Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Ansoff matrix

The Ansoff Matrix, also known as the product/market expansion grid, is a framework developed by , a Russian-American applied mathematician and business manager, and first published in the in 1957 in his article "Strategies for Diversification." It presents a 2x2 grid that categorizes four distinct growth strategies based on whether a pursues existing or new products and existing or new markets, enabling managers to evaluate opportunities and associated risks in a structured manner. At the core of the matrix, involves increasing sales of existing products in current markets through tactics like pricing adjustments or enhanced marketing, representing the lowest-risk option as it leverages familiar territory. Product development focuses on introducing new or modified products to existing markets, often requiring but benefiting from established relationships, which introduces moderate . entails expanding existing products into new markets, such as new geographic regions or segments, carrying higher due to unfamiliarity with the . Finally, diversification—the riskiest strategy—combines new products with new markets, potentially offering high rewards but demanding significant resources and potentially leading to unrelated ventures if not carefully. Widely adopted in corporate strategy since its inception, the Ansoff Matrix has influenced and planning by providing a simple yet effective way to balance growth ambitions with , though critics note its limitations in addressing external environmental factors or competitive dynamics. It remains a foundational tool for organizations seeking sustainable expansion, often integrated with other frameworks like to enhance decision-making.

History

Creation by Igor Ansoff

H. (1918–2002) was a Russian-American and business strategist, widely regarded as the father of modern . Born in , , to a Russian mother and an American diplomat father, Ansoff spent his early years in before emigrating to the in 1937 at age 18. He earned an MSc in the dynamics of rigid bodies from and a PhD in from in 1948. His career blended academia and industry; after serving in the U.S. Naval Reserve during and working at the on strategic issues, he joined Lockheed Aircraft Corporation's planning department in 1957, later holding professorships at institutions including , , and the , where he founded the School of . Ansoff's development of the matrix stemmed from the pressing need for systematic tools to guide business diversification during the post-World War II economic boom of the , a period marked by rapid U.S. corporate expansion, increased consumer spending, and a shift from wartime to peacetime production that fueled and market opportunities. At , he confronted organizational challenges in pursuing external diversification amid this era of high —where real GDP expanded steadily and hovered around 4.5%—prompting him to create frameworks for analyzing potential and managing associated risks. This motivation reflected broader corporate demands for structured planning to capitalize on the postwar while navigating competitive pressures. The matrix originated from Ansoff's work on diversification strategies at , providing a structured approach to evaluate growth opportunities through product and market dimensions. This positioned the matrix as a key element in his broader legacy, including seminal texts like Corporate Strategy (1965), which formalized approaches to adaptive strategy formulation. He first outlined the matrix in a article, laying the groundwork for its role in corporate . Ansoff's later foundational work in and integrated concepts from and complex adaptive systems to address environmental turbulence and discontinuous change, drawing on influences like Emery and Trist's environmental analysis and linking external product-market dynamics to internal organizational capabilities within his holistic Strategic Success Paradigm.

Initial Publication and Evolution

The Ansoff Matrix first appeared in H. Igor Ansoff's article "Strategies for Diversification," published in the September–October 1957 issue of the , where it was presented as a conceptual tool for evaluating diversification opportunities through product and market dimensions. In this initial formulation, Ansoff outlined growth paths by combining existing and new products with existing and new markets, emphasizing diversification as a strategic response to stagnant growth in mature industries. Ansoff expanded the matrix significantly in his 1965 book, Corporate Strategy: An Analytic Approach to Business Policy for Growth and Expansion, transforming it into a comprehensive 2x2 grid integrated within a systematic framework for corporate decision-making. This publication detailed the matrix's role in analyzing growth vectors, linking it to environmental scanning and , and positioned it as a core element of analytical . The book marked a shift from ad hoc diversification tactics to structured , influencing early corporate strategy practices. Following 1965, the matrix evolved through Ansoff's integration into broader paradigms, notably in his 1979 book Strategic Management, which embedded it within models for and environmental turbulence. This work connected the matrix to concepts like strategic issue management and planning, adapting it for dynamic contexts beyond static growth analysis. Despite the field's shift toward more fluid models—such as Porter's competitive forces in the and resource-based views in the –—the matrix retained enduring utility in strategic literature for its simplicity in framing diversification risks.

