Final answer:
Strategies can be rated row by row based on criteria like feasibility and potential ROI to determine their attractiveness. There's no 'correct' way to group data in tables; it depends on context and stakeholders' needs. Switching between tables can occur when different analysis aspects are required.
Step-by-step explanation:
When evaluating strategies for their attractiveness in a business setting, each strategy can often be rated individually, also known as row by row. The attractiveness of a strategy can be determined based on criteria such as feasibility, potential return on investment, risk level, alignment with company goals, and resource availability. While there is no one-size-fits-all approach for ranking strategies, a common method is to use a scoring model where strategies are assessed against the predefined criteria and given a score for each criterion. The scores can then be summed to give an overall attractiveness score.
There is no inherently 'correct' table for displaying the comparison of strategies; the choice of table or data representation depends on the context and the aspects of the strategies being compared. Both the categorical grouping and a row by row setup have their advantages. Categorical grouping might provide clarity by organizing strategies into broader themes or functional areas. On the other hand, row by row assessments offer a more straightforward, often quantitative, comparison between strategies.
Switching between tables when evaluating strategies might occur if different stakeholders require information presented in varied formats or if different aspects of the strategies are being analyzed that require changing the grouping or the assessment criteria used in the tables.