Journal of Intelligence Studies in Business Vol. 13 No. 1 (2023) pp. 30–42
Open Access: Freely available at: http://jisib.com/

SWOT analysis problems and solutions: Practitioners’

feedback into the ongoing academic debate

Thomas King*

United States

Fortune 50 company in the retail industry in Minneapolis, MN

thomasaking22@gmail.com

Shelly Freyn

United States

Alfred University

freyn@alfred.edu

Jason Morrison

United States

Alfred University

morrisonj@alfred.edu

Received 23 April 2023 Accepted 12 May 2023

ABSTRACT The literature on SWOT is characterized by a debate among academics who have
identified problems and proposed solutions for the strategic management tool, yet little research

to date has captured practitioners’ perspectives. Recent literature indicates that SWOT is still

the most popular strategic management tool among competitive intelligence (CI) professionals.

The purpose of this study is to bridge this academic-practitioner divide in the SWOT literature

by conducting a cross-sectional survey that gathers practitioners’ feedback regarding whether

they are experiencing the problems or employing the solutions proposed by academia. A survey

was distributed via LinkedIn to collect data from CI and other business professionals who

conduct SWOT in the workforce. The findings confirm that practitioners experience select

problems identified by the literature. Specifically, they may have too many factors per SWOT

category, may be defining factors with ambiguous and unclear words, and may not have a means

for resolving conflicts when factors fall in multiple categories (e.g., opportunity and threat). The

findings also indicate that practitioners may not be consistently conducting SWOT as a

structured business process, as proposed in the literature. The feedback provided by CI and

other business professionals aids in closing the academic-practitioner divide by more clearly

identifying persistent issues with SWOT and creating valuable and actionable insights that will

drive the continual improvement of this popular strategic management tool.

KEYWORDS: academic-practitioner divide, strategic management tools, SWOT

1. INTRODUCTION

The evolution of globalization and the

ever-changing dynamics of digital

* Corresponding author

technologies continue to disrupt established

industry business models. For business

leaders navigating an exceedingly volatile

environment, maintaining a sustainable

competitive advantage requires innovative

organizational processes in strategic

management. Specifically, these processes

must deliver actionable intelligence on the

macro-environmental forces driving

disruption and reinforce an acute awareness

of internal resources and capabilities.

Empowered by these innovative processes,

business leaders may be better equipped to

develop strategies that ensure survival and

success in an evolving industry landscape.

Academia has introduced an array of

strategic management tools to support

business leaders in the development of such

strategies with SWOT (Strengths,

Weakness, Opportunities, Threats) analysis

being one of the prevalent fixtures in MBA

programs. The pervasiveness of SWOT

analysis has manifested in practice as this

methodology is used by practitioners more

often than any other strategic management

tool (Frost, 2003; Qehaja, et al., 2017). This

finding was further validated by a survey of

CI professionals that confirmed SWOT as

their primary strategy tool (Author &

Hoffman, 2023). Furthermore, the number of

articles published on SWOT in peer-review

journals has continued to increase over six

decades (Ghazinoory, et al., 2011; Gürel &

Tat, 2017; Helms & Nixon, 2010), indicating

a steadfast and growing interest in SWOT

among academics. Yet, amidst its popularity

in practice and in literature, there remains

an ongoing debate surrounding the

fundamental value of employing SWOT for

strategy development.

At the core of the debate is SWOT’s

methodological process and whether it can

provide any value for strategy development.

On the one side, academics dismiss the

utility of SWOT due to inherent problems

with the methodology; on the other side,

academics have proposed solutions designed

to salvage valuable insights (Gürel & Tat,

2017). While academics from both schools of

thought have weighed in, little research to

date has considered the practitioners’

perspective. Empirical research is lacking

regarding practitioners’ experiences with the

alleged problems of the methodology or in

what conditions SWOT is actually being

used. The gap between proposed SWOT

research by academia and lack of

practitioner feedback epitomizes an

academic-practitioner divide. In order to

bridge the divide, academics must elevate

the level of managerial relevance by inviting

the practitioners’ perspective into the debate.

According to Jaworski (2011), managerial

relevance is the degree to which practitioners

perceive academic research as supporting

their work because the findings are

important, actionable, and meaningful. The

present research aims to elevate the

managerial relevance regarding SWOT by

addressing three key research questions:

• What are the fundamental problems

with SWOT as identified in the

literature and do practitioners

experience these problems in

practice?

• What are the best conditions for

conducting SWOT as proposed in the

literature and do practitioners

conduct SWOT in these conditions?

• What are the current challenges that

practitioners experience with SWOT

and what can researchers learn from

their feedback to improve the

methodology?

