Talk:SWOT analysis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.swot also has a ranking system where by you are able to rank your organisation on quality product,market share and product variety and these rankings are from 1to 5. --nathanbeach 10.42, 21 febuary 2007 (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)

View counts do nothing to show the value of a page. I can send the link to a thousand people, they will click on the link, and inflate the count by a thousand without even taking a single glance at it, let alone evaluating its usefulness in the context of a comprehensive article. I personally have gone back to the image several times already in one sitting in order to compare it to the article itself, which, on top of inadvertently inflating the count, is a great inconvenience. I assert that the count has little value and does not justify having the image hosted external to the Wikipedia and inconveniencing the users. Cheers, Fishtron 21:17, 9 July 2007 (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.

I too do not agree that SWOT analysis is "another academic theory" that is rarely used in practice. I am a management/strategy consultant, and have both used and seen it used extensively in our projects. From my experience, it is extremely useful when starting a project and not knowing much about the particular company and the conditions of the industry one is working in. It provides a good reference point to start thinking about strategy and also gain a feel for what is happening. Currently, I have made some additions to the strength/weaknesses section, and done some cleanup. Also, what someone can add further (although I may return to add it in time) is the dialectical SWOT Analysis that is described by Lowy and Hood in The Power of the 2 x 2 Matrix. That is another good way to approach SWOT analysis, and it would be good to add it here. I'm not sure if it violates any copyright restrictions, probably someone should check that.--Starscreaming Crackerjack 04:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[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) I think SWOT analysis is very important in every field of life. Because it gives us a power of true thinking and it teaches us how to deal with anybody.HUMAN RESOURCE (MAN POWER} IS DEPENDENT ON THIS. AMAR KUMAR, VADODARA , 22/09/2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.90.44 (talk) 11:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"These criticisms are completely irrelevant" isn't supported by any references and is a bit extreme. I'd prefer if it was reworded or deleted, but I'll just put the [citation needed] back on it for now. Also, it doesn't need to be bold and have that crude arrow at the front. Boyakasha 11:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


I think what the original poster was trying to say is we needs some criticisms of SWOT analysis. Presumably, we should look at the cases where SWOT was used well, and see if there is anything lacking, and how it might then stem from the method of analysis itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.231.49.128 (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[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)

Why is an "ombudsman" a typical member of a SWOT team? Why not a "postman" or a "politician"? Anyone worried if I remove? Jenny MacKinnon 20:45, 13 May 2007 (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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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).
Spamming_of_www.321books.co.uk--Hu12 08:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is the objection to "asking the 4 questions many times?"

It would be very helpful if you did not just invade the SWOT page and casually make any changes you feel like, just on a whim. You deleted "many times." The "many times" is the key to stimulating creativity. When you take out "many times," you take out creativity. Did you understand that when you made your deletion? User:Lwiner Feb 20

Perhaps you could describe this in a bit of detail within the article. As it is, the modifier "many times" by itself may appear a little "tacky" and out of place. So no, perhaps it was not understood, but neither is it made clear to someone who is unable to read your mind. Citations and clarifications of good ideas rarely hurt. Cheers, Fishtron 22:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Link

A detailed illustration of the concepts discussed here may be helpful to many readers. Previously, the link to the Forest and Forest Case provided such an illustration. The link has been eradicated. Perhaps the person who removed the link to F&F might be kind enough to re-insert it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Lwiner Lwiner (talk • contribs) 02:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

PGrieg: Thank you. User:LwinerTuesday Feb 27, 2007 2:16 PM EST


[edit] Vandalism

Unidentified vandal has inserted twice an erroneous and misleading matrix. I have removed it twice. Vandal-proofing is needed. User:Lwiner March 12, 2007, 5:40 PM EDT.

[edit] To Lwiner re Vandalism

Reinserting the matrix was not vandalism. Vandalism includes an element of malicious intent.

The matrix was useful and really not confusing. It's personally helped me numerous times and added significant value to the article, and that was my reason for reinserting it. (March 12 07)

[edit] Response to pandaplodder

1. Please sign in and provide a User page, so that your credentials may be evaluated.

2. If you study your matrix, its multiple inconsistencies with the text become evident. So, your matrix detracts from the page. If you like the matrix so much, prepare a separate page consisting of the matrix and explain why your matrix is better. As of now, the text with its linked diagram has been perceived to be of substantial value. The linked diagram has been viewed 85,833 times.

3. Specifically, what references need to be supplied? For what purpose?

User:Lwiner March 17, 2007.

1.Of the references you have made one links to the Flickr site for a entry that you made there yourself, you can hardly cite yourself in an article.

2. You made reference to Albert Humphrey which would be fine, to the casual reader there is nothing about the late Mr Humphrey, not even a link.

