How to make a QSPM matrix and read its totals
Build a QSPM matrix: take weights from your EFE and IFE, score strategies 1 to 4, compute TAS and sum. Covers five strategies in one QSPM, and limits.
A quantitative strategic planning matrix (QSPM) scores a set of alternative strategies against your key external and internal factors to show which is the most attractive. Take the factors and weights from your EFE and IFE, give each strategy an attractiveness score (AS) from 1 to 4 on each factor, multiply weight by AS to get the total attractiveness score (TAS), and add up each strategy's TAS. The strategy with the higher sum is the more attractive one.
It is the decision stage: it chooses among the strategies your matching-stage matrices produced, and it compares only strategies that are mutually exclusive alternatives.
Your QSPM weights come from your EFE and IFE. Try the sample EFE, no account needed.
On this page (14)
What the QSPM evaluates
The QSPM evaluates the relative attractiveness of alternative strategies: how well each one takes advantage of, or improves, your key external and internal factors. It does not generate strategies, and it does not say whether any single strategy is good in absolute terms. It ranks the ones you give it.
- It is fed by the factors and weights of your EFE matrix and your IFE matrix, and by the strategies from the matching stage (for example the TOWS matrix).
- Its output is one sum per strategy, and the strategy with the higher sum, within the same set, is the more attractive.
What you need before you start
You need a finished EFE and IFE, because the QSPM copies their factors and weights. You also need your strategy alternatives from the matching stage, each traceable to the factors behind it. If you change a weight in the EFE or IFE later, change it here too, or the matrices will disagree.
The QSPM is the last matrix before your recommendations, so check its inputs first: it can only be as good as they are.
Step 1: List the key factors with their weights
Put the key external factors in the first rows and the key internal factors below them, each with the same weight it has in the EFE or IFE. Do not re-decide the weights here. Each group keeps the sum it had in its own matrix: the sample's 6 external weights sum to 1.00 and its 6 internal weights to 1.00.
Step 2: Choose a set of mutually exclusive alternatives
Take strategies from the matching stage and group them into sets. A set holds strategies that are alternatives to one another, where choosing one means not choosing the others. Only strategies in the same set are compared with each other.
The sample compares two strategies from the TOWS guide: “Launch a coffee subscription for office and home buyers” (STR-01) and “Test a small mall kiosk on leased equipment” (STR-04).
Step 3: Score attractiveness, one factor at a time
Go down the factors one at a time and ask whether the factor affects the choice among the strategies in the set. If it does, give every strategy in the set an attractiveness score (AS) for it, using whole numbers:
- 1: not attractive.
- 2: somewhat attractive.
- 3: reasonably attractive.
- 4: highly attractive.
If the factor does not affect the choice, give no AS to any strategy in the set and show a dash in that row. A dash is not a 0: it means the factor plays no part in this decision.
“Why did you score this strategy 4 and that one 2 on this factor?”
Answer with the factor's own evidence, the same sources behind its row in the EFE or IFE, and say what in each strategy does or does not take advantage of it. A score you can tie to evidence is judgment; a score you cannot is a guess.
Step 4: Multiply, then add each strategy's column
For each factor and strategy, multiply the weight by the AS to get the total attractiveness score (TAS). Then add each strategy's TAS across all the factors to get its sum total attractiveness score. The higher sum is the more attractive strategy in that set.
TAS = weight × ASSum total attractiveness score = sum of a strategy's TAS
A dash adds nothing to the sum.
Five strategies in one QSPM, and when to use more than one set
A set can hold more than two strategies. To compare five alternatives, give the matrix five strategy columns, each with its own AS and TAS, and score every factor for all five. Add each column and rank the five sums. Score one factor at a time across all five, so you compare the strategies with each other and not each with an ideal.
Strategies that are not alternatives do not belong in the same set. If your firm would do two of them together, such as one that grows sales and one that cuts costs, comparing their sums answers nothing. Put them in separate sets, build a QSPM for each, and read each set's winner on its own. You can have as many sets as you have real choices to make.
Worked example: Tala Provisions (fictional)
Tala Provisions, Inc. is a fictional coffee roaster. Its external factors and their weights are the rows of the sample EFE, with its two blank rows filled in. Its 6 internal factors are the strengths and weaknesses from the TOWS guide, with the weights from the IFE guide. The attractiveness scores are made up for this guide.
| Key factor | Weight | Coffee subscription | Mall kiosk | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AS (1–4) | TAS | AS (1–4) | TAS | ||
| Key external factors | |||||
| F-001 Growing specialty-coffee demand among urban professionals | 0.20 | 4 | 0.80 | 3 | 0.60 |
| F-002 Rising import duties on green coffee beans | 0.15 | — | — | — | — |
| F-003 Growth in online and subscription ordering | 0.20 | 4 | 0.80 | 1 | 0.20 |
| F-004 Weaker peso raises input costs | 0.15 | — | — | — | — |
| F-005 Mall foot traffic recovering | 0.15 | 2 | 0.30 | 4 | 0.60 |
| F-006 New 3-in-1 competitor pricing | 0.15 | 3 | 0.45 | 2 | 0.30 |
| External subtotal | 1.00 | 2.35 | 1.70 | ||
| Key internal factors | |||||
| S1 Small-batch roasting in house, with roast dates on every bag | 0.25 | 4 | 1.00 | 3 | 0.75 |
| S2 Direct supply agreements with farm cooperatives | 0.20 | — | — | — | — |
| S3 Loyal base of café and office accounts | 0.20 | 4 | 0.80 | 3 | 0.60 |
| W1 Thin online marketing capacity | 0.15 | 2 | 0.30 | 4 | 0.60 |
| W2 One roasting site for all orders | 0.10 | 3 | 0.30 | 2 | 0.20 |
| W3 Limited cash for new equipment | 0.10 | 4 | 0.40 | 3 | 0.30 |
| Internal subtotal | 1.00 | 2.80 | 2.45 | ||
| Sum total attractiveness score | 5.15 | 4.15 | |||
Take F-001, growing specialty-coffee demand among urban professionals, weighted 0.20. The subscription scores 4 and the kiosk 3, so their TAS are 0.80 and 0.60.