Addressing these research questions

will begin with a literature review that

evaluates two bodies of literature in strategic

management theory. The first comes from

the resource-based view that serves as the

foundation for assessing internal strengths

and weaknesses. The second consists of the

dynamic capabilities framework, which

provides the foundation for identifying

external opportunities and threats. From

there, studies will be discussed that identify

problems and propose ideal conditions for

SWOT; thereby forming the hypotheses. The

methodology section will discuss the survey

development and distribution to

practitioners, followed by a discussion of

results, limitations, and future research

opportunities.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

A review of the literature provided insight

into the origins of SWOT and how its

comprehensive approach to strategy has

helped it persevere for more than half a

century. Although the earliest origins can be

traced back to the 1950’s and 1960’s, Weihrich

(1982) was the first to introduce SWOT as a

strategic management tool (Ghazinoory, et al.,

2011). Weihrich originally proposed SWOT as

a key part of the strategic planning process

through which practitioners conducted an

audit of internal resources (i.e., strengths and

weaknesses), scanned for potentially

disruptive factors in the macro-environment

(i.e., opportunities and threats), and analyzed

these variables in a matrix designed to

facilitate strategy development. Decades later,

SWOT is used more frequently than any other

strategic management tool (Frost, 2003;

Qehaja, et al., 2017) and remained uniquely

capable of fulfilling a critical step in the

strategic management process (Gürel & Tat,

2017). The unique capabilities of SWOT can be

tied to its holistic approach to strategy, which

by focusing on internal resources and external

forces aligns with strategic theory from two

parallel schools of thought: the resource-based

view and the dynamics capabilities framework.

2.1. The resource-based view

The resource-based view (RBV) looks

explicitly at internal resources within the

organization (Kraaijenbrink, et al., 2009).

According to the RBV, the fundamental

strategic imperative of an organization is to

acquire and control those resources that are

valuable, rare, imperfectly mobile,

inimitable, and non-substitutable to achieve

competitive advantage (Hunt & Derozier,

2004). By focusing the strategic planning

process internally, the RBV aligns with the

process of auditing internal resources (i.e.,

strengths and weaknesses) in SWOT.

Valentin (2001) was among the first

academics to bring SWOT and the RBV

school of thought together in the literature.

According to Valentin, an RBV approach

complemented SWOT by perceiving the

organization as a collection of resources that

operates in a larger environment with

threats and opportunities. Clardy (2013)

built on the work of Valentin by

demonstrating how an RBV approach to

SWOT presented three strategic actions: to

invest to make strengths stronger, to take

action to mitigate weaknesses, and to use

strengths to capture opportunities. In this

way, conducting SWOT from a RBV

conceptualized the situational assessment so

that an organization can employ internal

resources (i.e., strengths and weaknesses) in

response to external forces (i.e.,

opportunities and threats) in the

environment to achieve a competitive

advantage.

2.2. The dynamic capabilities

framework

The dynamic capabilities framework

(DCF) addressed the process of scanning for

potentially disruptive forces in the macro-

environment (i.e., opportunities and

threats). According to the framework, the

fundamental strategic imperative of an

organization was to identify the likely

trajectory of technology and the market and

to acquire the necessary resources to

maintain or achieve competitive advantage

(Kay, et al., 2018). Teece (2007) called for a

function within the organization such as a CI

team to look externally, recognize macro-

environmental trends, then direct and

redirect resources in the organization in

response to these trends. By focusing the

strategic planning process externally, the

DCF aligned with the practice of scanning

the macro-environment for potentially

disruptive forces in a SWOT.

The DCF is among the latest iterations of

external models for strategy, but has yet to

be tied to SWOT in the literature. According

to Kay et al., (2018), the DCF was based on

previous external models like the Five Forces

framework (Porter, 1980). DCF expanded

Porter’s research by demonstrating how

scanning the macro-environment can

present strategic choices like seizing

opportunities, acquiring necessary

resources, or reconfiguring assets to achieve

competitiveness (Teece, 2007). With

foundational skills in research, analysis, and

communication, analysts on a CI team are

well-positioned to serve in this capacity by

scanning the macro-environment, analyzing

key trends, and communicating findings to

leadership who can then make informed

decisions to maintain and achieve

competitiveness (Author & Hoffman, 2003).

Although not yet tied to SWOT, scanning the

macro-environment with a dynamic

capabilities function like a CI team aligns

with the process of identifying disruptive

forces (i.e., opportunities and threats) so that

an organization can reconfigure or acquire

resources (i.e., strengths and weaknesses) to

achieve competitive advantage.

2.4. Problems with SWOT

In a meta-analysis of SWOT research,

Ghazinoory et al., (2011) credited Hill and

Westbrook (1997) for making important

contributions to the methodological

development by identifying a comprehensive

list of problems. For this reason, the present

research references Hill and Westbrook to

test the issues practitioners may be

experiencing. In their seminal study (cited

over 1,500 times), Hill and Westbrook

reviewed the SWOT process at over 50

organizations and recognized seven

problems that practitioners may experience

when using the methodology. These

problems identified by Hill and Westbrook

were ultimately used to develop the

hypotheses for the study (Table 1).

Table 1. Hypotheses drawn from problems with SWOT as identified by Hill and Westbrook (1997).

H1. Practitioners are experiencing the problems identified by Hill and Westbrook (1997) while

conducting SWOT.

