See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/220256472

Fuzzy SWOT analysis

Article  in  Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems · January 2007

Source: DBLP

CITATIONS READS

34 3,028

3 authors, including:

Sepehrُ Ghazinoory Azizollah Memariani

Tarbiat Modares University Kharazmi University
81 PUBLICATIONS   705 CITATIONS    50 PUBLICATIONS   915 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

IP Management View project

Using Actor-Network Theory to identify the role of IT in cognitive science in Iran View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sepehrُ Ghazinoory on 27 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 18 (2007) 99–108 99
IOS Press

Fuzzy SWOT analysis

S. Ghazinoory∗, A. Esmail Zadeh and A. Memariani
Department of Industrial Engineering, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran

Abstract. The SWOT (which is sometimes called TOWS) matrix is one of the most important tools for strategic planning
specially in the stage of extracting strategies. While the use of SWOT is quite common and popular, it still continues to have
certain structural problems. The most important of which are the lack of considering uncertain and two sided factors, lack of
prioritization of the factors and strategies and too many extractable strategies. This paper attempts to solve some of the problems
by following the fuzzy approach to the internal and external factors (in the form of fuzzy membership functions). The presented
algorithm in this article prioritizes and extracts the most significant strategies based on the intensity of the effect.

Keywords: Fuzzy, SWOT, strategic planning

1. Introduction competency-based planning, however [2] could point

SWOT (an acronym standing for Strengths, Weak-
nesses, Opportunities and Threats) analysis is a com-
monly used tool for analyzing internal and external
environments in order to attain a systematic approach
and support for decision making. The SWOT approach
is based on the aggregation of the internal (strengths,
weaknesses) and external (opportunities, threats) fac-
tors for adopting strategies. In other words, the ex-
tracted strategies of SWOT matrix is comprised of four
categories of factors combinations:
– Strengths and Opportunities (S-O);
– Strengths and Threats (S-T);
– Weaknesses and Threats (W-T);
– Weaknesses and Opportunities (W-O).
Although the SWOT analysis date backs to 60’s [9],
Weihrich’s article [17] that introduces SWOT matrix as
a tool for situation analysis, may be the most important
references in this field that has provided some classic
examples.
After that time, SWOT has been pointed in the
most of references of strategic planning. Of course
this analysis seems outdate in comparison with re-
cent approaches such as resource-based planning and
∗ Corresponding author. Tel./Fax: +98 2166903067; E-mail:
ghazinoory@basu.ac.ir.
out the relation between SWOT and two above ap-
proaches.
Despite its wide applications, the SWOT method has
also a number of problems that 7 of them are mentioned
by Hill & Westbrook [3], but most important ones are
as follows:
I- Usually only qualitative examination of envi-
ronmental factors is considered [1];
II- It considers no priority for various factors and
strategies;
III- If the number of factors are more, the number
of adopted strategies will be increased exponen-
tially (for example if the number of each set of
factors of S, W, O, T is equal to 5, the result-
ing number of the combined strategies will be
around 100 which would make the selection of
the appropriate strategy very difficult);
IV- It does not consider the vagueness of the factors.
In most situations, it is not possible to differenti-
ate the factors clearly either they are opportunities or
threats. For example, having no powerful competitor
in the market is an opportunity (for controlling the mar-
ket), and at the same time it may be a threat too (be-
cause it may lead the company to inaction and depres-
sion). As another example, governmental supports of
the company may be both an opportunity (for utilizing
governmental facilities) and a threat (since it may cause

