SITE SELECTION

Why Most Site Selection Decisions Fail at the Assumption Stage

Published Dec 3, 2025 · 6–8 minute read

The hidden failure mode: assumptions that never got written down

Most site selection teams are doing analysis. The problem is that the analysis is often built on inputs that are treated as facts: expected demand, trade area boundaries, drive-time behavior, competitor impacts, permitting timelines, construction constraints, or the “real” customer profile.

When those inputs aren’t documented, you can’t stress-test them. And when you can’t stress-test them, you can’t defend the decision when leadership asks “what changed?” after performance deviates.

Common assumption traps that break decisions

• Demand assumptions: relying on static demographic growth or outdated traffic patterns.
• Competitive response assumptions: assuming competitors won’t react, discount, or reposition.
• Access assumptions: ignoring right-in/right-out limitations, signal timing, or turn restrictions.
• Timeline assumptions: underestimating permitting, utilities, or municipality review cycles.
• Operating assumptions: assuming labor availability and staffing are “solvable later.”

The fix: make assumptions explicit and testable

A defensible process treats assumptions like first-class objects. Each key assumption should have:

1. A written statement (what you believe, exactly).
2. A source (data, stakeholder input, precedent, or field verification).
3. A confidence level (high/medium/low).
4. A sensitivity test (what happens if it’s wrong by 10–30%).
5. A monitoring plan (what would cause you to revisit the decision).

Why executives care: approvals move faster when the logic is defensible

Executives don’t want more dashboards. They want decisions they can defend to investors, boards, and internal stakeholders. A clear assumption log + sensitivity analysis makes approvals faster and reduces rework.

← Back to Blog