H1a Practitioners do not verify factors with primary data.

H1b Practitioners do not verify factors with secondary data.

H1c Practitioners do not verify factors with analyses.

H1d Practitioners have no means of limiting the number of factors generated.

H1e Practitioners have no means of prioritizing factors.

H1f Practitioners are defining factors with unclear terms.

H1g Practitioners are defining factors with ambiguous terms.

H1h Practitioners have no means of resolving conflicts.

H1i Practitioners are experiencing a problem because there is no logical link to implementation.

H1j Practitioners are experiencing a problem because only a single level of analysis is required.

The first problem identified was the lack of

obligation to verify factors (i.e., strength,

weakness, opportunity, or threat) with data

or analyses; meaning practitioners may

generate factors that are liable to

subjectivity without analytic rigor. Hill and

Westbrook (1997) also observed that there

were no limits on the number of factors to be

considered and no means of prioritizing

factors in a SWOT. This can create confusion

and reduce the degree to which factors are

relevant to the organization. Other problems

that could contribute to confusion included

unclear or ambiguous definition of terms and

no means of resolving conflicts such as

during the placement of factors (e.g.,

whether a factor is a strength or weakness).

Finally, Hill and Westbrook argued that

there was no logical link to implementation

and only a single level of analysis is required,

resulting in practitioners squandering the

valuable insights that SWOT can provide.

2.5. Proposed conditions for conducting

SWOT

In addition, this study addressed the

optimal conditions for conducting SWOT

proposed in the literature. At the conclusion

of the same meta-analysis, Ghazinoory, et

al., (2011) considered the previously

mentioned problems and offered a model for

the best conditions to conduct SWOT.

Specifically, Ghazinoory, et al., suggested

that the best conditions for the analysis are

within a structured business process and

within a stable market environment. More

broadly, these conditions can be described by

a two-by-two matrix in which the degree of

structure around the business process is

defined along the Y-axis and the degree of

stability in the market environment is

defined along the X-axis (Figure 1).

Since these conditions were proposed in a

meta-analysis and not empirically tested,

this research aimed to test these conditions

among practitioners for the first time. To test

the extent to which a business process is

structured, this study drew from empirical

research in computer science that tested how

well different modeling languages represent

structured versus unstructured business

processes (Cardoso, et al., 2016). In order to

apply this research to SWOT, the present

study tested the degree to which SWOT was

predictable and repetitive among

practitioners according to the four types of

business processes defined by Cardoso, et al.,

and adapted from Reichert and Weber

(2012). Specifically, this study sought to

understand whether practitioners conducted

SWOT by:

1) following the same steps sequentially

every time,

2) following the same steps generally

but may go back to a previous step or

skip a step,

3) following the steps loosely and in no

particular order, or

4) conducting SWOT with unique steps

and in a unique order each time.

Another optimal condition put forth in

Ghazinoory, et al., (2011) requires that

SWOT be conducted in a stable market

environment. In the financial literature, a

stable economy and market are usually

defined as “facilitating (rather than

impeding) the performance of an economy”

(Schinasi, 2004, p. 8). In the absence of

macro-economic shocks like the coronavirus

pandemic, there are typically four indicators

of a stable market environment that

facilitate the performance of the U.S.

economy: low unemployment numbers, low

inflation, high consumer activity, and high

investor activity (Jareño & Negrut, 2016). In

order to test the long-term trends of these

economic indicators in absence of macro-

economic shocks, this study used descriptive

statistics to identify the median

unemployment rate (U.S. Bureau of Labor

Statistics), personal consumption

expenditures and gross private domestic

investment (U.S. Bureau of Economic

Analysis), and inflation of consumer prices in

the U.S. (World Bank) for the last decade for

which data is publicly available, specifically

between January 2011 and January 2021.

Based on a review of the literature, the

following hypotheses were developed to test

for the first time whether practitioners are

conducting SWOT in the optimal conditions

as proposed by Ghazinoory, et al., (Table 2).

Table 2. Hypotheses drawn from best conditions for conducting SWOT as proposed by Ghazinoory, et al., (2011).

H2. Practitioners are conducting SWOT in the best conditions as proposed by

Ghazinoory, et. al., (2011).

H2a Practitioners are conducting SWOT as a structured business process.

H2b Practitioners are conducting SWOT in a stable market environment.

3. METHODOLOGY

As one of the first empirical studies to

gather practitioner feedback on SWOT, the

problems identified and ideal conditions

proposed in the literature served as the

foundation of the survey. Questions were

developed using the guidelines of being

relevant and meaningful, unambiguous, and

easy to answer from the perspective of the

participant (Connell, et al., 2018). A pre-test

of the survey was conducted with business

professors who had both taught SWOT as

well as conducted SWOT as a practitioner.

B
u

s
in

e
s
s
P

r
o
c
e
s
s

n
s
tr

u
c
tu

r
e
d

tr
u

c
tu

r
e
d

The best

conditions for

SWOT

Stable Unstable

Market environment

Figure 1. Best conditions for conducting a SWOT,

modified based on model by Ghazinoory, et. al.,

(2011).