Framework Overview

Structure and Axes

The Ansoff Matrix is structured as a 2x2 that categorizes opportunities based on two dimensions: markets and products. The horizontal axis represents markets, divided into existing markets—those already served by the organization, such as current customer segments, geographic areas, or distribution channels—and new markets, which encompass untapped or emerging customer groups, regions, or channels. The vertical axis represents products, similarly bifurcated into existing products—defined as the organization's current goods, services, or offerings that are familiar and established—and new products, referring to innovative or untapped offerings that introduce novel characteristics, lines, or functionalities. This axis allows firms to evaluate extensions or innovations in their product portfolio relative to market contexts. At the intersections of these axes, the matrix forms four quadrants, each delineating a distinct of and product familiarity, thereby serving as a visual tool for identifying and prioritizing growth vectors. For instance, the top-left quadrant arises from existing products and existing s, while the bottom-right emerges from new products and new s, enabling strategic of expansion paths without delving into specific tactics. This layout, originally conceptualized to systematize product- posture , facilitates a structured approach to exploring options.

Risk Levels Associated

The Ansoff Matrix delineates a clear risk gradient across its four quadrants, stemming from the 2x2 axes of existing versus new products and markets. , positioned at the intersection of existing products and existing markets, entails the lowest , as it capitalizes on established , channels, and operational efficiencies without introducing novel variables. In contrast, escalates through (existing products in new markets) and product development (new products in existing markets), where familiarity with one axis mitigates but does not eliminate uncertainties. Diversification, combining new products and new markets, represents the highest due to the complete departure from known operational patterns, often necessitating substantial organizational reconfiguration. Several key factors contribute to this risk progression, primarily the levels of uncertainty arising from incomplete market knowledge and product familiarity, which are minimal in penetration but maximal in diversification. Resource demands also intensify with riskier strategies, requiring elevated investments in research, development, marketing, and infrastructure—diversification, in particular, often demands the highest capital outlays to bridge knowledge gaps and establish presence in uncharted territories. Competitive dynamics further amplify risks, as entrants in new markets face entrenched rivals, regulatory hurdles, and unpredictable demand, heightening vulnerability compared to the more predictable competition in familiar domains. Studies highlight that diversification carries substantial failure potential, underscoring the need for rigorous due diligence. In strategic decision-making, the matrix serves as a for sequencing initiatives, encouraging organizations to exhaust lower-risk options like to generate resources and insights before advancing to higher-risk areas such as diversification. This progressive approach fosters capability building and reduces overall exposure, while integrating contingency planning—such as scenario analysis for economic shifts or technological disruptions—helps address inherent uncertainties, promoting more resilient expansion paths.

Growth Strategies

Market Penetration

Market penetration, positioned as the bottom-left quadrant in the Ansoff matrix, constitutes the lowest-risk growth strategy by focusing on increasing of existing products to existing markets without altering the core product-market posture. This approach seeks to enhance through higher volumes to current customers or by attracting additional customers within the same market boundaries, leveraging familiarity with both products and clientele to minimize uncertainty. Key tactics for implementing market penetration include intensifying marketing and promotional activities to boost visibility and demand, streamlining distribution processes for better accessibility, adjusting prices competitively to draw in price-sensitive segments, and acquiring smaller competitors to consolidate share. Additional methods involve programs that encourage repeat purchases, to existing customers, and operational efficiencies such as reductions that allow for volume growth without proportional expense increases. These tactics emphasize capturing greater incrementally, often yielding quicker returns compared to more adventurous strategies due to lower entry barriers and established customer insights. A prominent example is Coca-Cola's sustained efforts to deepen penetration in established markets through aggressive campaigns, such as personalized bottle labeling initiatives, and expanded bottling and networks to reach more consumers in current geographies. This has reinforced Coca-Cola's market dominance, with tactics like targeted promotions driving increased sales volumes among loyal demographics while maintaining low risk through reliance on proven products.

