2016
DOI: 10.1080/0965254x.2016.1148763
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The quantitative strategic planning matrix: a new marketing tool

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
82
0
11

Year Published

2018
2018
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 117 publications
(95 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
2
82
0
11
Order By: Relevance
“…There are four possible strategies for developing the agricultural sector in the border areas of West Kalimantan, including 1) SO strategies (Strengths-Opportunities), 2) WO strategies (Weak-nesses-Opportunities), 3) ST strategies (Strengths-Threats), and 4) WT (Weaknesses-Threats). The QSPM analysis is calculated based on Attractiveness Score (AS) and Total Attractiveness Scores (TAS) (Sarkis, 2003;David, et al, 2009;David, et al, 2016;and Shojaie, et al, 2014).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are four possible strategies for developing the agricultural sector in the border areas of West Kalimantan, including 1) SO strategies (Strengths-Opportunities), 2) WO strategies (Weak-nesses-Opportunities), 3) ST strategies (Strengths-Threats), and 4) WT (Weaknesses-Threats). The QSPM analysis is calculated based on Attractiveness Score (AS) and Total Attractiveness Scores (TAS) (Sarkis, 2003;David, et al, 2009;David, et al, 2016;and Shojaie, et al, 2014).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The total score for internal factors is 1.9377. David (2016) states that the value of internal factors below 2.5 illustrates that the firm is internally weak.…”
Section: Strategy Formulation Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Total score for external factors is 3.3394. Based on this value, it means that local governments have good responses to the opportunities that exist and avoid threats (David, 2016). Formulation of Alternative Strategies Using SWOT Matrix SWOT matrix analysis in the research was conducted to improve the analysis that had been done on IFE and EFE matrix analyses.…”
Section: External Factor Evaluation (Efe) Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The range of the attractiveness value is 1 = unrelated, 2 = somewhat related, 3 = quite related and 4 = strongly related. Total Attractive Score (TAS) value is the multiplication of the Attractive score and the Weight value on IFE analysis (Internal Factor Evaluation) and EFE (External Factor Evaluation) ( (Abbasi, et al, 2016); (David, et al, 2017); (Hezarjribi & Bozorgpour, 2017); (Rezazadeh, et al, 2017)). To perform the necessary data analysis, the main factor of QSPM comes from the IFE Matrix and EFE Matrix and the alternative strategies of the SWOT Matrix.…”
Section: Qspm Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Conceptually, QSPM determines the relative attractiveness of different strategies based on the extent to which alternative strategies will capitalize on strengths and opportunities, fix weaknesses, and avoid or reduce threats ( (Ommani, 2011); (Saghaei, 2012); (Rumanti & Syauta, 2013); (Shiehbeiki, et al, 2014); (Valiollarabieifar, et al, 2014); (David, et al, 2017); (Ghosian, et al, 2015); (Wati, et al, 2016); (Wahyuningsih, 2016); (Wijayanto, 2016)). The QSPM components in this analysis are strategic alternatives, a key factor, weight, attractiveness score and total score.…”
Section: Qspm Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%