Additionally, business and CI professionals

who have conducted SWOT participated in

the pre-test.

For valid inferences from survey data,

respondents’ characteristics must reflect the

target population (Maholtra, 2019). To

achieve this, a cross-sectional survey was

distributed on LinkedIn using eleven groups

whose title contained the term strategy or

intelligence (e.g., Strategic Planning Society,

The Strategic Management Society,

Strategic and Competitive Intelligence

Professionals). Professionals in the

intelligence field were considered

particularly relevant as they are highly

focused on supporting executive level leaders

in making more effective strategic decisions

(Wheaton & Beerbower, 2006). To ensure

respondents fit the sampling frame, the

LinkedIn post requested practitioners to

participate only if they had conducted SWOT

at their organization.

Upon completion of the six-week

collection period, the survey had a total of 41

participants and a 100% completion rate.

Although limited, this does reflect the trend

of declining response rates for organizational

research (Fulton, 2016). Fulton argued that

non-response is a growing issue and noted

that “if there are no systematic differences

between respondents and non-respondents,

then the sample remains representative of

the population and can provide valid

inferences” (p. 4). Taking into account that

respondents were both affiliated with

strategic management organizations and

conducted a SWOT at their organization, the

sample size was deemed acceptable for this

pilot study.

In the respondent pool, 40% identified as

Executives and 33% as Managers, while

Analysts reflected 28% of the group.

Considering SWOT is a strategic

management tool and Managers and

Executives accounted for almost two-thirds

of the participants, the position levels were

deemed well represented. There was a

representative distribution of responses

related to company size in terms of

employees: Greater than 3,000 (39%), 1,000

– 2,999 (15%), 500 – 999 (5%), 201 – 499

(12%), Below 200 (29%). Gross annual

revenue of the organizations represented

among participants indicated nearly all were

between $1 billion - $10 billion (89%), with

the rest greater than $10 billion. Overall, it

was determined that there was

representation from a variety of industries:

• Industrials 22%

• Information Technology 20%

• Professional Services 20%

• Financials 15%

• Health Care 12%

<10% (in order): Not for profit, Materials,

Real Estate.

4. RESULTS

4.1. Problems with SWOT

Since Hill and Westbrook (1997) observed

a lack of analytic rigor in how practitioners

were generating factors for SWOT,

practitioners were asked to rate on a Likert

scale (5=always, 1=never) how often they

generated factors by consulting data and

conducting analyses. Findings revealed that

all results were statistically significant to

0.1% and greater than neutral (3.0) which

indicates that they often generate factors by

consulting both secondary and primary data

and by conducting analyses (Table 3). These

findings contradict Hill and Westbrook’s

observation as practitioners do appear to be

generating factors by conducting analyses

and consulting primary and secondary data

sources.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics for the methods used to generate factors for SWOT (N=41) and (df=40).

M SD t Sig.

Consulting secondary data 3.73 1.245 3.762 **

Conducting analyses 3.61 1.115 3.501 **

Consulting primary data 3.54 1.098 3.130 **

Note(s): M = mean; SD = standard deviation; n.s. = not significant; * = p <0.05; ** = p <0.01;

***= p <0.001

Hill and Westbrook (1997) proposed that

practitioners had no means of limiting the

number of factors generated for SWOT.

Practitioners were asked to what extent they

typically have too many factors per category

on a 5-point Likert scale (5=always, 1=never)

and t-test results indicated that

practitioners’ ratings were greater than

neutral (3.0), suggesting that practitioners

may at times have too many factors per

category. Practitioners were also asked to

identify the typical number of factors

generated per category in the model. Results

indicated five to six (43%) was most common

followed by three to four factors (40%), seven

to eight (15%) and nine to ten (3%) factors.

Despite most practitioners only having three

to six factors per category, Likert results

indicate practitioners rated that there were

too many factors per category. As such, these

findings are consistent with Hill and

Westbrook and infer that there still appears

to be no means of limiting the number of

factors generated.

According to Hill and Westbrook (1997),

practitioners had no means of prioritizing

factors. Results of the survey revealed that

based on the 5-point Likert scale of

agreement (5=strongly agree, 1=strongly

disagree), responses were statistically

significant to 0.1% and were greater than

neutral (3.0). These results indicate that

practitioners agree that they have some

understanding of which factors are more

important than others (Table 4). Since

practitioners appear to have a means of

prioritizing factors, the results contrast the

findings by Hill and Westbrook.

Table 4. Descriptive statistics for the extent to which practitioners agree with the following (N=41) and (df=40).

M SD t Sig.