Market Development

Market development is a growth strategy that involves introducing an existing product line to new markets, such as untapped geographic regions, demographic segments, or customer groups, to expand revenue and without significant alterations to the core offerings. This approach leverages the established strengths of current products while venturing into unfamiliar territories, allowing companies to achieve scale through broader accessibility. Key tactics for implementing market development include geographic expansion, such as entering international markets or underserved domestic regions; targeting new customer segments, for instance by shifting focus to different age groups, income levels, or professional demographics; and adopting alternative channels, like transitioning from physical to platforms or partnerships with new intermediaries. These methods enable firms to repurpose proven products for novel contexts, often requiring investments in , localization efforts, and adjustments to address cultural or regulatory differences. A prominent example is ' expansion into , where the company introduced its core beverages and store experience to a vast new market starting in 1999, growing to over 6,000 stores across 235 cities by 2022 and generating $3 billion in annual revenue from the region. By focusing on urban middle-class consumers and integrating subtle local elements like culturally themed promotions while maintaining its premium brand identity, Starbucks capitalized on rising consumption trends in an emerging economy. Positioned in the bottom-right quadrant of the Ansoff Matrix, this strategy entails medium risk stemming from market unfamiliarity, balanced by the reliability of existing products.

Product Development

Product development, within the Ansoff Matrix framework, refers to the strategy of introducing new or modified products to an existing to stimulate growth by meeting evolving customer needs in familiar segments. This approach leverages established customer relationships and knowledge to minimize some uncertainties associated with entirely , positioning it in the matrix's existing markets-new products quadrant. Key tactics for implementing product development include substantial investments in (R&D) to innovate or refine offerings, extending product lines through variations or upgrades based on customer feedback, and testing prototypes within known market segments to ensure alignment with preferences. Companies often acquire or partner with third parties to accelerate this process, reducing time-to-market while capitalizing on . This strategy carries medium due to uncertainties, such as potential failure or high R&D costs, but benefits from reduced market entry barriers compared to more divergent options. A prominent example is Apple's progression from the to the , where the company developed a groundbreaking for its established base of tech-savvy consumers seeking integrated digital experiences, significantly boosting revenue through enhancements. Apple's R&D expenditures underscore this commitment, rising from $0.78 billion in 2007 to $29.9 billion in 2023.

Diversification

Diversification represents the most ambitious growth strategy within the Ansoff Matrix, involving the of new products for entirely new markets, which often diverge significantly from a company's operations. This approach requires a simultaneous shift away from both existing product lines and familiar market structures, demanding the acquisition of novel skills, resources, and competencies to mitigate the inherent uncertainties. As outlined by , diversification aims to exploit opportunities beyond incremental expansions, enabling firms to tap into untapped revenue streams while potentially reducing dependence on saturated or volatile core segments. The strategy encompasses two primary subtypes: related diversification, which leverages synergies with existing operations such as shared technologies, distribution channels, or customer bases to enter adjacent s with complementary products; and unrelated diversification, often pursued in a style, where new ventures bear little connection to the core business and focus primarily on financial or risk-spreading benefits. tactics for implementation include acquisitions to rapidly gain entry and capabilities, joint ventures to share risks and resources with partners, and internal development to build new offerings organically through and . Related diversification tends to offer lower relative risks due to operational overlaps, whereas unrelated efforts demand more robust managerial oversight to avoid diluting focus. A prominent example is the , which exemplifies unrelated diversification by expanding from its origins in music retail and recording into disparate sectors such as airlines (), telecommunications (), and space travel (), thereby achieving breakthrough growth through bold, brand-leveraged entries into unfamiliar markets. Positioned in the top-right quadrant of the Ansoff Matrix, this strategy carries the highest risk level among growth options, with potential for transformative rewards but frequent outcomes of underperformance due to execution challenges and market mismatches. Historical analyses indicate that diversification initiatives often encounter high failure rates, underscoring the need for rigorous and alignment with long-term strategic fit.

Applications

Strategic Planning Processes

The Ansoff Matrix serves as a foundational tool in , enabling organizations to systematically identify growth paths that align with corporate objectives during processes such as annual strategy sessions, portfolio reviews, and extensions of . By categorizing opportunities along product and market dimensions, it helps executives evaluate how to leverage internal strengths against external market potentials, ensuring that growth initiatives support broader business goals. This integration promotes a proactive approach to , where the matrix acts as a visual aid to bridge qualitative assessments with actionable strategies. The step-by-step application of the Ansoff Matrix begins with assessing the organization's current position, including an of existing products and markets to establish a baseline on the matrix grid. Next, potential growth options are plotted by considering expansions into new or existing markets and products, drawing on the four core strategies—market penetration, market development, product development, and diversification—as viable planning alternatives. Organizations then select and prioritize strategies based on resource availability, alignment with strategic goals, and feasibility, followed by the development of implementation plans and ongoing monitoring to track progress against objectives. This structured process ensures that planning remains focused and iterative, adapting to evolving business contexts. Incorporating the Ansoff Matrix into yields significant benefits, particularly in fostering cross-functional alignment across departments like marketing, research and development, and operations, as it provides a shared for discussing and prioritizing growth initiatives. It also enhances long-term visioning by encouraging a comprehensive of expansion levers, which strengthens strategic coherence and supports sustained organizational adaptability. Empirical studies of firms applying the matrix, such as credit unions, demonstrate its role in tailoring growth strategies to specific business types, leading to more effective and performance outcomes.

