CI-201b · Module 1

Positioning Players Accurately

3 min read

With dimensions selected, each player in the landscape needs to be positioned. This is where analytical rigor meets judgment, and where most landscape maps go wrong. The common failure is positioning based on perception rather than evidence. Everybody "knows" that Company X is the market leader and Company Y is the scrappy challenger — but when you look at actual market share data, hiring velocity, and customer win rates, the picture may be different.

Every placement on the map should be defensible with evidence. For quantitative dimensions like market share or growth rate, use the actual numbers. For qualitative dimensions like platform breadth or brand strength, define a scoring rubric with clear criteria for each level. A player scored 8/10 on "vertical specialization" should have a documented reason — "serves three industries with dedicated product versions" — not just a gut feeling. When placement is evidence-based, the map survives scrutiny. When it is perception-based, the first skeptical executive dismantles it.

Do This

  • Build a scoring rubric for qualitative dimensions — define what 2/10, 5/10, and 8/10 look like concretely
  • Use primary data (financials, job postings, product capabilities) for positioning rather than reputation
  • Document the rationale for each placement — the map is only as credible as the evidence behind it

Avoid This

  • Position based on general reputation — "everyone knows they are the leader" is not evidence
  • Use round numbers that suggest precision you do not have — a score of 7 implies you can distinguish it from 6 and 8
  • Place your own company more favorably than the evidence supports — self-serving maps destroy internal credibility