I typically have a clear understanding

of which factors are more important

than others

3.49 .898 3.479 **

Note(s): M = mean; SD = standard deviation; n.s. = not significant; * = p <0.05; ** = p <0.01;

***= p <0.001

Considering Valentin (2001) had

proposed in the RBV that certain types of

resources could be more valuable to

competitive advantage than others,

practitioners were asked exploratory

questions regarding which tangible and

intangible resources were most important to

SWOT on a 5-point Likert scale (5=very

important, 1=not at all important). The

results indicated that Informational

(µ=4.24), Relational (µ=4.10), Reputational

(µ=3.73), Human (µ=3.63), and

Organizational (µ=3.63) resources were

significantly greater than neutral (3.0) at

0.1% significance level, and Financial

(µ=3.46) and Intellectual (µ=3.34) were

significantly greater than neutral (3.0) at the

.05% significance level (Table 5). The

remaining categories of Legal and Physical

resources failed to reach statistical

significance, inferring both are considered to

be of neutral importance. These exploratory

findings suggest that a resource’s ability to

facilitate competitive advantage for the

organization may be one approach current

practitioners are using to prioritize factors.

Table 5. Descriptive statistics for the extent to which practitioners identify the following types of resources as

important to a typical SWOT (N=41) and (df=40).

M SD t Sig.

Informational 4.24 .799 9.964 ***

Relational 4.10 .735 9.561 ***

Reputational 3.73 1.096 4.275 ***

Human 3.63 1.090 3.726 ***

Organizational 3.63 .942 4.309 ***

Financial 3.46 1.247 2.380 *

Intellectual 3.34 1.063 2.056 *

Legal 3.02 1.235 0.123 n.s.

Physical 2.78 1.255 -1.120 n.s.

Note(s): M = mean; SD = standard deviation; n.s. = not significant; * = p <0.05; ** = p <0.01; ***= p

<0.001

The problems of defining factors with

ambiguous words or unclear words were also

examined in this survey (Hill & Westbrook,

1997). Practitioners were asked on a 5-point

Likert scale how frequently (5=always,

1=never) a factor is defined with ambiguous

words and with unclear words, respectively.

The results were insignificant or neutral

(3.0) on the frequency at which they define

factors with ambiguous words and unclear

words, respectively. These results suggest

that practitioners may at times be defining

factors with ambiguous or unclear words,

which aligns with the observations by Hill

and Westbrook.

Another problem identified by Hill and

Westbrook (1997) was that practitioners

have no means of resolving conflicts when

factors belong to multiple categories.

Practitioners were asked how frequently a

factor belongs to multiple categories in a

typical SWOT on a 5-point Likert scale

(5=always, 1=never) to determine whether

such conflicts were being resolved. The

results were insignificant or neutral (3.0) for

the frequency at which a factor belongs to

multiple categories, suggesting that

practitioners may at times have factors that

belong to multiple categories. Since

practitioners are still experiencing this

problem, the results are consistent with the

observations of Hill and Westbrook (1997)

and infer that practitioners may not have a

means of resolving conflicts when a factor

does belong to multiple categories.

This study also examined the problem of

whether practitioners had no logical link to

implementation and whether practitioners

only conducted a single level of analysis, as

observed by Hill and Westbrook (1997). In

order to test the link to implementation,

practitioners were asked to rate on a 5-point

Likert scale (5=always, 1=never) how

frequently insights from SWOT were

implemented directly into strategy

development. Practitioners’ responses were

significantly greater than neutral at the

0.1% significance level, indicating that

insights were frequently implemented

directly into strategy development. In order

to test whether practitioners conducted a

single level of analysis, practitioners were

asked to rate on a 5-point Likert scale how

frequently (5=always, 1=never) insights from

SWOT are combined with another analytic

technique. The results were significantly

greater than neutral at the 0.1% level,

suggesting that practitioners are conducting

more than one level of analysis. These

findings contradict the observations of Hill

and Westbrook (1997) because practitioners

appear to be linking SWOT to strategy

development and practitioners are

combining SWOT with additional analytic

techniques (Table 6).

Table 6. Descriptive statistics for the frequency at which practitioners self-report the following happens while conducting

SWOT (N=41) and (df=40).

M SD t Sig.

Insights from SWOT are implemented directly

into strategy development.

3.78 .936 5.341 ***

Insights from a SWOT are typically combined

with another analytic technique.

3.93 1.058 5.609 ***

Note(s): M = mean; SD = standard deviation; n.s. = not significant; * = p <0.05; ** = p <0.01; ***= p

<0.001

A follow-up exploratory question sought

to reveal which of the analytic techniques

identified by Ghazinoory, et al., (2011)

practitioners used in combination with

SWOT. The results showed that most

practitioners combined SWOT insights with

the following analytic techniques:

• Environmental 37%

• Balanced Scorecard Analysis 20%

• Statistical Analysis 20%

• Multiple Criteria Decision Matrix

15%

• Cross-impact Analysis 7%

<10% (in order): Cross-impact Analysis,

Analytic Hierarchy Process, Porter’s Five

Forces, Porter’s 4 Corners, Win/Loss

Analysis, Salesforce/CRM Data, Scenario

Analysis, and Keep, Stop, Start Analysis.

4.2. Proposed conditions for SWOT

In addition to the proposed problems of

SWOT, the survey examined whether

practitioners are conducting SWOT in the

best the conditions proposed in the

literature. The first condition by Ghazinoory

et al., (2011) was that SWOT should be

conducted as a structured business process.