Risk Management and Decision-Making

The Ansoff Matrix enhances by categorizing growth strategies according to their inherent uncertainties, allowing managers to systematically evaluate potential threats and opportunities across the four quadrants. This builds on the established gradient, where involves minimal uncertainty due to familiarity with existing products and markets, while diversification introduces the highest levels through simultaneous unknowns in both domains. To quantify these uncertainties, the matrix is frequently combined with complementary tools such as probability-impact matrices or the (AHP), which assign numerical scores to the likelihood and severity of risks for each strategy, facilitating the prioritization of options that align with organizational tolerance. In , the Ansoff Matrix provides robust support for by enabling the simulation of various growth paths under different economic or competitive conditions, helping leaders anticipate challenges and adjust tactics accordingly. It also informs , directing investments toward lower-risk quadrants initially to build momentum before venturing into higher-uncertainty areas, thereby optimizing capital use and minimizing exposure. Additionally, the matrix aids in developing exit strategies, particularly for high-risk diversification efforts, by establishing predefined criteria—such as performance benchmarks or market shifts—for timely withdrawal to preserve resources. The matrix's utility extends to integration with other strategic tools, such as the BCG Growth-Share Matrix, to foster balanced portfolios that combine growth direction with product viability analysis. This synergy allows firms to map Ansoff strategies onto BCG categories (e.g., aligning with "cash cows" for stable returns), enhancing decision-making through predictive modeling like artificial neural networks for refined resource distribution and long-term positioning. Case insights illustrate the matrix's practical application in high-risk contexts, as seen in the Evergrande Group's use of an AHP-integrated Ansoff approach to assess diversification risks in expansion. This analysis quantified uncertainties in entering new markets and products, ultimately informing measures like scaled-back investments and preparedness for potential failures to avoid broader financial distress. Such applications underscore the matrix's role in guiding divestment-like retreats from overextended strategies, prioritizing resilience in volatile sectors.

Criticisms and Limitations

Logical Inconsistencies

One of the core theoretical flaws in the Ansoff Matrix lies in the ambiguity surrounding the definitions of "new" versus "existing" products and markets, which often leads to misclassification of strategies. For instance, incremental innovations, such as minor product modifications, may blur the boundary between existing and new offerings, while radical changes could simultaneously introduce unfamiliar markets, complicating clear categorization. This ambiguity arises because the matrix relies on subjective interpretations of novelty without providing precise criteria, potentially resulting in strategies being placed in incorrect quadrants. Critiques highlight that the matrix's logical problems stem from its assumption of binary categories—existing/new products and markets—without adequately addressing overlaps or dynamic interactions between strategies. As outlined in a analysis, the framework treats these dimensions as mutually exclusive, yet in practice, a new product frequently enters a new market simultaneously, rendering the diversification quadrant potentially redundant and overlooking how strategies can evolve interdependently. This structure fails to capture the fluid nature of business growth, where multiple strategies may interact rather than operate in isolation. Further consistency challenges emerge in the matrix's portrayal of diversification as uniformly high-risk, which ignores potential synergies between new products and new markets that could mitigate dangers. The model does not account for scenarios where leveraging core competencies across unfamiliar territories creates value, thus oversimplifying . Additionally, it neglects the sequential use of strategies, such as pursuing to build a before advancing to product development, thereby presenting paths as static rather than .