1064-1246/07/$17.00  2007 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved
100 S. Ghazinoory et al. / Fuzzy SWOT analysis
many problems for the company whenever these sup-
ports are cut). As another example, economic flourish-
ing is both an opportunity (since it raises the demand
for the products of the company) and also a threat (since
it would cause a rise in the prices of the raw materials
and machineries needed for the company). 1
Therefore in such ambiguous cases the use of fuzzy
sets is justified to be applied. In fact a factor with certain
membership value belongs to one of the categories.
Hence we recommend the use of fuzzy SWOT matrix.
For example economic flourishing is an opportunity
with 0.7 as membership value and it is a threat with
membership value 0.3.
The purpose of this article is to use of this concept
for combination of internal and external factors so that,
SWOT analysis can considers uncertainty of factors
and determines the priority of strategies.
It seems this method helps to increase the effective-
ness of SWOT methodology and extends its applica-
tions.
2. Application of the fuzzy theory in the strategic
planning
Although up to now, efforts have been made to solve
out the SWOT problems, the usual approach is the use
of prioritization methods. In particular, the Analytic
Hierarchy Process (AHP) has been implemented for
this case [5–7]. Kurttila et al. [6] developed a hybrid
method in order to improve the usage of SWOT analy-
sis and to eliminate the deficiencies about measurement
and evaluation [3,12] by a systematical approach. The
method, which is called A’WOT in [4,10], is in fact
obtained by connecting the Analytic Hierarchy Process
(AHP) with SWOT analysis. In the studies mentioned
above, similar to [6], only weights of the SWOT groups
and factors are determined. In the hierarchical struc-
tures based on the strategic factors, the strategies or the
alternatives did not take part.
Obviously in usual methods of multi criteria decision
making such as AHP [15] and also fuzzy AHP [16],
the aim is to sort the strategies. On the other hand we
aim a methodology to form, evaluate and prioritize the
1 Of course in some cases, one factor is listed in both opportunities
and threats. For example ‘internet’ for campus universities in [2],
but it is an exception because if we do this for most of factors, the
number of factors will extremely increase and previous problem will
be intensified.
strategies and since the information in this respect is
not precise, therefore employing fuzzy sets is justified.
In SWOT analysis some uncertainties can be encoun-
tered in the evaluation of the organization’s internal and
external environment. It can be stated that it is impos-
sible for the opportunities and threats arising from the
external environment of the firm to be always definite
in any condition. Consequently, it is also impossible to
measure the numerical values precisely. Similarly, it is
not always possible to measure or evaluate the strengths
and weaknesses which are the consequences of the as-
sets and abilities of the firm exactly. There is a similar
case in the SWOT factors. For example, it is not easy
to measure the exact values for “political uncertainties”
or “possible problems in the environment, both strate-
gic factors and threats for the organization. Besides,
in SWOT analysis, it is difficult to evaluate the factors
in any case and at anytime in a binary based Aristotle
logic. For instance, it may not be realistic to represent
the image about the goods and services produced by
the firm in two points as sufficient (1)/ insufficient (0).
In real life, there may be different evaluations between
these two. Therefore, it will not be possible to under-
stand the actual situation with an evaluation which does
not assume fuzziness.
The application of fuzzy concept in interpretation
of portfolio matrices has been recommended by [11]
and [14]. In [11], the Industry Attractiveness-Business
Strength matrix is fuzzified using fuzzy weighted av-
erage [14] employs a fuzzy rule-base to handle the
Growth-Share matrix. Despite these researches and be-
cause of different structure of SWOT matrix, we be-
lieve that different approach should be applied for the
SWOT matrix. However, the notion of fuzzy theory
has been applied in strategic planning, but to our infor-
mation, it seems that there is a high scope for applica-
tion of fuzzy sets in SWOT matrix. In today’s rapidly
changing and highly uncertain environment, the strate-
gic decisions have an extremely complex and fuzzy na-
ture [1]. In usual approach of SWOT analysis, strate-
gists have tendency to consider importance of factors
and strategies as the most significant criterion to select
the most appropriate strategies but it was not possible
to do it systematically up to now. In what follows, we
propose an integrated approach to consider the ambi-
guity of internal and external factors as the inputs of
strategic planning process and to make an environment
to prioritize the factors and strategies for selecting the
most appropriate alternatives.
 S. Ghazinoory et al. / Fuzzy SWOT analysis
-10 Weakness
Fig. 1. A scale representation.
3. The algorithm for fuzzifying the SWOT matrix
In this section an algorithm is presented for rectifying
the shortcomings and problems of the SWOT matrix
through the use of fuzzy sets. The steps taken for this
algorithm are as follows:
3.1. Scaling the factors
For each internal factor a suitable membership func-
tion is developed in the range −10 to 10. As each fac-
tor may exhibit two sided meaning, therefore the neg-
ative part shows the weakness and the positive part of
the fuzzy membership function signifies the strength of
the factor. Figure 1 for instance, illustrates such scal-
ing with a Gaussian membership function. The same
statement is true for external factors too.
The reason of using membership function can be
understood using Fig. 1.
In defined domain between the most intensive weak-
ness (−10) and the most intensive strengths (+10), each
factor can specify the level of its belonging to each one
of domain points and the points that its major concen-
tration is on, using proper fuzzy membership function.
In defined domain between the most intensive weak-
ness (−10) and the most intensive strengths (+10), each
factor can specify the level of its belonging to each one
of domain points and the points that its major concen-
tration is on, using proper fuzzy membership function.
The type of membership function is optional but to
simplify the computation of the area location in next
stages, we suggest the triangular membership func-
tions. A “triangular membership functions” can be
specified by three parameters (x p , xm , xo ) as fol-
lows [13]:
101
0 Strength +10
y = triangle(x; xp , xm , xo )


