[Ailist] SWOT analysis

Mon, 14 Aug 2000 08:46:55 -0400

Mac makes a very interesting point about not focusing on the W (weaknesses)
and T (threats)portion of the strategic planning.  The real purpose of the W
and T in my opinion is to get an environmental read of the pressures and
influences facing an organization.  Perhaps that could be discerned looking
at "environmental forces," and then focusing on Opportunities.  I agree that
you cannot ignore things that are not positive, but I think it can analyzed
and worded in a way that gives energy vs. drains energy.

Interesting!

Donna Kaye
UNC Hospitals 

-----Original Message-----
From: ailist-admin@mail.business.utah.edu
[mailto:ailist-admin@mail.business.utah.edu]
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2000 2:00 PM
To: ailist@mail.business.utah.edu
Subject: Ailist digest, Vol 1 #142 - 1 msg

Send Ailist mailing list submissions to
	ailist@lists.business.utah.edu

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the web, visit
	http://lists.business.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/ailist
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	ailist-request@lists.business.utah.edu
You can reach the person managing the list at
	ailist-admin@lists.business.utah.edu

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of Ailist digest..."

Today's Topics:

  1. SWOT and Strategic Planning--Why WTs? (Mac Odell)

--__--__--

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 13:47:30 +0500
To: "Kaye, Donna" <DKaye@unch.unc.edu>,
"'ailist@mail.business.utah.edu'" <ailist@mail.business.utah.edu>
From: Mac Odell <macodell@wlink.com.np>
Subject: [Ailist] SWOT and Strategic Planning--Why WTs?

Friends,
Good questions from Donna and Herb!  Worth further exploring, too.
Our Habitat for Humanity folks love the ICA approach, too.. but I've never
been convinced about the benefits of working through the WT parts of
SWOT... Why mess with weakness and threats when we can focus on strengths
and opportunities?  And then build a strong action plan to move ahead.  The
4D process seems to give our groups everything they need to make excellent
strategic plans based on successes, dreams and commitments... The
weaknesses and threats all seem get handled through the action planning
process of the Design and Delivery steps... The focus is on tackling the
WTs for which we have tools, experience, and letting rest go until we do
have the tools, successes, that we can build on.  

This is NOT suggesting that we sweep the weaknesses and threats under the
carpet as some AI critics attest.  It is just a different, more powerful,
more results-oriented way of dealing with weaknesses and threats... one
that empowers rather than discourages... A colleague in the Phillipines
just hit the nail on the head in a message I got today:

"For decades NGOs in the Philippines have been using a lot of
problem-centered or issue-focused approaches to organize, following the
process of arouse-organize-mobilize. But it seems that time has changed and
more and more groups and organizations are fizzling out, burned out. We
figured (out) that maybe we
are not addressing the real situation and what we've been doing just serves
our purpose and NOT the purpose of the people whom we supposedly serve. So
(we)
traced and re-traced our methodologies and examined our principles, and
we've found out that we are focusing more on the problems rather than on
what could be done and what works. And sometimes we are the only ones (NGO
workers) that see the "problem" and NOT the people. It seem strange to us
who have been working on solving problems and "arousing" people for so many
years. So we had re-thinking sessions and did (research) until...
'Appreciative Inquiry' came up....and the responses we got are just
great..."

In the Philippine case, this history of 'problem-focus' actually backfired
and the group is still struggling with a lot of residual hostility... So
not only do I ask, "Why get bogged down in weaknesses, threats, problems?"
but also "Focussing on the negative seems to create more negatives."

What are the experiences of others?

Mac Odell
Kathmandu

At 06:00 PM 8/10/00 -0400, Kaye, Donna wrote:
>Dear Herb,
>  I like to use the Technology Of Participation technique for strategic
>planning which is from the Institute of Cultural Affairs.  It combines
>looking at the "Victory" (which is similar to AI envisioning the desired
>future) and then doing the "SWOT" analysis, Strengths, Weaknesses,
>Opportunities and Threats, and then grouping key actions (based on best
>practices) to deal with those SWOTS.  ICA's phone number is 602-955-4811.
>
>Good luck,
>
>Donna Kaye
>UNC Hospitals
>
>_______________________________________________
>The Appreciative Inquiry Discussion List is hosted by the David Eccles
School of Business at the University of Utah. Jack Brittain is the list
administrator. For subscription information, go to:
>http://lists.business.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/ailist
>
>

--__--__--

_______________________________________________
The Appreciative Inquiry Discussion List is hosted by the David Eccles
School of Business at the University of Utah. Jack Brittain is the list
administrator. For subscription information, go to:
http://lists.business.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/ailist

End of Ailist Digest