TAS = weight × AS0.20 × 4 = 0.800.20 × 3 = 0.60
F-002, F-004 and S2 show a dash for both strategies. Each bears on Tala's bean costs or supply, not on which sales channel it should pick, so those factors get no AS and add nothing to either sum.
Adding each column gives the sums. The subscription's 2.35 from the external factors and 2.80 from the internal ones make 5.15. The kiosk's 1.70 and 2.45 make 4.15.
Your QSPM weights come from your EFE and IFE. Try the sample EFE, no account needed.
How to read the result
The coffee subscription has the higher sum, 5.15 against 4.15, so within this set it is the more attractive strategy. The gap is 1.00.
The sums compare these strategies on these factors and weights. They are not a pass mark and not a forecast, and a sum has no scale like the EFE's 2.50 average, because it depends on how many factors apply to the set. Check how firm the lead is: moving one score by one point changes a sum by at most 0.25, the weight of the heaviest factor. Compare that with the gap of 1.00 to see how many changes it would take to reverse the order. If a few reasonable changes would reverse it, say so in the paper.
Where templates differ: a program's template may set the weights or the scale differently. Strama follows David: the weights of the EFE and IFE, and attractiveness scores from 1 to 4. If your program's template expects something else, follow it and state which one you used.
Limitations of the QSPM
Two limitations are worth stating before your panel does:
- It relies on judgment. Every attractiveness score is a judgment, so two people can score the same strategy differently. Tie each score to evidence, and show that the order holds when a score changes.
- It is only as good as its inputs. Its factors and weights come from the EFE and IFE, and its strategies from the matching stage. It cannot repair a weak factor list, and it cannot rank a strategy you left out.
A practical consequence: the totals show two decimal places, but the scores behind them are whole-number judgments. Treat a small gap as a tie to examine, not as proof.
Common mistakes
Putting strategies that are not alternatives in one set.
If the firm would do both, one is not a substitute for the other, and the sums do not tell you which to choose.
Fix: ask whether choosing one rules out the other. If not, split them into separate sets.
Re-deciding the weights instead of copying them.
New weights make the QSPM disagree with the EFE and IFE it is built on, and a panel will compare them.
Fix: copy each weight from its EFE or IFE row, and update both matrices together if one changes.
Scoring some strategies on a factor and leaving the others blank.
Within a set, a factor either affects the choice or it does not. A half-scored row favors the strategies that were scored.
Fix: give every strategy in the set an AS for the factor, or give none a score and show a dash.
Scoring the strategy as a whole instead of factor by factor.
A strategy you like ends up with 4s down the column, and the matrix repeats your preference without testing it.
Fix: score one factor at a time across all the strategies, and write a reason for each score.
Presenting the sums as proof.
The sums rest on judged scores. A lead of a few hundredths says little.
Fix: report the gap, test one or two scores, and say how firm the choice is.
What your panel will ask
What does the QSPM evaluate?
The relative attractiveness of alternative strategies, against your key external and internal factors. Say that it ranks the strategies you give it and does not create them.
Where did these strategies come from?
From the matching stage. Point to the matrix and the factor pair behind each one, for example the TOWS pair for each strategy, so the QSPM is visibly built on earlier work.
Why do some rows have a dash?
A dash means the factor does not affect the choice among the strategies in that set, so none of them is scored on it. Name the factor and say why it does not tell the strategies apart.
Why are these strategies in one QSPM?
Because they are mutually exclusive alternatives. If your panel points to two strategies you would pursue together, show that you put them in separate sets.
What are the limitations of your QSPM?
The scores are judgments, and the matrix is only as good as the EFE, IFE and strategies behind it. Then show your evidence for the scores and what happens to the order when one changes.
Where it goes next
Upstream, the weights come from the EFE matrix and the IFE matrix, and the strategies come from the matching stage: TOWS matrix, SPACE matrix and BCG matrix, plus the IE matrix and the grand strategy matrix. Downstream, the strategy that comes out on top of each set carries into your recommendations and your forecast.
Your QSPM weights come from your EFE and IFE. Try the sample EFE, no account needed.
Where this fits in your paper: the STRAMA paper format guide.
Sources
Method: Fred R. David's strategy-formulation framework, as set out in his Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases. Check the edition your program uses for page references.
Tala Provisions, Inc., its strategies' scores and its sources are fictional, made up for this guide. Its external factors and weights are the sample EFE's rows, and its internal factors and weights are the IFE guide's.
Get early access
An invite before the public opening. We invite the list in batches, before Strama opens to everyone.
Your QSPM weights come from your EFE and IFE. Try the sample EFE, no account needed.
Related guides
- SPACE matrix
Compute a SPACE matrix (strategic position and action evaluation): rate four dimensions, average each, plot the vector and read your strategic profile.
- BCG matrix
Calculate a BCG matrix: relative market share, industry growth rate, Stars, Cash Cows, Question Marks and Dogs, circle size, and where it falls short.
- Grand strategy matrix
Use the grand strategy matrix: judge competitive position and market growth, find your quadrant, and read the typical strategies, with values as evidence.