Practical and Methodological Challenges

The Ansoff Matrix's static 2x2 grid structure often leads to oversimplification of strategic growth options by focusing solely on product-market combinations, thereby neglecting critical external factors such as economic shifts, competitive dynamics, and technological disruptions. For instance, the framework does not inherently account for broader environmental influences like regulatory changes or macroeconomic trends, which can significantly alter the feasibility of proposed strategies. This limitation became particularly evident without integrating tools like . Methodologically, the Ansoff Matrix exhibits significant gaps, including the absence of quantitative metrics or formulas for assessing levels across strategies, relying instead on qualitative judgments that lack precision for informed . This inflexibility is especially pronounced when applying the model to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which often operate with limited resources and require more adaptive, intuitive approaches rather than rigid grid-based planning suited to larger multinationals. Furthermore, in highly volatile environments characterized by and rapid change, the matrix's foundational assumptions—developed in a more stable mid-20th-century context—prove outdated, failing to incorporate dynamic elements like or . In practice, the isolation of strategies within the matrix encourages siloed thinking, where organizations pursue one quadrant without considering interconnections or complementary analyses, potentially leading to suboptimal outcomes. This is particularly problematic for diversification, the highest-risk quadrant, which has historically shown high failure rates when implemented without supporting tools, as evidenced by the 1980s conglomerate busts in the U.S. and . During this period, many diversified firms faced managerial overload and coordination costs that outweighed benefits, prompting widespread divestitures and a shift toward focus.