When practitioners were asked on a 5-point

Likert scale how frequently (5=always,

1=never) they conducted SWOT as a

structured, step-by-step process, the

responses were neutral (3.0) and failed to

reach statistical significance. Based on the

survey results, this infers that practitioners

do not appear to be consistently conducting

SWOT as a structured business process,

contradicting Ghazinoory, et al.

The second condition proposed by

Ghazinoory et al., (2011) was that SWOT

should be conducted in a stable market

environment. According to the U.S. Bureau

of Labor Statistics, the median monthly

unemployment rate was 5.5%, which was

determined to be low considering national

average over the last 10 years is 5.7%. The

median monthly personal consumption

expenditures was $12,432 billion and the

median quarterly gross private domestic

investment was $3,206 billion, both of which

were considered to be high based on national

average over the last 10 years (U.S. Bureau

of Economic Analysis). The median annual

inflation of consumer prices in the U.S. was

1.8%, which was considered to be low

compared to an average of 2.0% over the last

decade (World Bank). Since the median

value for unemployment and inflation were

low and personal consumption expenditures

and gross private domestic investment were

high, these findings suggest that

practitioners have been conducting SWOT in

a stable market environment over the last

decade as proposed by Ghazinoory, et al.,

(Table 7).

Table 7. Descriptive statistics for economic indicators between January 2011 and January 2021.

M SD

Unemployment Rate 5.5% 2.1%

Personal Consumption Expenditures $12,432B $1,306B

Gross Private Domestic Investment $3,206B $478B

Inflation, Consumer Prices in the U.S. 1.8% 1.2%

A complete summary of the hypotheses testing results is presented in Table 8.

Table 8. Hypothesis testing results.

H1. Practitioners are experiencing the problems identified by Hill and

Westbrook (1997) while conducting SWOT.

Partially

supported

H1a Practitioners do not verify factors with primary data. Not supported

H1b Practitioners do not verify factors with secondary data. Not supported

H1c Practitioners do not verify factors with analyses. Not supported

H1d Practitioners have no means of limiting the number of factors generated. Supported

H1e Practitioners have no means of prioritizing factors. Not supported

H1f Practitioners are defining factors with unclear terms. Supported

H1g Practitioners are defining factors with ambiguous terms. Supported

H1h Practitioners have no means of resolving conflicts. Supported

H1i Practitioners are experiencing a problem because there is no logical link

to implementation.

Not supported

H1j Practitioners are experiencing a problem because only a single level of

analysis is required.

Not supported

H2. Practitioners are conducting SWOT in the best conditions as proposed by

Ghazinoory, et. al., (2011).

Partially

supported

H2a Practitioners are conducting SWOT as a structured business process. Not supported

H2b Practitioners are conducting SWOT in a stable market environment. Supported

5. DISCUSSION

The present study drew upon the works

of Hill and Westbrook (1997) and

Ghazinoory, et al., (2011) to identify whether

practitioners experienced problems with

SWOT and conducted SWOT in the best

conditions proposed in the literature,

respectively.

The findings show that while

practitioners resolved some of the problems

with SWOT identified by Hill and Westbrook

(1997), four issues persist today. The first

problem is that practitioners indicated that

they may have too many factors per category.

The next two problems are that practitioners

appear to be defining factors with ambiguous

words and unclear words, respectively.

Finally, the last problem is that practitioners

may not have a means for resolving conflicts

when factors could belong to multiple

categories (e.g., opportunity and threat).

This feedback more clearly identifies issues

with SWOT from the practitioner perspective

and provides valuable insight into improving

the methodology.

Although the findings indicate that these

issues with SWOT persist, exploratory

findings offer a glimpse into how

practitioners may be leveraging their

industry expertise in an attempt to overcome

these issues. For example, the practitioners

indicated that Informational and Relational

resources were particularly important for

SWOT whereas Legal and Physical resources

were not. These findings suggest that

practitioners recognize the relative

importance of different types of resources

and may be limiting the number of strengths

and weaknesses included in the SWOT to

only the most important resources, especially

considering that Industrials, Information

Technology, and Professional Services were

the leading industries represented in the

study.

In addition to these four problems, the

findings also show that practitioners are not

conducting SWOT in the optimal conditions

as proposed by Ghazinoory et al., (2011).

Specifically, the findings indicated that

practitioners may not be consistently

conducting SWOT as a structured business

process. This feedback is particularly

insightful and actionable for practitioners

because establishing a more structured

business process for SWOT is an optimal

condition that is actually within the control

of an organization’s capabilities.

In contrast, while practitioners were

conducting SWOT in a stable market

environment over the last decade, the

relative stability of the market environment

is outside of the control of an organization.

As such, the optimal conditions as proposed

by Ghazinoory et al., (2011) reveals a void in

that a more robust SWOT model may be

needed for unstable market environments.