 0, x
xp

(x − xp )/(xm − xp ), xp
x
xm
=

 (xo − x)/(xo − xm ), xm
x
x0

0, xo
x
Where in this paper, x p , xm and xo are called pes-
simistic, probable and optimistic values respectively.
We can make a list of factors including strengths, weak-
nesses, opportunities and threats. The difference be-
tween this stage and the usual SWOT is that for this
case, 3 questions should be asked for each internal fac-
tor from the decision maker:
– What value to be allocated in the range −10 to +10
for pessimistic (xp ), probable (xm ) and optimistic
(xo ) situations for internal factor (−10 to 0 for
the intensity of the weakness and 0 to +10 for the
intensity of the strength)?
The same spread of −10 to 10 is also assumed for
the external factors by the same way of questions and a
triangular membership function would be obtained for
each factor.
3.2. Aggregation of membership functions of internal
and external factors
To extract strategies on the basis of internal and ex-
ternal factors, it is necessary to aggregate the member-
ship functions of the factors. In this regard, we define
a three dimensional surface based on the membership
functions of internal and external factors. This is ap-
plicable using a suitable t-norm such as min operator.
Each point of this surface in SWOT matrix is derived
from the intersection of membership functions of rela-
tive external and internal factors i.e.:
102 S. Ghazinoory et al. / Fuzzy SWOT analysis

Fig. 2. An aggregated graph of internal and external membership functions.

Fig. 3. Surface created by different α (α2 > α1 ).

µS (x, y) = min{µI (x), µE (y)} ship function for internal and external factors respec-
Where µS (x, y) is the membership function of fuzzy tively. A sample of such 3D surface is presented in
SWOT matrix and µI (x) and µE (y) are the member- Fig. 2.
 S. Ghazinoory et al. / Fuzzy SWOT analysis
Internal factor axis (x)
-10
70 %
20 %
Fig. 4. Top view of resultant surface by α-cut.
Extraction of strategies necessitates the decrease in
vagueness within membership functions [11]. To do
this, we define a specific α-cut on the surface, pro-
duced from previous stage. The value of α depends
upon the level of uncertainty we are considering. In-
creasing α, decrease the surface over the α-cut. Thus,
we will be encountered with less uncertainty and vice
versa. Usually the strategists prefer to choose α around
0.5. Because the value of α close to zero increases the
amount of uncertainty to large extent so that deciding
on proper strategy creates a complex problem. On the
other hand, tending α to 1 gives a less domain for in-
teraction. Figure 3 demonstrates the surface created by
different α.
Figure 4 illustrates the section of the surface (area)
created by α-cut corresponding Fig. 3 (α 1 ). Now by
projecting this surface onto the SWOT matrix further
evaluations can be made.
103
0 +10
+10
10 %
External factor axis (y)
0
-10
3.3. Evaluation, prioritization and extracting
strategies
The basis for evaluation of the areas resulting from
previous stages is their distance from the corners of
the matrix. Different criteria may be defined for this
distance. 1) Min of the Euclidean distance of each
corner point from the boundary of the area, 2) min of
the distance of each corner point from the center of
gravity of area, 3) max of the percentage of area in each
quadrant. Selection of each of these 3 criteria will not
leave an impression on the prioritizing, but introducing
them is necessary for better understanding the concept
of distance.
In this paper, the areas which are near the corners
of matrix are preferred to extract the strategies. It is
necessary to consider the criteria for evaluation and
prioritization, but it is not sufficient since if the factors
are not correlated, it will not make any sense to extract
the strategies.
104 S. Ghazinoory et al. / Fuzzy SWOT analysis