References

  1. [1]
    Page Not Found
    No readable text found in the HTML.<|control11|><|separator|>
  2. [2]
    Ansoff Matrix - Overview, Strategies and Practical Examples
    The matrix was developed by applied mathematician and business manager H. Igor Ansoff and was published in the Harvard Business Review in 1957. The Ansoff ...What is the Ansoff Matrix? · Understanding the Ansoff Matrix · Product Development
  3. [3]
    [PDF] Strategic Success: The Ansoff Matrix vs. The Balanced Scorecard
    Dec 13, 2019 · To use either framework, managers need to formulate corporate goals and objectives.
  4. [4]
    H. Igor Ansoff 1918 – 2002 - Thinkers50
    Oct 13, 2015 · Creator of the Ansoff Matrix, a marketing planning tool that assists organizations to determine its product and map strategic market growth.<|control11|><|separator|>
  5. [5]
    Igor Ansoff - The Economist
    Jul 18, 2008 · Born in Vladivostok of a Russian mother and an American diplomat father, Ansoff spent the first 18 years of his life in Russia before moving ...Missing: heritage | Show results with:heritage
  6. [6]
    Revisiting Ansoff's legacy and the holistic approach to strategic ...
    Aug 16, 2024 · Igor Ansoff, born in Vladivostok in 1918, was a Russian-American mathematician and a trailblazer in the field of long-range planning. He passed ...
  7. [7]
    Igor Ansoff biography, quotes and books - Toolshero
    Dec 14, 2010 · Igor Ansoff was a Russian-American mathematician, known as the father of strategic management and his development of the Ansoff matrix.Missing: heritage | Show results with:heritage
  8. [8]
    Economic Recovery: Lessons from the Post-World War II Period
    Sep 10, 2012 · The decade following World War II is fondly remembered as a period of economic growth and cultural stability.
  9. [9]
    The 1950s - Exploros
    The economy overall grew by 37% during the 1950s and unemployment remained low, about 4.5%. At the end of the decade, the median American family had 30% more ...
  10. [10]
    H. Igor Ansoff - STRATEGIC POSTURE
    Igor Ansoff came to USIU in 1983 and founded the School of Strategic Management. He is the only one in the field who has validated his theory supported with ...Missing: heritage | Show results with:heritage
  11. [11]
    What Is The Ansoff Matrix: Definition, Steps & Examples - Quantive
    Igor Ansoff, a Russian-American mathematician and business manager, developed the Ansoff Matrix in his 1957 book Strategies for Diversification. His work ...
  12. [12]
    An Analytic Approach to Business Policy for Growth and Expansion
    Corporate Strategy: An Analytic Approach to Business Policy for Growth and Expansion. Author, H. Igor Ansoff. Publisher, McGraw-Hill, 1965. ISBN, 0070021112 ...
  13. [13]
    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jsc.2600
  14. [14]
    Strategic Management - H. Igor Ansoff - Google Books
    Title, Strategic Management "A Halsted Press book." ; Author, H. Igor Ansoff ; Publisher, Wiley, 1979 ; Original from, the University of California ; Digitized, Oct ...
  15. [15]
    Lessons From the Evolution of the Strategy Paradigm
    Sep 28, 2015 · A review of the strategy literature suggests there have been five phases in the evolution of the field since the Second World War.
  16. [16]
    [PDF] Strategies for Diversification - CA Sri Lanka
    " See H. Igor Ansoff, A Model for Diversification (Bur- bank, Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, 1957); and John. Strategies for Diversification. 123 be greater ...
  17. [17]
    None
    ### Summary of Risk in Ansoff Matrix Strategies
  18. [18]
    [PDF] The use of the Ansoff matrix in the field of business.
    The purpose of this article is to present and describe the Ansoff matrix as a means to reduce the risks in the development of new products on emerging markets.
  19. [19]
    Coca-Cola's Generic Competitive Strategies & Growth Strategies
    Oct 12, 2024 · In Igor Ansoff's matrix, market penetration grows the business by increasing its market share and selling more products to the current customers ...Missing: scholarly | Show results with:scholarly
  20. [20]
    Ansoff Matrix: A Practical Guide to Strategic Growth
    Mar 12, 2025 · Master the Ansoff Matrix with this practical guide to strategic growth, exploring key strategies and actionable steps for business expansion.<|separator|>
  21. [21]
    https://doi.org/10.54254/2754-1169/30/20231463
  22. [22]
    https://publications.dyson.cornell.edu/outreach/extensionpdf/2013/Cornell-Dyson-eb1304.pdf
  23. [23]
    Apple Ansoff Matrix - Research-Methodology.net
    Jul 3, 2023 · Apple Ansoff Matrix is a marketing planning model that helps the multinational technology company to determine its product and market strategy.
  24. [24]
    Internal and External Growth Strategies - Business-to-you.com
    Jan 19, 2017 · Internal and external growth is the process of of improving some measure of a comany's success (e.g. revenue). The Ansoff Matrix identfies ...
  25. [25]
    Ansoff Matrix Explained - SM Insight
    Jun 16, 2025 · The Ansoff Matrix, also known as the Product-Market Expansion Grid, is a tool used to evaluate growth strategies.
  26. [26]
    To Diversify or Not To Diversify
    Success stories abound—think of General Electric, Disney, and 3M—but so do stories of such infamous and costly failures as Quaker Oats' entry into (and exit ...
  27. [27]
    [PDF] Marketing Module 3: Company Analysis - Cornell University
    Jun 1, 2013 · • Product Development is a strategy where firms pursue growth by offering modified or new products to customers in their current market segments ...
  28. [28]
    [PDF] The Relationship between Strategic Orientation, Growth Strategies ...
    According to Ansoff's theory, a firm may choose one of four product- market growth strategies: market penetration, market development, product development, and ...
  29. [29]
    How to Use the Ansoff Matrix to Analyze Risk | Tallyfy
    The Ansoff Matrix is a strategic planning tool used to analyze and generate four alternative directions for business growth.What is the Ansoff Matrix? · How Can the Ansoff Matrix Be... · How Might Future...Missing: rate scholarly
  30. [30]
    https://tallyfy.com/ansoff-matrix-analyze-risk/
  31. [31]
    https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/20164401006
  32. [32]
    The Ansoff Matrix: A Powerful Tool for Business Strategy and Growth
    May 10, 2024 · The Ansoff Matrix is a powerful strategy framework used by business leaders to evaluate risks and opportunities for driving business growth.
  33. [33]
    Ansoff Matrix: Key Tool for Effective Business Growth Strategies
    Apr 27, 2025 · The enduring value of the Ansoff Matrix lies in its ability to create strategic clarity amid complexity. By distinguishing between different ...
  34. [34]
    (PDF) Application of neural network in portfolio product companies
    Aug 9, 2025 · This study aims to explore the joint application of both Boston and Ansoff matrices in the operational development of the product.
  35. [35]
    The Ansoff Matrix: 4 Growth Strategies Explained (With Examples)
    Dec 8, 2022 · What are the 4 growth strategies of the Ansoff Matrix? · 1. Market Development Strategy · 2. Market Penetration Strategy · 3. Product Development ...
  36. [36]
    https://www.cascade.app/blog/the-ansoff-matrix-helps-organizations-grow
  37. [37]
    (PDF) Strategies and Strategic Management in Small Business
    inflexible, defensive CEOs can be a major cause of strategic stagnation. ... Ansoff's Matrix, it has been. 23. suggested by Perry (1987) that for SMEs the ...