SWOT分析问题与解决方案:从业者对正在进行的学术辩论的反馈

Thomas E. King, Shelly Freyn, Jason I Morrison
{"title":"SWOT分析问题与解决方案:从业者对正在进行的学术辩论的反馈","authors":"Thomas E. King, Shelly Freyn, Jason I Morrison","doi":"10.37380/jisib.v13i1.989","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":43580,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intelligence Studies in Business","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"SWOT analysis problems and solutions: Practitioners’ feedback into the ongoing academic debate\",\"authors\":\"Thomas E. King, Shelly Freyn, Jason I Morrison\",\"doi\":\"10.37380/jisib.v13i1.989\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43580,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Intelligence Studies in Business\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Intelligence Studies in Business\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.37380/jisib.v13i1.989\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Intelligence Studies in Business","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37380/jisib.v13i1.989","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

关于SWOT的文献以学者之间的争论为特征,他们已经发现了战略管理工具的问题并提出了解决方案,但迄今为止很少有研究能捕捉到从业者的观点。最近的文献表明,SWOT仍然是竞争情报(CI)专业人士中最受欢迎的战略管理工具。本研究的目的是通过进行横断面调查,收集从业者对他们是否遇到问题或采用学术界提出的解决方案的反馈,弥合SWOT文献中学术从业者的分歧。通过领英发布了一项调查,从CI和其他在员工队伍中进行SWOT分析的商业专业人士那里收集数据。研究结果证实,从业者经历了文献中确定的特定问题。具体而言,他们可能在SWOT类别中有太多因素,可能是用模糊和不清楚的词语来定义因素,并且当因素属于多个类别(例如,机会和威胁)时,他们可能没有解决冲突的手段。研究结果还表明,从业者可能没有像文献中所提出的那样,将SWOT作为一个结构化的业务流程来持续进行。CI和其他商业专业人士提供的反馈有助于缩小学术从业者的分歧,通过SWOT更清楚地识别持续存在的问题,并创造有价值和可操作的见解,推动这一流行的战略管理工具的持续改进。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
SWOT analysis problems and solutions: Practitioners’ feedback into the ongoing academic debate
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
11.10%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Intelligence Studies in Business (JISIB) is a double blinded peer reviewed open access journal published by Halmstad University, Sweden. Its mission is to help facilitate and publish original research, conference proceedings and book reviews. The journal includes articles within areas such as Competitive Intelligence, Business Intelligence, Market Intelligence, Scientific and Technical Intelligence, Collective Intelligence and Geo-economics. This means that the journal has a managerial as well as an applied technical side (Information Systems), as these are now well integrated in real life Business Intelligence solutions. By focusing on business applications the journal do not compete directly with journals of Library Sciences or State or Military Intelligence Studies. Topics within the selected study areas should show clear practical implications.
期刊最新文献
The Use of Theories in Competitive Intelligence: a Systematic Literature Review The Role of Marketing Intelligence in Improving the Efficiency of the Organization: An Empirical Study on Jordanian Hypermarkets SECI Knowledge Model and Opportunities of Engaging Business Intelligence by Maturity Level: Case Study at Selected Businesses in the Czech Republic Putting futures literacy and anticipatory systems at the center of entrepreneurship and economic development programs – A View from the UNESCO Co-chair in Anticipatory Systems for Innovation and New Ventures A comparative analysis with machine learning of public data governance and AI policies in the European Union, United States, and China
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1