by Nicky LaMarco; Reviewed by Michelle Seidel, B.Sc., LL.B., MBA
SWOT goes further than just the surface listing of these categories. For each of the lists you create, you can further divide them into external and internal aspects. There are external and internal strengths, external and internal weaknesses, and so on. You can also match the subcategories for more analysis and to see if you can convert a weakness to a strength. Matching is the process of linking a strength with a specific goal that you are trying to achieve while a conversion is when you take something that you had categorized as a weakness or threat and strategically redefine it as a strength or an opportunity.
SWOT is a straightforward process where you get an easy way to visualize the various elements of whatever it is you’re trying to do.
The Origin of SWOT Analysis
SWOT analysis is a very popular analysis method that has been around for quite some time. It is not an infallible analysis method, and there have been various criticisms of this particular form of analysis.
For starters, the naming has been called into question. Names like weaknesses and been criticized as implying inherent inadequacy, as well as excessive danger, respectively. Experts have suggested that it would be a good idea to reword the phrase so that more-effective terms are used for the issues described. For example, rather than call them ‘threats,’ we can call them ‘obstacles.’ This makes it easier to get past because this category is then are viewed as nothing more than a problem to be solved in the pursuit of our business goals.
Limited in Scope
The internal and external subcategorization of each of these categories has also come under intense criticism, because many experts feel it is limited in scope. The general feeling is that SWOT feels like an analysis you perform once at the onset of a project and it doesn’t encourage a deeper analysis. At the beginning of a project, a simple SWOT analysis is used , and then the analysis is discarded as the project launches and is probably never revisited.
Because of these perceived limitations of SWOT analysis, many alternative analyses have been suggested over the years, each with its own unique premises and structure.
Emergence of the SCORE Analysis
The acronym SCORE stands for Strengths, Challenges, Options, Responses, and Effectiveness.
It is immediately obvious with this SWOT analysis alternative that the language is different from the kind of language used in SWOT analysis. The negativity you would find in SWOT analysis has been reduced significantly; the only section that seems to suggest any issues is ‘challenges.’ In fact, one of the main criticisms of this method is that it seems to sound rather idealistic. However, a deeper look will show you that it still manages to go over all the issues that SWOT analysis covers.
SWOT Challenges
The term " all the different tasks you are going to encounter as you carry out your project. However, it has been phrased in such a way that it does not sound defeatist. With SCORE analysis, you still know that there are going to be problems with your project. However, the concentration isn’t on the problems but on how that can be solved , which is a more positive approach to the issue.
In terms of positivity, that doesn’t help very much, and the negative half of the SWOT analysis grid has weak links to the positive half that deals with strengths and opportunities; the transition isn’t smooth.
SCORE Analysis
The More Positive SOAR Analysis
The SOAR acronym is a fairly modern approach and is even more positive than SCORE. SOAR stands for Strengths, Opportunities, Aspirations, and Results.
It is again immediately obvious that SOAR seeks to be as positive as it can. In fact, it removes all kinds of negative wording from the acronym completely. One of the criticisms of SOAR analysis is that, at the very best, it is unwise. It seems rather difficult to plan for problems that are likely to pop up in the future if they are not included in the planning phase.
You could try to fit them in the has its advantages.
SOAR Pros and Cons
The main premise behind SOAR analysis is to encourage collaboration more than anything else. It tries to encourage collaboration through the six Is, which are to Initiate, Inquire, Imagine, Innovate, Inspire, and Implement.
The problem is that these sound like nothing more than buzzwords, and they have no real sense of direction to them. ‘Imagine,’ for example, is a strange word because you don’t need to be told to do it. The real point of its use in the analysis, however, is to help you make sense of what you have already imagined.
The main advantage of SOAR analysis is that the wording is positive enough for those with the right mindset and gives them just the right energy and motivation to help with their planning.
The NOISE Analysis
NOISE stands for Needs, Opportunities, Improvements, Strengths, and Exceptions.
The main premise behind NOISE analysis is that you frame issues in terms of what you don’t have rather than what you need to do. You could think about finding new clients as a future problem. In NOISE analysis, we say you will ‘need new clients.’ It’s not a very big change, but it seems to feel more positive because, needs to be met be overcome
The most interesting part of NOISE analysis is the part labeled ‘Exception.’ Basically, this part is meant to encourage collaboration between the members of the team. It looks at what is already happening among the other elements of the analysis, even if only by a bit . What has already worked and how can we move on from there? The point of the ‘
