Strategic Fit Scorecard

Purpose

Quantitatively assess the degree to which solving a validated need aligns with organisational strategy across five weighted dimensions, producing a composite score (0–15) that informs the Pursue/Defer/Decline recommendation.

When to use

A1.4 Step~6 (Strategic Fit & Attractiveness Assessment). Also used by I1~Portfolio Management for cross-need prioritisation and by I2~Governance as input to advancement decisions.

Output

Strategic Fit Scorecard (table with dimensions, weights, scores, evidence) and composite score with threshold interpretation.

Inputs

• B1 Strategic Leadership: published strategic objectives, priorities, focus areas
• B2 Culture & Organisation: capability assessment, talent inventory
• I1 Portfolio Management: portfolio capacity, current allocation (core/adjacent/transformational split)
• A1.3 Problem Definition Brief: need boundaries, target user segment

Procedure

1. Score each dimension (0–3). itemize
2. Strategic priority alignment (weight 30%): 0 = no alignment with any B1 objective; 1 = weak/indirect alignment; 2 = moderate alignment with secondary priority; 3 = direct alignment with top-3 priority.
3. Customer segment fit (weight 20%): 0 = non-strategic segment; 1 = new/unvalidated segment; 2 = adjacent segment; 3 = core segment (existing customers).
4. Capability fit (weight 25%): 0 = no relevant capabilities; 1 = significant gaps (build from scratch); 2 = partial capabilities (addressable gaps); 3 = strong existing capabilities.
5. Portfolio strategy alignment (weight 15%): 0 = doesn't fit portfolio strategy; 1 = transformational (if portfolio is core-heavy); 2 = adjacent innovation; 3 = core innovation within portfolio targets.
6. Resource availability (weight 10%): 0 = no capacity; 1 = significant trade-offs required; 2 = available with minor reallocation; 3 = capacity confirmed. itemize
7. Cite evidence per dimension. Each score must reference a specific B1 objective, B2 assessment, or I1 report. “Seems aligned” is insufficient.
8. Calculate weighted total. Weighted Score = Σ_i=1^5 (Score_i × Weight_i). Maximum: 15.0.
9. Apply thresholds. ≥11: HIGH fit (strong Pursue signal). 8–11: MEDIUM fit (proceed if attractiveness HIGH; requires trade-off assessment). <8: LOW fit (strong Decline signal unless transformational opportunity justified).
10. Identify capability gaps (if score ≤2). For dimensions scoring ≤2: what specific gaps exist? Can they be addressed? Timeline? Cost? This feeds the feasibility assessment (Step~7).

Quality criteria

• All 5 dimensions scored with B1/B2/I1 evidence cited
• Weights reflect organisational calibration (B5 provides standard weights; I2 may customise)
• Capability gaps identified when score ≤2
• Score consistent with A1.2 evidence and A1.3 boundaries

Common errors

• Evidence-free scoring — asserting alignment without citing B1 documents
• Conflating segment attractiveness with segment fit — “big market” “our customers”
• Ignoring capability gaps — scoring 3/3 on capability when team lacks domain expertise
• Static weights — using default weights without organisational calibration

Theoretical basis

Resource-Based View (Barney, 1991) for capability fit; Dynamic Capabilities (Teece et al., 1997) for capability-building rationale; Three Horizons of Growth (McKinsey) for portfolio alignment.