Expansion stage 01 of 05
Evaluate: deciding where expansion is worth considering
Comparing candidate markets against stated criteria so the shortlist survives scrutiny — before research money is committed to any one of them.
Context
What this page covers
Who this is for: Leaders comparing countries or regions with no destination chosen yet.
Grid reference C-2
Evaluation is where most expansion programmes are quietly decided. If criteria are agreed after the candidates are named, the process ratifies a preference rather than testing it, and every later stage inherits that weakness.
The work is to define what matters — commercial attractiveness, strategic fit, access, competitive intensity, localization depth, feasibility, cost, and readiness — weight it before scoring, then compare candidates honestly, including the option of not expanding yet.
Stage 01 of 05
You are in this stage if
- Several markets are under discussion and the case for each is anecdotal.
- An inbound enquiry or a relationship is driving the shortlist.
- The board has asked why one market and not another, and the answer is not written down.
- There is no agreed definition of what would make a market attractive to this business.
What exists at the end
- Weighted market selection criteria
- Candidate market comparison with visible evidence
- Evidence gap register
- Decision memo for the recommended next step
Questions answered
What a leadership team should be able to answer
If these questions do not yet have written answers, the decision is still open regardless of how far planning has progressed.
- What criteria decide this, and how are they weighted relative to one another?
- Which candidate markets meet the criteria, and which are being carried on narrative alone?
- What is the opportunity cost against domestic growth or a different market?
- What do we not know yet, and which unknowns would change the ranking?
What to examine
Considerations that change the answer
Criteria before candidates
Weighting the criteria before scoring is what makes the shortlist defensible. Reversing the order produces a scoring model that flatters the market someone already preferred.
Reachable demand, not category size
National market-size figures are not decision-grade. The relevant quantity is demand your specific offer can reach through a route you can afford.
Strategic fit and opportunity cost
A viable market can still be the wrong move. Fit is judged against the direction of the business and what leadership attention can absorb.
Named unknowns
An evidence-gap register is a deliverable of this stage. Unknowns that are written down get tested; unknowns that are smoothed over resurface after commitments are made.
Operating implications
What this means for the plan
Every item here needs a named owner before external commitments are made.
Weighted criteria model
Agreed with the leadership team and recorded, so the scoring can be re-run when circumstances change.
Candidate comparison
Each candidate scored against the same criteria with the evidence behind each score visible, not just the total.
Decision memo
A short written case for the recommended market — including the argument for waiting, where that is the honest answer.
Boundaries
What AtlasFlow does not do here
- AtlasFlow does not provide legal, tax, immigration, or regulated compliance advice. Where regulatory complexity affects a candidate market, the scope for qualified independent specialists is defined and the question is flagged rather than answered internally.
Criteria
Entry and exit criteria for this stage
A stage is defined by what must be true to start it and what must be true to leave it. Anything else is activity.
Entry criteria
- — Leadership agrees that expansion is being seriously considered, not just discussed.
- — There is a budget envelope for evaluation, even if the entry budget is not approved.
- — An executive owner is named for the decision.
- — Candidate markets, or the criteria for generating them, can be written down.
Exit criteria
- One market, or a small ranked set, is chosen for deeper validation.
- The reasoning is written and can be defended to a board or investor.
- The unknowns that would reverse the decision are named.
- Gate 1 is cleared: the market is worth deeper validation.
Activities
What happens in this stage
- 01Agree and weight selection criteria before candidates are scored.
- 02Build a comparable evidence base per candidate: demand, competition, channel, cost to serve.
- 03Test strategic fit and opportunity cost against domestic or alternative investment.
- 04Register assumptions and identify which unknowns would change the ranking.
Outputs
What exists at the end
Common mistakes
Where this stage usually goes wrong
These are the failures that surface later as a market problem when they were a process problem.
Scoring after the answer is chosen
Criteria written once candidates are named tend to ratify a preference. Weight first, score second.
Using category size as the decision input
Reachable demand through an affordable route is the relevant quantity, not national market size.
Excluding the option of not expanding
If defer and stop are not real outcomes of the exercise, the evaluation is a formality.
Related services appear below, with the stage they support.
Decision gate
The decision this stage leads to
Is the market worth deeper validation?
Whether to commit research effort to this market or return to the shortlist.
See all five decision gatesConnected work
Services that carry this work
Market Intelligence & Prioritization
Decide where to expand, with evidence.
View serviceMarket Entry Strategy
Convert the decision into an entry plan.
View serviceContinue
Ready to pressure-test your next market?
Start with a structured assessment of where you should expand next, or speak directly with an expansion strategist about the market you have already chosen.