Table 1
Internal factors evaluation
Row Internal factors Value
a High influence of the share holders of the company in the government (−1, 2, 3)
b Profit of company has increased in last year (−1, 2, 3)
c New products have succeeded (−2, 1, 3)
d Market share has increased in Europe (−2, 1, 3)
e Company has received HACCP certificate (0, 2, 3)
f The possibility of gaining large amount of loans from the bank (−2, 1, 3)
g Low potentials of the experts and engineers (−5, −4, −1)
h Sale of one old product has decreased (−3, −2, 0)
i Cost of maintenance for old facilities and machines has increased (−5, −4, −3)
j Weakness in marketing (−2, −1, 0)
k Low present profit in proportion to standard level (−2, −1, 0)

Table 2
External factors evaluation
Row External factors Value
q Development of economical systems based on free market in south east Asia (−2, 0, 2)
r Demand has increased for products of company in foreign market (−1, 1, 2)
s High sensitivity for safeness of food stuffs in foreign market (−2, −1, 1)
t Duty free laws in some countries (−1, 0, 3)
u Prohibition against the imports of the foreign competitive products (−2, 1, 2)
v Rapid growth of the market in recent periods (0, 3, 4)
w Cost of production is increasing with more acceleration in proportion to income of company (−3, −2, 0)
x Low share of market comparing other companies (−2, −1, 1)
y Uncertainty of consumption market in south east Asia (−3, −1, 1)
z Disliking of some customers to consume ready foods in south east Asia (−2, −1, 0)

4. A case illustration Next we should define a specific value of α-cut (say

4.1. Determining the membership functions for
factors
In order to evaluate the applicability of the proposed
algorithm, we implemented it in a strategic planning
process for a food corporation in Iran. The corporation
is a successful organization in food industry in Middle
East. The company identifies important internal factors
by questioning its experts with their pessimistic (x p ),
probable (xm ) and optimistic (xo ) values as Table 1.
In addition, the company would identify its major ex-
ternal factors with pessimistic, probable and optimistic
values as Table 2.
4.2. Aggregation of membership functions of internal
and external factors
Aggregation of membership functions of factors “a”
and “q” is based on the Fig. 5. Aggregation of the other
internal and external factors will be done in the same
way. It means that 2 by 2 combinations will be done for
all factors and extracted strategies will be prioritized
in the next stage. As we can see in Fig. 5, the result
of aggregation of these two membership functions will
lead to the formation of a pyramid.
α = 0.2) as α become closer to 1, uncertainty decrease
but flexibility of extracted strategies will also decrease
instead. By replacing Z with 0.2 in the equations of
each side of pyramid, the location of the area could be
calculated as shown in Fig. 6.
The resultant area of aggregation of factors a and q
could be seen in Fig. 7.
4.3. Evaluation, prioritization and extracting
strategies
To assess the vicinity of areas to corners, we calculate
the percentage of areas in each quadrant of SWOT
matrix which is presented in Table 3.
As we can see in Table 3, beside other factors, the
achieved areas for the factors (g/v), (g/w), (g/z), (h/v),
(h/w), (h/z), (i/v), (i/w), (i/z), (j/v), (j/w), (j/z), (k/v),
(k/w), (k/z) are closer to the corners of matrix. There-
fore these strategies are recommended:
– The resulting strategy from the factors g/v, g/w
and g/z may be “training the engineers to reduce
the cost of production and training the commercial
experts for powerful marketing and advertising in
south East Asia”.
 S. Ghazinoory et al. / Fuzzy SWOT analysis 105

Fig. 5. Aggregation of membership functions of factors a and q.

