This paper applies unweighted and weighted decision matrices to evaluate four strategic alternatives for Hanna's Hats (HH), a company facing financial difficulty. The four alternatives — continuing current sales practices, selling through retailers, selling online, and offering a subscription service — are assessed against four business objectives. Using a 0–3 rating scale and percentage-based weighting, online selling emerges as the highest-scoring alternative. The paper then develops an evaluative report recommending that HH pursue online sales paired with a family deal package and investment from two new investors, drawing on post-pandemic e-commerce trends, consumer behavior research, and the strategic value of electronic word-of-mouth to support the final recommendation.
The paper demonstrates multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) through a decision matrix framework. By separating the unweighted and weighted phases, the author shows how introducing importance weights changes the relative ranking of alternatives — a technique useful in any business, policy, or management context where competing options must be evaluated against multiple objectives simultaneously.
The paper is organized into two parts. Part 1 walks through three sequential steps: constructing the unweighted matrix, constructing the weighted matrix, and evaluating results. Part 2 translates the quantitative findings into a qualitative strategic report, addressing online selling, investor engagement, and family deal branding. A brief conclusion summarizes the final recommendation and the decision process used to reach it.
Businesses rely heavily on intelligent decision-making when alternative options are available. Processing information and analyzing market conditions are valuable steps that firms must execute efficiently. Defining alternatives and then assigning weights based on their relative importance is useful for maximizing the chances of selecting the right course of action. This paper reflects on Hanna's Hats' (HH) strategic alternatives in light of its business objectives, using both unweighted and weighted decision matrices. An evaluative report is then presented to address the company's financial challenges.
The first step presents the unweighted matrix, in which a scale of 0 to 3 is used. A score of 0 denotes an alternative that does not meet the objective, while a score of 3 denotes an alternative that meets the objective well. Four alternatives and four objectives are aligned in the table below.
The ratings assigned to each alternative are designed to reflect how well each option meets the previously established business objectives. Continuing to sell hats in the same manner is not a viable solution, since the business is already facing difficulties and maintaining the status quo would not produce effective results. Adding a family deal under this alternative would not be feasible (Objective 1), and the prospect of securing two new investors (Objective 2) would also be unlikely, as investors are reluctant to fund a business approach that has already failed to show positive results. Objectives 3 and 4 — bringing more IT employees on board and generating a separate inexpensive product line — would likewise not be workable under the traditional approach, as they require additional investment that cannot be secured without demonstrating meaningful change.
Selling hats through retail receives a relatively higher total score. Adding family deal packages and attracting investors to open new retail locations would be beneficial under this alternative. Hiring additional IT staff for sales management and introducing a less expensive hat line would also be positive moves for new retail stores.
Selling online emerges as the best alternative, earning the highest ratings across all four objectives. Online presence has become indispensable for modern businesses, as a large proportion of global consumers shop and seek product information digitally. Website testimonials, targeted content, and active social media engagement would further boost sales and brand visibility.
Selling through a subscription service is another viable alternative that aligns with most business objectives. Objectives 1, 2, and 4 each receive a rating of 2, meaning the alternative largely satisfies these goals. However, Objective 3 receives only a 1, as the role of IT employees in managing a subscription service is less clearly applicable than in the other alternatives.
The same ratings are used in the weighted matrix; however, a weight drawn from a total of 100% (expressed as a decimal) is now assigned to each alternative. This weighting reflects the relative strategic significance of each option.
Continuing to sell hats as before is assigned the lowest weight (0.10), as this approach is not currently delivering results for the company. Selling through a retailer receives a weight of 0.30, as retail and online selling are the two most commercially relevant options available to businesses today. Online selling receives the highest weight (0.45), reflecting its greatest strategic potential. Selling through a subscription service receives the second-lowest weight (0.15). Despite the broad popularity of subscription services — such as Netflix (Schlossberg, 2016) — consumers are often skeptical of hidden fees and complex cancellation processes associated with subscriptions, which limits this alternative's appeal. Business models continue to evolve with changing consumer needs; today's Generation Z customers prefer a "from fee to free" approach, requiring companies to offer quick and diverse options (Huotari & Ritala, 2021).
The final decision is to pursue online selling of hats, launching family deal packages and securing new investors for stronger business growth. The purpose of this decision is to rescue HH from its financial turmoil and protect the owner's long-term objectives. Before arriving at this recommendation, several perspectives were weighed, including an optimistic assessment of online market potential and the strategic value of positioning HH as a family-oriented brand to drive consumer engagement and positive eWOM across social media.
The decision process was evaluated rigorously through both unweighted and weighted decision matrices, enabling a systematic review of how each alternative fulfills HH's objectives. Opportunities were deliberately aligned with those objectives so that cognitive biases would not distort the analysis. After examining current e-commerce trends — particularly those that have reshaped how consumers shop online and seek peer feedback — online selling was selected as the superior alternative compared to the three remaining options.
Chevalier, S. (2022, May 31). Worldwide share of consumers that shop online 2020. Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1192578/worldwide-share-of-consumers-that-shop-online/
Gu, S., Slusarczyk, B., Hajizada, S., Kovalyova, I., & Sakhbieva, A. (2021). Impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on online consumer purchasing behavior. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 16(6), 2263–2281.
Huotari, P., & Ritala, P. (2021). When to switch between subscription-based and ad-sponsored business models: Strategic implications of decreasing content novelty. Journal of Business Research, 129, 14–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.02.037
Schlossberg, M. (2016, January 18). This unique business model is taking over retail — and customers are saying they hate it. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/subscription-companies-run-into-problems-2016-1
Srivastava, M., Sivaramakrishnan, S., & Saini, G. K. (2021). The relationship between electronic word-of-mouth and consumer engagement: An exploratory study. IIM Kozhikode Society and Management Review, 10(1), 66–81.
Wong, K. (n.d.). How to grow your business. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/guides/business/how-to-grow-your-business
Zanon, J., Scholl-Grissemann, U., Kallmuenzer, A., Kleinhansl, N., & Peters, M. (2019). How promoting a family firm image affects customer perception in the age of social media. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 10(1), 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2019.01.007
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.