3. You haven't considered the context in how SWOT is used - there is a passing reference to its use in Personal Development but you assume it is wrong (its not my own matrix by the way), you would probably disagree with the alternative uses of the Boston Matrix (I was taught over ten years ago that this was a marketing tool) - apparantly it has been developed further in another spheres of business.

4. References - obviously you can't use your own work if you are creating or editing work, refences have to be from notable sources or someone elses published work.

For example:

SWOT alongside PEST/PESTLE can be used as a basis for the analysis of business and environmental factors. Armstrong. M. A handbook of Human Resource Management Practice (10th edition) 2006, Kogan Page , London ISBN 0 - 7494 - 4631 - 5

SWOT is a technique widely used by a group, department, unit, organisation or even an individual

SWOT 4 Cell diagram

Boydell. T. and Leary. M. Identifying Training Needs, 2001 Chartered Institute of Personnel & Development, London ISBN 0 - 85292 - 630 - 8

The page would have been better if it had started with how Humphrey came about SWOT(History section) and how it has developed - you can't say your matrix is right and the ones I use are wrong, fact of life - we develop ourselves and the the tools we use.

One thing that I do object to is the removal of a link to a free resource site (Business Balls)that does not have advertsing attached - no commerciality and using an example of spammer (Not sure what mean by that?)- I also find it stange that it also correctly links to TAM. also it is the same as in the examples that I have given above.

The thing to remember is I could re-edit this article using citations from published work - I suspect you would probably remove it because its not about you (a word to the wise - removal of correctly cited entries which were in line with wiki SOP's will get a vandalism warning).

Don't take this the wrong way I not really having a go at you, but you have to accept that any entries you make on wiki can and most probably will get added to, You are just going to have to accept that.

--Pandaplodder 21:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Response to Pandaplodder: Who are you? What are your credentials? What relevant experience in teaching, research and double blind publication can you claim?

This page is a about SWOT analysis. If you want to discuss other subjects, why here? Why don't you set up separate pages for your other topics?

The reason I use Flickr is to get a count of views as explained above, way above. Why do you belabor it?

Please remove your banners at the top of the page, they have no relevance to this page.User:Lwiner March 18, 2007

OK so you are obviously not listening to what I have been saying. I will have a go at re-writing this article over the next couple of weeks. I will be removing any links you have put in which lead to your own material - wikiipedia is not about self promotion and from what it appears this article is weighed that way in your favour. You have only attempted one aspect of SWOT analysis, as I tried to explain, anybody may add to this article as long as it is noteworthy, you do not own this page, if someone edits it because they believe it is incorrect and they can quote reliable sources (i.e: not entries you have posted yourself elsewhere!)--Pandaplodder 11:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


Response to Pandaplodder: Who are you? What are your credentials? What relevant experience in teaching, research and double blind publication can you claim?

Every point that you have raised (except one) has been raised before and dealt with to everyones' satisfaction, except yours. Since you insist on having your own way and refuse to provide relevant credentials, I guess that makes you a vandal.

The weird point that you are obsessive about is to dilute a concise and useful page with a lot of mysterious and useless terms. You should examine your motives and ask yourself why you insist on damaging, perhaps ruining a useful Wikipedia page. "Business Balls," indeed. If you feel that all these other topics deserve a place in Wikipedia, you should start a new page, why not? User:Lwiner March 18, 12:13 EDT

This page is about SWOT analysis, every link you have provided leads to a page on another site that you have created, for example the SCAN analysis link which goes to the MBA toolbox - quote: Who are you? Leon Winer- Ph.D., Columbia University Graduate School of Business. MBA, Rutgers University.- Four years at Mobil Oil as Planning Analyst. Three years at IBM as Business Scientist. - Thirty three years Business School teaching at Pace University and Baruch College, mostly in MBA programs. - Developed innovative teaching methods. - One hundred articles and papers. One book, which is the basis of this website.- Consulting: AT&T, Nynex, IBM.

What's this site about? This website presents instructions for developing business skills. The instructions were developed by Dr. Leon Winer who is a retired Professor of Marketing and Entrepreneurship.

I did google scan analysis and the only defintion that come up was a page that you created, so it does seem that this nothing more than self promotion.

As for your slur on the businessballs site, TAM is summarised on that site with permission by its creator and now its present licencee--Pandaplodder 18:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I shall ignore the comment about vandal and is no relevance who or what experience, if I can provide relevant references and cite them then I will, especially as yopu seem to remove anything which is not your POV and indulge in vanity postings.--Pandaplodder 18:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Albert S Humphrey

I have created a page on Humph and linked from this page, if anyone can add to the Humph article then feel free. --Pandaplodder 22:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I have just checked the Businessballs site and it has permission to use the TAM concept so it can be quoted as it has permission from the man himself.--Pandaplodder 23:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC). Reinstated the busineballs link.--Pandaplodder 13:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Panda, you misjudge me.

