Among the most widely used and most commented on tools is the SWOT; an activity, process, or tool that is organized around four-quadrants (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats).
In this article, we take a look at SWOT —its history, use, strengths, and criticisms —and how we use it at Cense. We hope you have a good sense of the various SWOT qualities of this widely used and potentially effective tool for strategic design.
History
The SWOT analysis came to being between 1960 and 1970. It’s origins are attributed to research led by Albert S. Humphrey and a team from the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) that sought to identify why corporate planning failed and to create a new system for managing change. The team at SRI analyzed data from more than 5,000 interviews with executives from 1,100 companies, which led to the development of the SOFT analysis framework—initially standing for Satisfactory (present), Opportunity (future), Fault (present), and Threat (future). This was later refined into the SWOT framework we know today, replacing “Satisfactory” and “Fault” with “Strengths” and “Weaknesses” to create more actionable and memorable terminology. The framework gained traction because it provided a simple, accessible way to organize strategic information without requiring complex analytical training.
The tool gained widespread academic and business adoption throughout the 1970s and 1980s, becoming a standard component of strategic management curricula and corporate planning processes. Kenneth Andrews’ work in his 1971 book “The Concept of Corporate Strategy” helped formalize SWOT within the broader strategic planning framework, though he didn’t use the exact acronym. By the 1980s, SWOT had become ubiquitous in business schools and consulting practices worldwide.
Despite its widespread use, SWOT isn’t without its critics.
SWOT: Its Critics
SWOT may be widely used, but it also has been widely criticized.
Academic scholars have raised significant concerns about SWOT’s methodological rigour and analytical limitations. Terry Hill and Roy Westbrook’s influential 1997 paper, “SWOT Analysis: It’s Time for a Product Recall,” argued that the tool generates lengthy, unfocused lists without mechanisms for prioritization or weighting the relative importance of different factors. They noted that SWOT often produces inconsistent classifications, with the same factor appearing as both a strength and a weakness depending on perspective, and provides no clear guidance for moving from analysis to action. David Pickton and Sheila Wright (1998) in “What’s SWOT in Strategic Analysis?” criticized the framework for being too static, offering only a snapshot in time and failing to account for the dynamic nature of competitive environments or the interrelationships among factors. E.K. Valentin (2001) argued that SWOT lacks theoretical grounding and fails to consider the resource-based view of strategy, noting that it doesn’t adequately distinguish between resources and capabilities or assess their strategic value.
Practitioners and strategy scholars have also highlighted SWOT’s tendency toward oversimplification and subjective bias. The framework encourages users to force complex strategic realities into four neat boxes, potentially obscuring a nuanced understanding of the business environment. Critics point out that SWOT lacks a built-in mechanism to verify the accuracy of identified factors, making it susceptible to groupthink, confirmation bias, and political maneuvering within organizations. Marilyn Helms and Judy Nixon (2010), in their analysis of SWOT’s evolution, noted that while the tool remains popular, its effectiveness depends heavily on the facilitator’s skill and organizational context, with poorly executed SWOT sessions yielding superficial or misleading insights.
This is where we begin our take on the SWOT analysis.
A Skilled Practitioner Approach
“I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.” – Abraham Maslow
SWOT is a part of our strategic design toolkit, and we use it often when building strategies for our clients.
We always use SWOT with groups (e.g., senior leadership teams, boards). SWOT can provide participants with a way to see how others perceive their situation, in ways that can be constructive. We note things like contradictions, areas of overlap, points where ideas don’t easily fit into one category (or fit in multiple categories), and use these to provide points for conversation. It’s not about finding a singular, objective point of convergence, but rather about revealing differences in perspective.
SWOTs are conducted in shared spaces using flipchart paper in face-to-face workshops, Miro boards for remote work, or a combination. We’ve had groups use Miro for some initial work at a distance, then invite additional comments and reflections by transposing the responses onto paper. Sometimes, groups can quite literally see things differently with some time and using a different format.
The facilitated discussion that comes from SWOT is the most beneficial. A SWOT analysis prompts people to think, categorize, and reflect on their suggestions as well as those of others. In doing so, it helps organizations see where they are doing well (and what assets they can leverage and build upon), where they are vulnerable, and begin to envision what might come. This last part is a short-hand vehicle for engaging in some foresight and futures thinking, especially if there’s not an opportunity to do it fully as a group through other means.
Another reason we use SWOT is that it’s familiar, portable, and easy to undertake, yet can lead to sophisticated discussions among groups. It’s also a great way to see the level of agreement or alignment among groups with similar (and diverse) sightlines on the organization.
Using SWOT: Final Thoughts
In short, SWOT is a simple way to engage people in discussion about the many dimensions of performance, quality, and potential outcomes, using a familiar, easily understandable format.
Don’t use SWOT blindly. Nor is it a universally appropriate tool. It’s not all that people say it is—both good and bad—but it is useful. Its portability, ease of use, and fit with other activities can make it a helpful part of any strategy-making and strategic design initiative.
Let us help you find and showcase the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats with your team to create a better strategic vision and plan. Please feel free to reach out and book a no-obligation conversation to explore your needs.
Selected References:
Andrews, K. R. (1971). The concept of corporate strategy. Dow Jones-Irwin.
da Costa Júnior, J. F. (2021). The SWOT Matrix and its Subdimensions: A Conceptual Innovation Proposal. Research, Society and Development, 10(2), e25710212580. https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v10i2.12580
Helms, M. M., & Nixon, J. (2010). Exploring SWOT analysis—Where are we now? Journal of Strategy and Management, 3(3), 215–251. https://doi.org/10.1108/17554251011064837
Hill, T., & Westbrook, R. (1997). SWOT analysis: It’s time for a product recall. Long Range Planning, 30(1), 46–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(96)00095-7
Humphrey, A. (2005). SWOT analysis for management consulting. SRI Alumni Newsletter.
Learned, E. P., Christensen, C. R., Andrews, K. R., & Guth, W. D. (1969). Business policy: Text and cases. Irwin.
Pickton, D. W., & Wright, S. (1998). What’s SWOT in strategic analysis? Strategic Change, 7(2), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1697(199803/04)7:2<101::AID-JSC332>3.0.CO;2-6
Valentin, E. K. (2001). SWOT analysis from a resource-based view. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 9(2), 54–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2001.11501891
Rusteberg, C. (2024). From insight to action – Enhancing SWOT analysis for an actionable plan. Strategy Magazine, (39), 28-31.