score each option against the SFAS factors in a ranking matrix, run a scenario screen and a VRIO screen. Drop options graded C.
Acceptability: for survivors, test risk (sensitivity, break-even market share, liquidity), return (payback, NPV or economic profit from the finance owner) and stakeholder reactions. Route all valuation, tax and accounting treatment to meta-valuation and the Chwezi finance doctrine.
Feasibility: test funds (source and timing by life-cycle stage), people and skills, and resource integration including suppliers and partners. Stop an option that fails feasibility unless a funded fix is named.
Place the chosen option on the strategy clock and, where a low-cost rival exists, walk the response tree in the clock and low-cost-rival reference.
Write the strategy statement and apply the 35-word gate. Block drafting of sections 01, 02 and 07 until it passes; revise and retest on failure.
Record the choice, the rejected options with reasons, the conditions and the review triggers; hand off to the orchestrator and section owners.

Quality Standards

At least three genuinely different options, including the current strategy improved, are screened; rejected options carry a stated reason.
Each SAFe verdict cites evidence: SFAS factor IDs for suitability, named numbers or ranges for acceptability, named funds and people for feasibility.
The chosen strategy's clock position matches its cost base and price evidence; a hybrid claim names the mechanism that lowers cost while raising benefit.
The strategy statement has 35 words or fewer and contains an objective, a scope (customer, geography, activities done in-house) and an advantage that is not a threshold quality.
Financial figures come from the model owner and are labelled base or downside; this skill does not invent returns.

Anti-Patterns

Presenting one recommended strategy with no alternatives. Fix: screen at least three mutually exclusive options and show why the others lost.
Starting a price war against a low-cost entrant. Fix: walk the response tree; differentiate, launch a fighter brand only where it shares costs, or accept a smaller business.
Claiming "cheapest and best" without a mechanism. Fix: name the scale, technology or process change that lowers cost and raises benefit, or pick one position on the clock.
Judging acceptability by return alone. Fix: test risk, return and stakeholder reactions (lender, owner-family, regulator, staff, key customers) together.
A 60-word strategy statement listing values. Fix: cut to objective, scope and advantage in 35 words or fewer; move values to section 02.
Treating a positive NPV as proof of feasibility. Fix: check the cash timing, people and supplier readiness separately.

Outputs

Output artefact	Consumer	Acceptance condition
Options register (source, description, method)	Decision-maker, `business-plan-orchestrator`	Three to five mutually exclusive options, each traced to TOWS, Ansoff, clock or method.
SAFe screening matrix with verdicts	Board, lender or investor reader; `12-risk-analysis`	Each option graded with evidence per criterion; rejections explained.
Strategy-clock position and three-year path; low-cost-rival response	`06-competitive-analysis`, `meta-pricing-strategy`, `07`	Position and path consistent with cost and price evidence.
Strategy statement (35 words or fewer) with gate result	`01`, `02`, `07`, marketing-plan orchestrator	Gate passes on length, objective, scope and advantage.

Evidence Produced

Evidence	Format	Acceptance condition
Screening trace	Ranking matrix plus acceptability and feasibility notes with sources	A reviewer can see why each option passed or failed each screen.
Rejected-options log	Table: option, failed screen, reason	Every rejected option is visible with its reason.
Strategy-statement gate record	Word count, three-element check, reviewer	The statement and its checks are reproducible.

Capability Contract

Permission boundary: analysis and drafting only unless the engagement owner has authorised more. Read and search the SFAS, audit, model and market evidence; draft options, screens and the strategy statement. The choice belongs to the owner or board; this skill recommends. Do not state valuation, tax or accounting treatment as fact: route to meta-valuation and the Chwezi finance doctrine. Current market or country facts come from the Digital research engine. Do not contact stakeholders, publish or commit funds without explicit authority.

Degraded Mode

Without a financial model, customer price evidence or a stakeholder map, screen suitability only, mark acceptability and feasibility not assessed, and return a narrowed shortlist with the evidence each option needs. A strategy statement drafted without an agreed objective is labelled draft and does not unblock section drafting.

Decision Rules

Condition	Action	Failure or risk avoided
The performance gap is small and the SFAS still fits	Prefer improved execution of the current strategy	Costly change for a problem that execution could solve.
Options are not mutually exclusive	Merge or re-cut them until choosing one precludes another	A false choice that hides the real trade-off.
An option passes suitability but fails lender acceptability (gearing, cover, security)	Stage it, change the funding mix, or reject it	A plan the bank will not finance.
A low-cost entrant targets current customers	Apply the response tree; do not cut price by default	A price war the incumbent can afford and the entrant cannot.
The chosen position is hybrid on the clock	Require a named cost-lowering mechanism	"Stuck in the middle" economics.
Strategy statement exceeds 35 words or lacks objective, scope or advantage	Fail the gate and block sections 01, 02 and 07	Diffuse strategy that every section interprets differently.

Worked Example

The Mbarara dairy's factor analysis passed three alternatives. Suitability: A (focused Kampala growth) scores five ticks on seven SFAS factors, B (regional expansion) three, C (retrench) four. Acceptability: B needs certification spend before revenue and raises gearing beyond the bank's stated comfort, so it is staged to year three; A's break-even requires about 4% of the defined Kampala packaged-yoghurt market (illustrative). Feasibility: A needs a second chilling centre and a sales lead, both fundable. Clock position: differentiation without premium (about 12 o'clock) moving to a modest premium once freshness is proven. Statement (30 words, passes): "By 2028, lift gross margin to 26% selling fresh yoghurt to Kampala supermarket shoppers, collecting and processing milk ourselves, winning through the only daily chilled farm-to-shelf network in western Uganda." All figures illustrative.

References

Option generation and SAFe screens - read at steps 1 to 5 for option sources, the ranking matrix, acceptability and feasibility tests and templates.
Strategy clock and low-cost-rival response - read at step 6 for clock zones, the plotting procedure and the response tree.
Strategy-statement gate - read at step 7 for the 35-word rule, element checks and pass/fail examples.
Competitive strategy tools - read for the competitive position rating and generic strategies this skill builds on.

About this skill