Fig. 6. α-cut with α = 0.2.

– The resulting strategy from the factors h/v, h/w,
and h/z may be “to remove the old products for re-
ducing cost of production and opposing customer
dissatisfaction”.
– The resulting strategy from the factors i/v, i/w,
and i/z may be “replacement of old equipment
to respond to the needs of the market and price
reduction”.
– The resulting strategy from the factors j/v, j/w, and
j/z may be “investment in marketing to improve
the market share and customer satisfaction”.
It is noteworthy to mention that it is not necessary
for all 110 areas obtained to be meaningful regions for
making strategy. That is, it is possible that some of
the internal and external factors may have not relations
and therefore we fail to extract a strategy (for example
factors k/v, k/w or k/z). In this way, the company may
continue to extract strategies from the next priorities as
far as it pleases.
In classical SWOT analysis for this case, there are
110 alternatives with equal chance to select and it is un-
clear for strategist which factors should be selected for
106 S. Ghazinoory et al. / Fuzzy SWOT analysis

-10 Internal factor axis (x) +10

+10

External factor axis (y)

Factors a and q

6.25% 43.75 %

6.25%
43.75 %

3
4

-10

Fig. 7. Resultant area of factors a and q.

extracting the most important strategies, while in pre-
sented method we know that we should begin with fac-
tors which take priority over the others and confusion of
deciding in classical method is changed to systematic
evaluation and selection of the factors and extraction
of strategies, moreover the ambiguity and uncertainty
of the factors (which described in Section 1) can be
considered during the process of decision making.
5. Discussion
It was mentioned that although SWOT analysis is
widely used in strategic researches, but sill there are
limitations that in case of removing them, this analysis
will be more efficient and with higher validity.
The method that was presented in this article can
remove the limitations discussed in introduced to some
extent:
– Fuzzy theory can convert quantitative to member-
ship function in addition to qualitative factors and
has recognized methods for this propose [14];
– Prioritization of extracted strategies is possible;
– Screening strategies and select important ones
from a large number;
– Vagueness of factors is considered using fuzzy the-
ory.
In spite of these advantages, this method has its lim-
itations:
– Fuzzification have different methods and tech-
niques [18] that selecting each of them will leave
an impression on results and particularly, value
of α-cut can make difference in results and fuzzi-
fication method and amount of α is depended n
research and his/her experience.
– Amount of necessary calculations is almost high
like most of other fuzzy techniques.
– Selecting pair of factors that lead to meaningful
strategies is difficult and need experience.
Totally, after studying weaknesses and strengths of
this method, we can call it a step forward in SWOT
analysis.
 S. Ghazinoory et al. / Fuzzy SWOT analysis 107

