Incorporating MCDS and voting into SWOT – basic idea and experiences
Abstract
The idea in using Multiple Criteria Decision Support (MCDS) and voting methods within a SWOT framework is to evaluate systematically the SWOT factors, and to assess them with respect to their priorities. The MCDS method applied initially, and most often, with SWOT has been the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), and the hybrid AHP-SWOT approach has been called the A’WOT. Any MCDS method can, however, be applied; the choice of the method depending on the strategy process in question. In this article, experiences of using the A’WOT method with AHP, SMART and SMAA-O techniques is summarized. In addition, an illustrative example of making use of social choice theory within SWOT framework is presented. The hybrid MCDS-SWOT approach has gained growing popularity, and it has been applied in different fields world-widely. It may provide not only a solid decision support but also an effective framework for learning in strategic decision support, as well as for communication in strategy processes with multiple stakeholders. The Voting-SWOT approach (VotSWOT) fits especially well with participatory strategy processes, as it reflects decision makers’ and stakeholders’ natural ways of communication.
References
Alho, J.M., & Kangas, J. (1997). Analyzing uncertainties in experts’ opinions of forest plan performance. Forest Science, 43, 521-528.
Barzilai, J., & Lootsma, F.A. (1997). Power relations and group aggregation in the multiplicative AHP and SMART. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 6, 155-165.
Bottero M. (2015). A multi-methodological approach for assessing sustainability of urban projects. Management of Environmental Quality, 26, 138-154.
Cengiz, K., Çetin, K.N., & Tufan, D. (2007). Prioritization of e-Government strategies using a SWOT-AHP analysis: the case of Turkey. European Journal of Information Systems, 16, 284-298.
De Jong, P. (1984). A statistical approach to Saaty’s scaling method for priorities. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 28, 467-478.
Edwards, W., & Barron, F.H. (1994). SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurements. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 60, 306-325.
Heidari, M., Ashari, H.A., Farahbakht, S., & Parvaresh, S. (2014). Using the Analytic Network Process (ANP) in a SWOT analysis for the development of tourism destination – case study: Kish Island. International Journal of Management, 5 (6), 21-21.
Helms, M.M., & Nixon, J. (2010). Exploring SWOT analysis – where are we now? A review of academic research from the last decade. Journal of Strategy and Management, 3 (3), 215-251.
Kajanus, M. (2009). INNO-FOREST Integrating Innovation and Entrepreneurship Research in Higher Forestry Education - lessons learnt from Erasmus Intensive Programme. Savonia University of Applied Sciences. Research and development. Series D 1/2009, 1-57.
Kajanus, M., Leskinen, P., Kurttila, M., & Kangas, J. (2012). Making use of MCDS methods in SWOT analysis – Lessons learnt in strategic natural resources management. Forest Policy and Economics, 20, 1-9.
Kangas, J., Kurttila, M., Kajanus, M., & Kangas, A. (2003). Evaluating the Management Strategies of a Forestland Estate - the S-O-S approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 69, 349-358.
Kangas, A., Laukkanen, S., & Kangas, J. (2006). Social choice theory and its applications in sustainable forest management - a review. Forest Policy and Economics, 9, 77-92.
Kurttila, M., Pesonen, M., Kangas, J., & Kajanus, M. (2000). Utilizing the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) in SWOT analysis - A hybrid method and its application to a forest-certification case. Forest Policy and Economics, 1, 41-52.
Kurttila, M., Leskinen, P., Tikkanen, J., & Niskanen, A. (2009). Developing regional forest programmes from the viewpoint of operational environment. Metsätieteen aikakauskirja, 3/2009, 183-197. (in Finnish)
Lahdelma R., Hokkanen, J., & Salminen, P. (1998). SMAA - Stochastic multiobjective acceptability analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 106, 137-143.
Leskinen, P., Kangas, A.S., & Kangas, J. (2004). Rank-based modelling of preferences in multi-criteria decision making. European Journal of Operational Research, 158, 721-733.
Leskinen, P., & Kangas, J. (2005). Multi-criteria natural resource management with preferentially dependent decision criteria. Journal of Environmental Management, 77, 244-251.
Martin, W.E., Schields, D.J., Tolwinski, B., & Kent, B. (1996). An application of social choice theory to U.S.D.A. Forest Service decision making. Journal of Policy Modelling, 18, 603-621.