Although beyond the scope of this study,

exploratory findings suggest that

practitioners may already be experimenting

with new ways to build a more robust SWOT

model. For example, the analytic technique

used most frequently in combination with

SWOT among practitioners today was

Environmental Analysis which is focused

exclusively on better understanding

disruptions in the macro-environment and

often falls under the responsibility of a CI

function. Practitioners may be using

Environmental Analysis to overcome this

void with SWOT and as such, additional

analytic techniques may offer a starting

point in strengthening SWOT for more

volatile macro-environments.

This study represents one of the first

empirical studies to capture feedback

directly from practitioners on how SWOT is

conducted in the workforce today. The

findings identified the problem areas that

still persist and the suboptimal condition

that may be undermining the value of a

SWOT. Collectively, these findings provide a

roadmap for future research to develop a

stronger and more robust SWOT

methodology that better serves current

practitioners.

6. CONCLUSION

The present study was a pilot test and

represents one of the first attempts to

empirically evaluate the SWOT process

among current day practitioners. The results

of the study help to close the academic-

practitioner divide by identifying four

ongoing issues with SWOT and revealing the

suboptimal condition from the literature that

still persist among practitioners.

A few limitations in the present study

included potentially ambiguous questions

related to SWOT, the relatively small sample

size, and the limited sampling frame during

survey collection. In order to mitigate these

concerns, a pre-test for the survey

instrument was conducted to identify and

correct any issues with question ambiguity

before beginning survey collection.

Furthermore, filter questions and invitations

to strategy and intelligence-specific

LinkedIn groups were used to ensure a

representative sample of the target

population. Although the sampling frame is

limited, the respondents in the sample

reflect the target population of practitioners

who have conducted SWOT in the workforce

and as such provide invaluable insights.

Future research efforts could focus on

establishing a clearer understanding of why

some problems persist with such a long-

standing strategic management tool and

whether new solutions could help

practitioners overcome these problems. For

example, such research could explore the role

business and intelligence programs play in

training practitioners on SWOT and how

that may impact the manifestation and

persistence of these problems. Research

could also explore whether conducting

SWOT in collaboration with new

technologies or additional strategic

management tools could offer solutions for

practitioners to overcome these issues.

Another opportunity for future research

is to more clearly define the optimal

conditions for conducting SWOT. This could

prove highly relevant as practitioners

conduct SWOT while navigating unique

market dynamics or disruptive technologies

(e.g., artificial intelligence) at any given

time. For example, such research could

explore whether practitioners agree that

conducting SWOT as a structured, step-by-

step business process is the best practice

during more turbulent markets.

Furthermore, research could explore

opportunities for practitioners to incorporate

other strategic management tools at various

steps within the SWOT process to strengthen

and build a more robust strategic

management tool that can adapt to both

stable and unstable macro-environments.

The application and adaptation with other

analytic techniques identified in this study

may offer a starting point.

The practitioner feedback captured by

this research provides a roadmap for future

research to continue elevating the

managerial relevance in the SWOT

literature and closing the academic-

practitioner divide on one of the most

popular strategic management tools today.

The authors would like to acknowledge [MBA

graduate assistant, university] for assisting

with survey development.

The authors of this paper hereby affirm

that the submission has not been previously

published and has not been submitted to or

is not under review by another journal or

under consideration for publication

elsewhere, and, if accepted, it will not be

published elsewhere in the same form, in

English or in any other language, including

electronically without the written consent of

the copyright- holder.

The authors also affirm that there is no

conflict of interest.

The anonymized research data will be

made available if required and if the

university ethics board permits.

To the best of our knowledge there is no

No funding was received for this study.

REFERENCES

Connell, J., Carlton, J., Grundy, A., Buck, E.

T., Keetharuth, A. D., Ricketts, T.,

Barkham, M., Robotham, D., Rose, D.,

and Brazier, J. (2018) “The Importance of

content and face validity in instrument

development: lessons learnt from service

users when developing the Recovering

Quality of Life measure (ReQoL)”,

Quality of Life Research, Vol. 27, pp.1893-

1902.

Clardy, A. (2013). “Strengths vs. Strong

Position: Rethinking the Nature of

SWOT Analysis”, Modern Management

Science & Engineering, Vol. 1 No. 1,

pp.100-122.

Cardoso, E., Labunets, K., Dalpiaz, F.,

Mylopoulos, J., and Giorgini, P. (2016).

“Modeling Structured and Unstructured

Processes: An Empirical Evaluation”,

Comyn-Wattiau, I., Tanaka, K., Song,

IY., Yamamoto, S., Saeki, M. (Ed.),

Conceptual Modeling, Springer

International Publishing AG, New York,

NY, pp.347-361.

Denrell, J., Fang, C., and Winter, S. G.

(2003). “The economics of strategic

opportunity”, working paper

[No.2003/10], Laboratory of Economics

and Management Sant’Anna School of

Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy, July.

[Author] and Hoffman, F. (2023).