Table 3
Percentage of areas in each quadrant
Factors Percentage of Percentage Percentage Percentage Factors Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage
of area in of area in of area in of area in of area in of area in of area in of area in
quadrant 1 quadrant 2 quadrant 3 quadrant 4 quadrant 1 quadrant 2 quadrant 3 quadrant 4
a and q 43.75 6.25 6.25 43.75 f and v 65 35 0 0
a and r 65.625 9.375 3.125 21.875 f and w 0 0 35 65
a and s 21.875 3.125 9.375 65.625 f and x 16.25 8.75 26.25 48.75
a and t 65.625 9.375 3.125 21.875 f and y 12.1875 0 28.4375 52.8125
a and u 49.21875 7.03125 5.46875 38.28125 f and z 0 0 35 65
a and v 87.5 12.5 0 0 g and q 0 50 50 0
a and w 0 0 12.5 87.5 g and r 0 75 25 0
a and x 21.875 3.125 9.375 65.625 g and s 0 25 75 0
a and y 16.40625 0 10.15625 71.09375 g and t 0 75 25 0
a and z 0 0 12.5 87.5 g and u 0 56.25 43.75 0
b and q 43.75 6.25 6.25 43.75 g and v 0 100 0 0
b and r 65.625 9.375 3.125 21.875 g and w 0 0 100 0
b and s 21.875 3.125 9.375 65.625 g and x 0 25 75 0
b and t 65.625 9.375 3.125 21.875 g and y 0 18.75 81.25 0
b and u 49.21875 7.03125 5.46875 38.28125 g and z 0 0 100 0
b and v 87.5 12.5 0 0 h and q 0 50 50 0
b and w 0 0 12.5 87.5 h and r 0 75 25 0
b and x 21.875 3.125 9.375 65.625 h and s 0 25 75 0
b and y 16.40625 0 10.15625 71.09375 h and t 0 75 25 0
b and z 0 0 12.5 87.5 h and u 0 56.25 43.75 0
c and q 32.5 17.5 17.5 32.5 h and v 0 100 0 0
c and r 48.75 26.25 8.75 16.25 h and w 0 0 100 0
c and s 16.25 8.75 26.25 48.75 h and x 0 25 75 0
c and t 48.75 26.25 8.75 16.25 h and y 0 18.75 81.25 0
c and u 36.5625 19.6875 15.3125 28.4375 h and z 0 0 100 0
c and v 65 35 0 0 i and q 0 50 50 0
c and w 0 0 35 65 i and r 0 75 25 0
c and x 16.25 8.75 26.25 48.75 i and s 0 25 75 0
c and y 12.1875 0 28.4375 52.8125 i and t 0 75 25 0
c and z 0 0 35 65 i and u 0 56.25 43.75 0
d and q 32.5 17.5 17.5 32.5 i and v 0 100 0 0
d and r 48.75 26.25 8.75 16.25 i and w 0 0 100 0
d and s 16.25 8.75 26.25 48.75 i and x 0 25 75 0
d and t 48.75 26.25 8.75 16.25 i and y 0 18.75 81.25 0
d and u 36.5625 19.6875 15.3125 28.4375 i and z 0 0 100 0
d and v 65 35 0 0 j and q 0 50 50 0
d and w 0 0 35 65 j and r 0 75 25 0
d and x 16.25 8.75 26.25 48.75 j and s 0 25 75 0
d and y 12.1875 0 28.4375 52.8125 j and t 0 75 25 0
d and z 0 0 35 65 j and u 0 56.25 43.75 0
e and q 35 15 15 35 j and v 0 100 0 0
e and r 52.5 22.5 7.5 17.5 j and w 0 0 100 0
e and s 17.5 7.5 22.5 52.5 j and x 0 25 75 0
e and t 52.5 22.5 7.5 17.5 j and y 0 18.75 81.25 0
e and u 39.3 16.8 13.1 30.6 j and z 0 0 100 0
e and v 70 30 0 0 k and q 0 50 50 0
e and w 0 0 30 70 k and r 0 75 25 0
e and x 17.5 7.5 22.5 52.5 k and s 0 25 75 0
e and y 13.1 5.6 24.3 56.8 k and t 0 75 25 0
e and z 0 0 30 70 k and u 0 56.25 43.75 0
f and q 32.5 17.5 17.5 32.5 k and v 0 100 0 0
f and r 48.75 26.25 8.75 16.25 k and w 0 0 100 0
f and s 16.25 8.75 26.25 48.75 k and x 0 25 75 0
f and t 48.75 26.25 8.75 16.25 k and y 0 18.75 81.25 0
f and u 36.5625 19.6875 15.3125 28.4375 k and z 0 0 100 0
 108 S. Ghazinoory et al. / Fuzzy SWOT analysis
6. Conclusion
In this article some of the weaknesses of the SWOT
matrix are pointed out and efforts were made to solve
them using the fuzzy approach. By quantifying the fac-
tors through the definition of fuzzy membership func-
tions, evaluation of the factors and strategies is made
possible and both qualitative and quantitative aspects of
the factors are considered. The major approach of the
presented algorithm was that in most cases the inter-
nal and external factors can not be fully recognized as
positive or negative, because their impact on the orga-
nization could be observed within a wide spread which
may include both positive and negative effects.
On the other hand, the aggregation of internal and
external factors which leads to extract a strategy in a
usual matrix would depend on the intensity and influ-
