Talk:SWOT analysis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Clean up

I'm having to do a SWOT analysis for my grad school marketing class and came here. I'll try to do some of the clean up, but am in no way an expert on this subject. Just cleaning up formatting and layout. I don't mean to step on anyone's toes. I would like to point out that my textbook (Kotler and Keller's Marketing Management) does not place emphasis on the objective being determined before the analysis. In fact, it says the objective should only be determined after the analysis, using the SWOT items. --nathanbeach 17:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

---> Kotler and Keller have not thought through the subject of SWOTs. Different objectives lead to different SWOTs. It is impossible for a group of people to develop useful SWOTs unless they first agree on what they hope to accomplish. User:Lwiner 9:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

We really need to move those diagrams from flickr into Wikimedia Commons or not use them. Will the Wikipedian who added / created them please make a decision? Or make some public domain version themselves? --nathanbeach 17:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

---> I introduced the diagrams. They are essential to the logic of SWOT analysis. Removing them would diminish the value of the page. I designed these diagrams. I own the copyright to these diagrams. I posted a note on one of the Flicker diagrams that as owner, I grant non-exclusive license to all viewers to download and use them. Isn't that enough? User:Lwiner 9:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

They need to be moved into the wikipedia space (see the "Upload file" link in the Toolbox to the left). We could then actually make them inline with the article, rather than just links. I can do this for you, but it would be better if you did since you are the copyright holder (you need to select the correct license type after you upload them). Please tell me if you need any help... --nathanbeach 16:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I would recommend using the "Own work, attribution required..." license type... --nathanbeach 16:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

---> re "They need to be moved . . ." Why? The advantage of having them on "flicker" is that anyone can see the count of views and form an impression of perceived value. The diagram has been viewed on "flicker" more than 40,000 times. As to "attribution required," I do not want to do anything to inhibit use. Please let me know if you disagree. My mind is open. User:Lwiner 00:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs to be self-contained so that in future it can be distributed in CD (etc.) form (see Wikipedia:Snapshots). flickr is great but having essential content outwith the article itself requires readers to be able to connect to an external website that may not always be available. The image page would always link to the original source page. 193.128.127.33 10:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

---> The advantage of having them on "flicker" is that anyone can see the count of views and form an impression of perceived value. The diagram has been viewed on "flicker" 47,801 times (as of Nov. 3, 2006). As to Wikipedia on CD, that's really remote. What are the SWOTs of Wikipedia on CD vs. Wikipedia on the Internet? User:Lwiner 08:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] SWOT in practice

SWOT analysis is another academic theory, that is rarely used in the industry, just for school projects...........

I do not agree that SWOT analysis is not used in the business world. Various internal and macroenvironmental scanning methods are used and their competitive consequences are analysed. What is true is that it is seldom called Swot analysis beyond introductory classes. mydogategodshat 03:19, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)66
The comment that "SWOT analysis is rarely used" may be true, but that doesn't make it an "academic theory". The same can be said about Strategic Planning, development of marketing plans or any other good business practice. The only thing implied by its infrequent use that most companies are content to stumble along in the absence of any systematic examination of their company's position. --Stevesawyer 05:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I concur, I have been a part of marketing meetings for 3 seperate companies in my area, and each applied SWOT analysis to their particular business.

I just landed here because someone in the Pharmaceutical Industry is part of a SWOT team.

So, yes, it is used. It does seem ridiculous.

[edit] Criticism of SWOT Analysis

I would like to see this article balanced with some reference to criticisms (e.g. [1])

198.152.13.67

---> Armstrong's criticism cited above is with respect to poorly done SWOT analysis, that is SWOT analysis done in the absence of a clearly defined objective. Such SWOT analysis is worse than a waste of time. It is actually dangerous.

The SWOT analysis presented in Wikipedia emphasizes the need to define objectives before doing SWOTs. The cited diagram displayed in "flickr" defines SWOTs with reference to objectives. (BTW the diagram has been viewed more than 49,000 times, indicating that some value has been perceived in defining objectives first.)

Demolishing Armstrong's criticism seems superfluous to me. It is a biased criticism, directed at a badly conceived SWOT analysis. No wonder Armstrong did not like it. He then committed the serious error of throwing out SWOT analysis instead of repairing it.

