Strategic Management and Business PolicyEssay Preview: Strategic Management and Business PolicyReport this essayThe SWOT analysis is used to describe the Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats that face a corporation. The purpose of this analysis is to identify the particular competencies that the corporation has as well as to identify the opportunities that they are facing but unable to take advantage of due to the lack of the necessary resources. This analysis allows managers to decide if they should invest their resources to better their strengths or on their “weaknesses to at least make them competitive” (Hunger & Wheelen, 2002, p. 109).
The two main advantages of the SWOT analysis are that it recognizes the impact the external environment can have on any firm and also when compared to other models, this analysis can be relatively simpler. Some disadvantages of this analysis include the fact that this analysis does not “suggest how the firm should go about identifying and assessing its specific strengths and weaknesses and specific environmental opportunities and threats” (Self, Weiner & Dunlop, n.d., n.p.). Criticisms of this analysis also includes the fact that it creates lengthy lists, does not use any weights to illustrate priorities and uses vague words and phrases. Also, some factors end up as such that they could fit in two categories at the same time. This analysis also poses no obligations for the opinions to be supported with any data or analysis and therefore requires only a single level of analysis. Also, it is said that this mode of analysis has no logical link to strategy implementation.
[Footnote]
[1] A number of economists have raised the issue in the courts of Alberta. However, the legal approach has the following characteristics: it does not limit the level of analysis per se, nor is it limited to the analysis for which it is the result of empirical analysis. Instead, for financial institutions, it provides a means to assess the value of one’s investments. It requires participants to accept it and the risk is assessed in light of their own performance and performance relative to financial institutions. For these reasons, it has become a highly subjective measure of investment-performance, which will ultimately lead to a high level of bias against investment performance. The analysis is conducted by private third parties and results are presented in abstract form or in a written form, provided the analysis is conducted in their own community, as they deem necessary for their own professional and financial use.
[2] It provides a means for members to be more informed about the financial institutions investment-performance data that are being used by financial and financial institutions. They then can respond by making the use of them more accessible to them. They could also use this research to find useful guidance on key issues.
[3] The use of the SWOT methodology is based on the fact that economists agree that the SWOT analysis does not capture the financial institutions’ risks and opportunities. In other words, economists may, for example, have a different perspective on financial risk and it is hard to know whether economists agree on all sectors of financial and economic life or only the three. Furthermore, they should not be made to believe that a financial statement is necessarily the best decision they have to make. In any event, it is impossible for financial institutions to be forced to choose that path without providing them with good financial information.
[4] As for the use of the SWOT methodology, economists agree that most financial institutions will use the methodology and will not give further feedback.
[5] In an effort to address concerns about the methodology, the SBI (Strategic Analysis Research Institute) recently issued a letter to SBI and asked them to reconsider their endorsement and review new methodological standards.
[6] The SBI has provided data on the different types of financial institutions’ responses to the SWOT analysis.
[7] The results of that survey are available here.
[8] The information presented here was obtained from the SWOT data and is subject to the availability of additional data, which the SBI has not granted.
[9] To enable further analysis, additional data was collected on financial institutions’ participation, their participation in financial risk mitigation programs, their financial investments and their financial activities.
[10] While the data are representative of SBI’s research and methodology, it is reasonable to conclude that participation by financial institutions could have a significant impact on the financial outcomes of the firm. If participation were to decrease, which would not necessarily be as large an impact, most financial institutions would have been less likely to consider financial risk mitigation strategies as they now do.
[11] As noted above, the effect of investment decisions upon the financial outcomes differs primarily from place to place. This is because the effect of economic action is not specific to markets, but instead can also vary across different countries. When financial institutions choose to participate in financial risk and mitigation programs to achieve sustainable global growth, investments in this type of business do result in a loss in investment levels. Therefore, the impact of investment decisions upon the financial results is more similar to financial investment decisions in other countries. For example, countries that have more large investment banks receive smaller return on capital than countries that don’t have the money to invest heavily enough and investment in such countries is not as effective as those countries receiving less and lower return on investment. However, for a financial institution that is directly involved in providing financial risk and mitigation strategies to investors, investment decisions have a substantial effect
[Footnote]
[1] A number of economists have raised the issue in the courts of Alberta. However, the legal approach has the following characteristics: it does not limit the level of analysis per se, nor is it limited to the analysis for which it is the result of empirical analysis. Instead, for financial institutions, it provides a means to assess the value of one’s investments. It requires participants to accept it and the risk is assessed in light of their own performance and performance relative to financial institutions. For these reasons, it has become a highly subjective measure of investment-performance, which will ultimately lead to a high level of bias against investment performance. The analysis is conducted by private third parties and results are presented in abstract form or in a written form, provided the analysis is conducted in their own community, as they deem necessary for their own professional and financial use.
[2] It provides a means for members to be more informed about the financial institutions investment-performance data that are being used by financial and financial institutions. They then can respond by making the use of them more accessible to them. They could also use this research to find useful guidance on key issues.
[3] The use of the SWOT methodology is based on the fact that economists agree that the SWOT analysis does not capture the financial institutions’ risks and opportunities. In other words, economists may, for example, have a different perspective on financial risk and it is hard to know whether economists agree on all sectors of financial and economic life or only the three. Furthermore, they should not be made to believe that a financial statement is necessarily the best decision they have to make. In any event, it is impossible for financial institutions to be forced to choose that path without providing them with good financial information.
[4] As for the use of the SWOT methodology, economists agree that most financial institutions will use the methodology and will not give further feedback.
[5] In an effort to address concerns about the methodology, the SBI (Strategic Analysis Research Institute) recently issued a letter to SBI and asked them to reconsider their endorsement and review new methodological standards.
[6] The SBI has provided data on the different types of financial institutions’ responses to the SWOT analysis.
[7] The results of that survey are available here.
[8] The information presented here was obtained from the SWOT data and is subject to the availability of additional data, which the SBI has not granted.
[9] To enable further analysis, additional data was collected on financial institutions’ participation, their participation in financial risk mitigation programs, their financial investments and their financial activities.
[10] While the data are representative of SBI’s research and methodology, it is reasonable to conclude that participation by financial institutions could have a significant impact on the financial outcomes of the firm. If participation were to decrease, which would not necessarily be as large an impact, most financial institutions would have been less likely to consider financial risk mitigation strategies as they now do.
[11] As noted above, the effect of investment decisions upon the financial outcomes differs primarily from place to place. This is because the effect of economic action is not specific to markets, but instead can also vary across different countries. When financial institutions choose to participate in financial risk and mitigation programs to achieve sustainable global growth, investments in this type of business do result in a loss in investment levels. Therefore, the impact of investment decisions upon the financial results is more similar to financial investment decisions in other countries. For example, countries that have more large investment banks receive smaller return on capital than countries that don’t have the money to invest heavily enough and investment in such countries is not as effective as those countries receiving less and lower return on investment. However, for a financial institution that is directly involved in providing financial risk and mitigation strategies to investors, investment decisions have a substantial effect