ence of the factors in this algorithm. Hence, these fuzzy
membership functions and the extracted strategies can
be well prioritized and it may be possible to concentrate
upon strategies with higher priority in implementation
stage.
Although this paper has attempted to extract strate-
gies based on fuzzy approach, the fuzzy strategy has
not been defined. It seems now that the origin of the
strategy (that is the internal and the external factors) and
the tools for its extraction (SWOT) can be defined in
fuzzy environment, but the crisp strategy is extracted as
the result of these factors and then in the next step and
future researches the fuzzy strategy should be defined.
Perhaps the solution for this problem would be to
extract fuzzy strategies and then to defuzzify them dur-
ing a period of time based on the trend of changes.
Different researchers are invited to solve this problem.
A future study can be to combine more than 2 fuzzy
factors for extracting a single strategy.
References
[1] G. Buyukozkan and O. Feyzioglu, A fuzzy logic based deci-
sion making approach for new product development, Interna-
tional Journal of Production Economics 90 (2002), 27–45.
View publication stats
[2] R.G. Dyson, Strategic development and SWOT analysis at
the University of Warwick, European Journal Of Operational
Research 152 (2004), 631–640.
[3] T. Hill and R. Westbrook, SWOT Analysis: It’s Time for a
Product Recall, Long Range Planning 30(1) (1997), 46–52.
[4] M. Kajanus, J. Kangas and M. Kurttila, The use of value
focused thinking and the A’WOT hybrid method in tourism
management, Tourism Management 25 (2004), 499–506.
[5] M. Kurttila, J. Kangas, M. Pesonen, M. Kajanus and P.
Heinonen, Using AHP and SWOT Analysis in Assessing Prior-
ities of Alternative Strategies in Forest Planning, International
Symposium on Advanced Technology in Environmental and
Natural Resources, Rovaniemi, Finland, 8–12 June 1998.
[6] M. Kurttila, M. Pesonen, J. Kangas and M. Kajanus, Utilizing
the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in SWOT analysis – A
hybrid method and its application to a forest certification case,
Forest Policy and Economics 1(1) (2000), 41–52.
[7] M. Kurttila, J. Kangas and M. Kajanus, The use of value
focused thinking and the A’WOT hybrid method in tourism
management, Tourism Management 25(4) (2004), 499–506.
[8] Y. Lai and C. Hwang, Fuzzy mathematical programming,
Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1992.
[9] E.P. Learned, C.R. Christensen, K.E. Andrews and W.D. Guth,
Business Policy: Text and Cases, Irwin, Homewood, IL, 1965.
[10] L.A. Leskinen, P. Leskinen, M. Kurttila, J. Kangas and M.
Kajanus, Adapting modern strategic decision support tools
in the participatory strategy process-a case study of a forest
research station, Forest Policy and Economics, Article (2004),
in press.
[11] C. Lin and P.J. Hsieh, A fuzzy decision support system for
strategic portfolio management, Decision Support Systems 38
(2003), 383–398.
[12] M.H.B. McDonald, The Marketing Planner, Oxford:Butter-
worth-Heinemann, 1993.
[13] P. Melin and O. Castillo, Modeling, simulation and control of
non-linear dynamical systems, Taylor and Francis 11 (2002),
New Fetter Lane, London.
[14] E. Pap, Z. Bosnjak and S. Bosnjak, Application of fuzzy sets
with different t-norms in the interpretation of portfolio ma-
trices in strategic management, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 114
(2000), 123–131.
[15] T.L. Saaty, The analytic hierarchic process, McGraw-Hill In-
ternational, New York, 1980.
[16] E. Triantaphyllou, Multi-criteria decision making methods:
A comparative study, Kluwer Academic Publishers, London,
2000.
[17] H. Weihrich, The TOWS matrix-a tool for situational analysis,
J. Long Range Plan 15(2) (1982).
[18] H.J. Zimmermann, Theory of fuzzy sets and its application,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 1996.