Also, please note the section entitled: "Errors to Be Avoided." The first error described is:

"1. Conducting a SWOT analysis before defining and agreeing upon an objective (a desired end state). SWOTs should not exist in the abstract. They can exist only with reference to an objective. If the desired end state is not openly defined and agreed upon, the participants may have different end states in mind and the results will be ineffective."

(User:Lwiner - Nov. 9 2006)

[edit] What's this?

In the "Possible examples" section, "Thirupathi Reddy" seems to be a "autograph" and should be removed?

removed... --nathanbeach 17:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Regarding the boxed comment at the top of the page,

Specific criticisms are needed if this page is to be "cleaned up."

I removed the clean up marker -- I think we're to the point that it's wikified enough for public consumption... --nathanbeach 16:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the current boxed comment at the top of the page,

Is it ever coming off? User:Lwiner November 27, 2006

You must be referring to the banner about 'original research and unverified claims'. Perhaps when someone adds reliable sources to the page (see WP:RS). Individual websites are not enough for verification purposes. Print publications would help. EdJohnston 03:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

--->A paper that went through a double blind reviewing process was presented at the 1998 WACRA (World Association of Case Research and Analysis) meeting in Marseille, France with a published bound proceedings volume. A link to the abstract of this paper has been added. User:Lwiner November 28, 2006, 8:44 GMT

[edit] Discuss links here

Editors regularly clean out undiscussed links from this article. Please discuss here if you want a link not to be cleaned out regularly. (You can help!)  EdJohnston 04:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 17:12, 29 November 2006 81.179.89.0 (Talk) (→Performing the SWOT Analysis - removed off topic refs, added inbound link where you might better put those links!)

I added those links because of an editor's criticism that a lack of outside references made this page appear to be original research - a Wikipedia no-no. See the section entitled: "Regarding the current boxed comment at the top of the page," above.

[edit] Questionable Insertion

I notice that the name "reza sadr" has been inserted on the SWOT Analysis page of Wikipedia.

By tracing the history of the page I have found that "reza sadr" appeared in the revision of 14:25, 30 November 2006 by 212.6.32.3.

I have googled "reza sadr" and came up with two people, neither of them associated with the Harvard Business School. I have e-mailed both of them and asked them to comment.

Could "212.6.32.3" come forward and explain on this page what is is all about? User:Lwiner Dec. 2, 20:09 GMT

If it was a name it should be Reza Sadr. I created the Harvard reference, and there was nothing abou reza sadr in there, so I will remove this.


[edit] To: 85.210.218.136 and 2006 85.210.219.165

Regarding your removal of external links. Please be advised that I inserted them in response to specific criticism that this page appeared to be original research. I showed that the material had been previously published in a refereed publication and on various websites. See the discussion above on this page. If you will revert to the immediately previous version, that would restore the evidence that this material is not original research. Thank you. User:Lwiner Dec. 5, 23:17 UTC

Have deleted references: one is not about SWOT, the other isn't original research and is repeated at bottom of page. This link is also self promotion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.210.219.165 (talk • contribs).

---> Your argument is not with me but with the editor who found my contribution to resemble original research. I cited the abstract of an article in a refereed publication. If you follow up and obtain the entire article, you will find that the SCAN process cited incorporates the objective-driven SWOT analysis presented here. To save you the trouble and expense of locating an 8-year old Proceedings book, I also cited a free website that presents the same material. May I respectfully suggest that you withdraw your deletions. User:Lwiner Dec. 6, 10:17 UTC

Please could all participants in this discussion make sure they are logged in (it's not possible to have a discussion with a changing IP), and that all contributions are signed. Also note that inline citations are recommended, and have entirely different criteria then external links. I offer no comment on whether the citations are suitable, I don't know the subject matter. Notinasnaid 11:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I retained the links but tried to give more context for someone who doesn't know SWOT/SCAN. Recommendation - instead of having two links to the same page on your site why not have a reference [2] from the first mention of your site, following the model of the Harvard reference [1]. You can retain an external link in the reference itself. On studying the "external linking" guidelines, self promotion is fine - as long as others like the link!