It's not about vanity or my point of view. It is a fact that early supporters of SWOT analysis have come to reject it. See ref. to Armstrong, above. The reason is obvious. Absent orientation to objective(s), SWOT analysis often turns out to be a useless exercise. Whereas, when SWOTs are drawn from an important, agreed-upon objective, SWOT analysis is indeed powerful, especially when coupled with the creative strategy-generating effort described on the SWOT Analysis page. This is not my POV. This is knowledge obtained from many years of experience of teaching SWOT Analysis in Graduate Business School classes and Management seminars. (See my User:Lwiner page.) You are doing your readers and listeners a disservice by ignoring these realities. You are also diluting the SWOT Analysis page. I have also checked out the "businessballs." How is that related? Also, Wikipedia has a TAM disamibiguation page. It includes crackers and other foods. How is that relevant. As for "PEST" these are possible considerations in the Opps./Threats listing. Do not deserve a separate paragraph. User:Lwiner March 19, 8:11 P.M. EDT Team Action Management wasn't featured on the TAM disamibiguation page, I have requested it, although I know of it I'm not that familiar with it to start it! What I think needs to be done here is that this article should be developed more into sections, for example an early purist view of SWOT analysis, which you are advocating and then subsequent sections on how it has developed into diffrent streams, business strategy, Organisation, team and individual. There would be absolutely no point in creating a separate (disamibiguation) article because it would end being merged as it is the same subject. The big problem is that SWOT has developed and grown, but then this is only natural after all textbooks are full of theories which are added to or altered (not just dismissed) or viewd differently (I have noticed here in the UK a lot of first year students are struggling with SWOT which I personally think is a pretty basic and no hard to stand subject.. So bear with it for a small amount of time and perhaps we can edit it so everyone is happy with the content, also sorry for misjudging you :) --Pandaplodder 09:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

I'm not sure if the Veneeva reference is acceptable, I have reformatted it as the contributor did not refence it properly. I will leave it up to others to judge whether that link should stay.--Pandaplodder 12:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)I am going to remove this link on advice from another editor.--Pandaplodder 08:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Points 4 to 7 of "Errors to be avoided"

Points 4 through to 7 of the "Errors to be avoided" section are recommendations rather than "errors that have be observed in published accounts of SWOT analysis". I think that these should be adapted/moved. Rspanton 18:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origins of SWOT

Does anyone have a valid history of the two lines of SWOT? It seems that there are two different concepts created at the same time, one from Stanford and other from Harward, and both became known as SWOT.

Humphrey's SWOT puts emphasis on the present-future thinking while Andrew's SWOT emphasizes the internal and external conditions of an organization.

Many authors refer to the following article, which locates SWOT at Harward: E.P. Learned, C.R. Christensen, K.E. Andrews and W.D. Guth, Business Policy: Text and Cases. , Irwin, Homewood, IL (1965).

Also, "The initial strategy paradigm was that of Andrews (1965, 1971), who proposed that the essence of effective strategy was the matching of an organization’s Strengths and Weaknesses with the Opportunities and Threats in its task environment (SWOT analysis)", page x. Hofer, Charles W. Creating Value with Entrepreneurial Leadership & Skill-Based Strategies. New York, NY, USA: Elsevier Science, 1999.

"Learned, Christensen, Andrew, and Guth (1965) ... introduced the notorious SWOT-model which is argued to help practitioners with the task of aligning the company and its environment by first scanning the latter in terms of opportunities (O) and threats (T) and then by analyzing the former in terms of strengths (S) and weaknesses (W)." page 52, BOS, René ten. Fashion and Utopia in Management Thinking. Philadelphia, PA, USA: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2000.

Ansoff then popularized (the Harward version of) SWOT. page 42. Grundy, Tony. Gurus on Business Strategy. London, GBR: Thorogood, 2003.

My research continues, since this dual thinking about SWOT created confusion among my students. It would be great if Wikipedia could describe both the development and new generations of SWOT. There has to be shared understanding on concepts before reasoned discussion can take place.

I would be happy to know more of this dual development.

Petri R —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.234.5.136 (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mess?!

What is the deal with the senseless mess at the bottom of the article where the Marketing subtitle ends and before the See Also subtitle starts? --Mayfare 15:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC) bob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.14.134 (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Autonomous divisions of a corporation. Strengths or Threats?

When preparing a SWOT analysis how should resources from autonomous divisions of a corporation be treated; as an opportunity or a threat?

As an example; Similar work is performed by each division but could be centralized as a Corporate Shared Service —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfd098 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] # 1.3 Evidence on the Use of SWOT ?

After reading 1.3 Evidence on the Use of SWOT, I think it is actually a criticism as it doesn't look like a proof of the use of SWOT. --Quest for Truth (talk) 11:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

S.W.O.T —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.13.94.70 (talk) 02:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)