Masozera, M.K., Alavalapati, J.R.R., Jacobson, S.K., & Shrestha, R.K. (2006). Assessing the suitability of community-based management for the Nyungwe Forest Reserve, Rwanda. Forest Policy and Economics, 8, 206-216.
Miettinen, K., Lahdelma, R., & Salminen, P. (1999). SMAA-O - Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis with Ordinal criteria. Reports of the Department of Mathematical Information Technology, Series B, Scientific computing No. B 5/1999. University of Jyväskylä.
Năstase, C., & Kajanus, M. (2008). The role of the universities in a regional innovation system - a comparative A’WOT analysis. Economic Interfaces, 23, 219-224.
Nikolić, Dj., Spasić, J., Živković, Ž., Djordjević, P., Mihajlović, I., & Kangas, J. (2015). SWOT - AHP model for prioritization of strategies of the resort Stara Planina. Serbian Journal of Management, 10 (2), 141-150.
Nurmi, H. (1995). On the difficulty of making social choices. Theory and Decision, 38, 99-119.
Okello, C., Pindozzi, S., Faugni, S., & Boccia, L. (2014). Appraising Bioenergy Alternatives in Uganda Using Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) - Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and a Desirability Functions Approach. Energies, 7, 1171-1192.
Pezdevšek Malovrh, S., Kurttila, M., Hujala, T., Kärkkäinen, L., Leban, V., Lindstad, B.H., Peters, D.M., Rhodius, R., Solberg, B., Wirth, K., Zadnik Stirn, L., & Krč, J. Evaluating the operational environment of forest bioenergy production and use in four European countries. Manuscript, in review process, 2015.
Posch, A., Brudermann, T., Braschel, N., & Gabriel, M. (2015). Strategic energy management in energy-intensive enterprises: a quantitative analysis of relevant factors in the Austrian paper and pulp industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 90, 291-299.
Saari, D.G. (1994). Geometry of voting, volume 3 of Studies in Economic Theory. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Saaty, T.L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Saaty, T.L. (1996). Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process. Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.
Shrestha, R.K., Alavalapati, J.R.R., & Kalmbacher, R.S. (2004). Exploring the potential for silvopasture adoption in south-central Florida: an application of SWOT-AHP method. Agricultural Systems, 81 (3), 185–199.
Shinno, H., Yoshioka, H., Marpaung, S., & Hachiga, S. (2006). Quantitative SWOT analysis on global competitiveness of machine tool industry. Journal of Engineering Design, 17 (3), 251–258.
Yilmaz, M.R. (1999). Can we improve upon approval voting? European Journal of Political Economy, 15, 89-100.
Yüksel, İ., & Dagdeviren, M. (2007). Using the analytic network process (ANP) in a SWOT analysis - A case study for a textile firm. Information Sciences: an International Journal, 177, 3364-3382.
The Author wishes to submit the Work to SJM for publication. To enable SJM to publish the Work and to give effect to the parties’ intention set forth herein, they have agreed to cede the first right to publication and republication in the SJM Journal.
Cession
The Author hereby cedes to SJM, who accepts the cession, to the copyright in and to the paper.
The purpose of the cession is to enable SJM to publish the Work, as first publisher world-wide, and for republication in the SJM Journal, and to grant the right to others to publish the Work world-wide, for so long as such copyright subsists;
SJM shall be entitled to edit the work before publication, as it deems fit, subject to the Authors approval
The Author warrants to SJM that:
- the Author is the owner of the copyright in the Work, whether as author or as reassigned from the Author’s employee and that the Author is entitled to cede the copyright to SJM;
- the paper (or any of its part) is not submitted or accepted for publication in any other Journal;
- the Work is an original work created by the Author;
- the Author has not transferred, ceded, or assigned the copyright, or any part thereof, to any third party; or granted any third party a licence or other right to the copyright, which may affect or detract from the rights granted to SJM in terms of this agreement.
The Author hereby indemnifies the SJM as a body and its individual members, to the fullest extent permitted in law, against all or any claims which may arise consequent to the warranties set forth.
No monetary consideration shall be payable by SJM to the Author for the cession, but SJM shall clearly identify the Author as having produced the Work and ensure that due recognition is given to the Author in any publication of the Work.
Should SJM, in its sole discretion, elect not to publish the Work within 1 year after the date of this agreement, the cession shall lapse and be of no further effect. In such event the copyright shall revert to the Author and SJM shall not publish the Work, or any part thereof, without the Author’s prior written consent.