Be careful of moving into meta-categories, though! If you link to SCAN from, say, the Business page then the editors might come down on you heavy -- like removing all your links from all other pages. Even ones that subject specialists have been living happily with for months! OK, you shouldn't move into meta-categories. If everyone did, there would be thousands of links on the meta-category pages. (I now, on reflection, realise that). But, perhaops, editors need a more delicate touch when pointing out wrong doing. Pgrieg 11:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

---> Thank you to Notinasnaid 11:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC) and Pgrieg 11:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC) for restoring the required links and your very helpful revisions. This is truly a cooperative effort. User:Lwiner Dec. 6, 16:31 UTC

[edit] About the 3 2 1 Books link

I observe some small campaign is under way to reinstate this link. I would argue strongly against it.

An insight into why this was removed may be helpful to other editors. Of course I may have made some mistaken conclusions along the way; Wikipedia is beseiged by spammers and people with a point of view to push so one tends to be quick on the draw.

The journey started with the discovery that anon User:85.210.245.233 (Contributions) had added links to a single page as

  • "Tesco and business ethics" to Business ethics
  • "retail ethics and the third world" to Ethics
  • "how supermarkets create poverty" to Poverty
  • as an inline link as an example of consumer reports to Consumer Reports, an article about a named magazine.
  • "Tesco and globalization" to Globalization

It is hard not to avoid the suspicion that this represents someone pushing a point of view, as well as spamming. I added a note to this user's talk page, and they have not responded.

Further research showed links to Tesco pages on this site from a lot of Wikipedia. This includes the Tesco page itself, where it remains, under "Critical sites".

I concluded that the other links to this page, in entries such as SWOT analysis represented a serious breach of WP:NPOV as the links were simply presented as neutral examples, rather than anti-Tesco material. As such, and because of the spamming, I made a point of removing them all over. (A more innocent explanation is that it is not anti-Tesco, but was miscategorised on the Tesco page; however the original pattern of links like "how supermarkets create poverty" does seem to reinforce the idea of a point of view).

After this I found a pattern of what I considered to be a sneaky reinstatement of the link. For example [2] shows some minor edits, then the original external link replacing another one; this is entirely legitimate, but referring to the edit with a summary of "polishing the prose" seems less than completely above board. Similarly [3] shows a good repair to some vandalism, then the link coming back (this, however, could just be a deep revert). Notinasnaid 18:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I plead a rush of vanity to the head. I thought I had written a good article on Tesco and the flower marketplace, so I thought I'd install it on several wiki pages at once. This is probably the only Tesco article in my online book on Tesco that might be said to be "critical" in the way Notinasnaid is using the meaning of "critical", and even then its fairly balanced, e.g. the first part of the article is how effective Tesco is in the flower marketplace. The second part indicates, with references, how Tesco might be giving a "bad deal" to third world producers. I was taking "critical" to mean "deep analysis" when I placed my link on the Tesco page. So "A more innocent explanation is that it is not anti-Tesco, but was miscategorised on the Tesco page" IS the explanation (although the category is ambiguous!). On the link reinstatement, in defence I DID polish the prose. But I will attempt to be more above board in future. TESCO SWOT analysis has been on this page for months, and I think Notinasnaid mistakenly thought it was part of my "rush to the head". I will be much more circumspect about installing any new links in the future, and ask for permission or wait a decent length of time after installing a link. But I would make a plea to my fellow SWOT editors for TESCO to make a come back. If you think Tesco SWOT analysis should not come back then please say so. I will reinstall it after 24 hrs and await any reverts, but I would make a plea to Notinasnaid to leave it up to subject experts.Pgrieg 19:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Please note, pgrieg, that as the acknowleged author you must not add these links. See Wikipedia:External links. It is, however, entirely reasonable to propose the links here, and leave it to others to judge their value. Notinasnaid 19:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Where does it say "must not". Please quote. Here's a direct quote from Wikipedia:External links: "Use of Wikipedia to link to a website that you own, maintain or are acting as an agent for is strongly recommended against, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked to. If it is a relevant and informative link that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page." So I can link, even without talking, but here I am talking. So, again, if fellow SWOTers don't want the link, tell me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mal4mac (talk • contribs) 20:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/w/o/Talk%7ESWOT_analysis_d50f.html"