“Competitive intelligence in an AI world:

Practitioners’ thoughts on technological

advances and the educational needs of

their successors.” Journal of Intelligence

Studies in Business, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 6-

17.

https://ojs.hh.se/index.php/JISIB/article/

view/893

Frost, F. A. (2003). “The use of strategic tools

by small and medium-sized enterprises:

an Australasian study” Strategic Change,

Vol. 12 No. 1, pp.49-62.

Fulton, B. (2016). “Organizations and survey

research: Implementing response

enhancing strategies and conducting

nonresponse analyses.” Sociological

Methods & Research, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp.1-

37.

Ghazinoory, S., Abdi, M., and Azadegan-

Mehr, M. (2011). “SWOT Methodology: A

State-of-the-Art Review for the Past, a

Framework for the Future”, Journal of

Business Economics and Management,

Vol. 12 No. 11, pp.24-48.

Gürel, E. and Tat, M. (2017) “SWOT

analysis: A theoretical review”, The

Journal of International Social Research,

Vol. 10. No. 51, pp.994-1006.

Helms, M. M., and Nixon, J. (2010).

“Exploring SWOT analysis - Where are

we now? A review of academic research

from the last decade”, Journal of Strategy

and Management, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp.215-

251.

Hill, T. and Westrbook, R. (1997). “SWOT

analysis: It’s time for a product recall”,

Long Range Planning, Vol. 30, No. 1,

pp.46-52.

Hunt, S. D., and Derozier, C. (2004). “The

normative imperatives of business and

marketing strategy: grounding strategy

in resource-advantaged theory.” Journal

of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol.

19 No. 1, pp.5-22.

Jareño, F., and Negrut, L. (2016). “US Stock

Market and Macroeconomic Factors”, The

Journal of Applied Business Research,

Vol. 32, No. 1 pp.325-340.

Jaworski, B. J. (2011). “On Managerial

Relevance”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 75

No. 4, pp.211-223.

Kay, N. M., Leih, S., and Teece, D. J. (2018).

“The role of emergence in dynamic

capabilities: a restatement of the

framework and some possibilities for

future research”, Industrial and

Corporate Change, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp.623-

638.

Kraaijenbrink, J., Spender, J. C., and Groen,

A. (2009). “The resource-based view: A

review and assessment of its critiques”,

Journal of Management, Vol. 36 No. 1,

pp.349-372.

Maholtra, N. K. (2012). Basic Marketing

Research (4th. ed). Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy:

Techniques for Analyzing Industries and

Competitors, The Free Press, New York,

NY.

Priem, R. and Butler, J. (2001). “Is the

Resource-Based “View” a Useful

Perspective for Strategic Management

Research?” Academy of Management

Review, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp.22-40.

https://ojs.hh.se/index.php/JISIB/article/view/893
https://ojs.hh.se/index.php/JISIB/article/view/893
http://lib.cufe.edu.cn/upload_files/other/4_20140522031922_Is_the_Resource-based_%E2%80%9CView%E2%80%9D_a_Useful_Perspective_for_Strategic_Management_Research%20(1).pdf

Qehaja, A. B., Kutllovci, E., and Pula, J. S.

(2017). “Strategic Management Tools and

Techniques Usage: A Qualitative

Review”, Acta Universitatis Agriculturae

et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunenis,

Vol. 65 No. 2, pp.585-600.

Ratnasingham, P. (2006). “A SWOT analysis

for B2C e-commerce: The case of

Amaozn.com” International Journal of

Cases on Electronic Commerce (IJCEC),

Vol. 2 No. 1, pp.1-22.

Reichert, M. and Weber, B. (2012). Enabling

Flexibility in Process-Aware Information

Systems - Challenges, Methods,

Technologies. Springer Berlin,

Hieldelberg, Germany.

Schinasi, G. J. (2004). “Defining Financial

Stability”, Working Paper No. 04/187,

International Monetary Fund,

Washington, D.C., October.

Teece, D. J. (2007). “Explicating dynamic

capabilities: the nature and

microfoundations of (sustainable)

enterprise performance”, Strategic

Management Journal, Vol. 28, pp.1319-

1350.

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Gross

Private Domestic Investment [GPDI]”,

available at

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GPDI

(accessed 17 March 2023).

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Personal

Consumption Expenditures [PCE]”,

available at

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCE

(accessed 15 March 2023).

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

“Unemployment Rate [UNRATE]”

available at

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRAT

E (accessed 17 March 2023).

Valentin, E. K. (2001). “Swot analysis from a

Resource-Based View”, Journal of

Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 9 No.

2, pp.54-69.

Weihrich, H. (1982). “The TOWS Matrix a

Tool for Situational Analysis”, Long

Range Planning, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp.54-66.

Wheaton, K. and Beerbower, M. (2006).

“Towards a New Definition of

Intelligence”, Stanford Law & Policy

Review Vol. 17, pp.319 – 330.

World Bank. “Inflation, consumer prices for

the United States [FPCPITOTLZGUSA]”

available at

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FPCPITOT

LZGUSA (accessed 17 March 2023).

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GPDI
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCE
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FPCPITOTLZGUSA
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FPCPITOTLZGUSA