Making use of MCDS methods in SWOT analysis—Lessons learnt in strategic natural resources management

Connecting Multiple Criteria Decision Support (MCDS) methods with SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) analysis yields analytical priorities for the SWOT factors and makes them commensurable. Decision alternatives can also be evaluated with respect to each SWOT factor. SWOT analys...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Forest policy and economics 2012-07, Vol.20, p.1-9
Hauptverfasser: Kajanus, Miika, Leskinen, Pekka, Kurttila, Mikko, Kangas, Jyrki
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 9
container_issue
container_start_page 1
container_title Forest policy and economics
container_volume 20
creator Kajanus, Miika
Leskinen, Pekka
Kurttila, Mikko
Kangas, Jyrki
description Connecting Multiple Criteria Decision Support (MCDS) methods with SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) analysis yields analytical priorities for the SWOT factors and makes them commensurable. Decision alternatives can also be evaluated with respect to each SWOT factor. SWOT analysis provides the basic frame for analyses of operational environments to support strategic decision-making. MCDS methods enhance SWOT analysis and its results so that alternative strategic decisions can be prioritised overall. This benefits the utilisation of the SWOT-results in the decision making process. The methods also help in defining the action line alternatives that are based on the recognition of the most important operational environmental factors and their possible interdependencies. The MCDS method applied initially and most often within the SWOT framework has been the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), and the hybrid approach has been called the A'WOT. Any MCDS method, and its prioritisation principles, can, however, be applied and the existence of different techniques allows the adaptation of use of the MCDS method according to the needs of the decision-maker and the specific planning situation. This paper reviews the evolution of the A'WOT method with AHP, SMART and SMAA-O techniques applied within SWOT, and studies their applicability and the MCDS methods more generally, through required assessment techniques of decision-makers' preferences. The usability of the techniques is analysed with case studies in the field of strategic natural resources management planning. The article focuses mainly on analysis of the differences in MCDS methods from the perspective of the planning situation approached by SWOT.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.forpol.2012.03.005
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1151042970</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1389934112000871</els_id><sourcerecordid>1151042970</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-1679c7e746251dd7fac19afd23407504b2ca50e752071dae2cccf6b8c9349da83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc9u1DAQhyNEJUrLGyDhI5eEsZ3EyQUJLeWPtFUP24qj5TrjxUtiL54Eqbc-RJ-QJ8GrcIbTzOH7zWjmK4rXHCoOvH13qFxMxzhWArioQFYAzbPinHdKlAoaeJ572fVlL2v-onhJdADgCrg8L9y1-eHDni2ELDp2vfm4YxPO3-NAzAe2-3Zzy0ww4wN5-v34tEWiGIiNaFKYTwTNycy495YFMy_JjCwhxSVZJDbl5B4nDPNlcebMSPjqb70o7j5d3W6-lNubz183H7allX07l7xVvVWo6lY0fBiUM5b3xg1C1qAaqO-FNQ2gagQoPhgU1lrX3nc2X9YPppMXxdt17jHFnwvSrCdPFsfRBIwLac4bDrXoFfwfBVl3ohaiyWi9ojZFooROH5OfTHrIkD4Z0Ae9GtAnAxqkzgZy7M0acyZqs0-e9N0uA_Xp-7LtVSberwTmn_zymDRZj8Hi4BPaWQ_R_3vFHxoWm34</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1034824225</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Making use of MCDS methods in SWOT analysis—Lessons learnt in strategic natural resources management</title><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Kajanus, Miika ; Leskinen, Pekka ; Kurttila, Mikko ; Kangas, Jyrki</creator><creatorcontrib>Kajanus, Miika ; Leskinen, Pekka ; Kurttila, Mikko ; Kangas, Jyrki</creatorcontrib><description>Connecting Multiple Criteria Decision Support (MCDS) methods with SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) analysis yields analytical priorities for the SWOT factors and makes them commensurable. Decision alternatives can also be evaluated with respect to each SWOT factor. SWOT analysis provides the basic frame for analyses of operational environments to support strategic decision-making. MCDS methods enhance SWOT analysis and its results so that alternative strategic decisions can be prioritised overall. This benefits the utilisation of the SWOT-results in the decision making process. The methods also help in defining the action line alternatives that are based on the recognition of the most important operational environmental factors and their possible interdependencies. The MCDS method applied initially and most often within the SWOT framework has been the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), and the hybrid approach has been called the A'WOT. Any MCDS method, and its prioritisation principles, can, however, be applied and the existence of different techniques allows the adaptation of use of the MCDS method according to the needs of the decision-maker and the specific planning situation. This paper reviews the evolution of the A'WOT method with AHP, SMART and SMAA-O techniques applied within SWOT, and studies their applicability and the MCDS methods more generally, through required assessment techniques of decision-makers' preferences. The usability of the techniques is analysed with case studies in the field of strategic natural resources management planning. The article focuses mainly on analysis of the differences in MCDS methods from the perspective of the planning situation approached by SWOT.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1389-9341</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-7050</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2012.03.005</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>AHP ; Benefits ; case studies ; Decision-making ; Economics ; environmental factors ; Environmental policy ; Forestry ; natural resource management ; Natural resources ; planning ; prioritization ; SMAA-O ; SMART ; Strategic planning ; SWOT ; TOWS</subject><ispartof>Forest policy and economics, 2012-07, Vol.20, p.1-9</ispartof><rights>2012 Elsevier B.V.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-1679c7e746251dd7fac19afd23407504b2ca50e752071dae2cccf6b8c9349da83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-1679c7e746251dd7fac19afd23407504b2ca50e752071dae2cccf6b8c9349da83</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.03.005$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27865,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kajanus, Miika</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leskinen, Pekka</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kurttila, Mikko</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kangas, Jyrki</creatorcontrib><title>Making use of MCDS methods in SWOT analysis—Lessons learnt in strategic natural resources management</title><title>Forest policy and economics</title><description>Connecting Multiple Criteria Decision Support (MCDS) methods with SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) analysis yields analytical priorities for the SWOT factors and makes them commensurable. Decision alternatives can also be evaluated with respect to each SWOT factor. SWOT analysis provides the basic frame for analyses of operational environments to support strategic decision-making. MCDS methods enhance SWOT analysis and its results so that alternative strategic decisions can be prioritised overall. This benefits the utilisation of the SWOT-results in the decision making process. The methods also help in defining the action line alternatives that are based on the recognition of the most important operational environmental factors and their possible interdependencies. The MCDS method applied initially and most often within the SWOT framework has been the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), and the hybrid approach has been called the A'WOT. Any MCDS method, and its prioritisation principles, can, however, be applied and the existence of different techniques allows the adaptation of use of the MCDS method according to the needs of the decision-maker and the specific planning situation. This paper reviews the evolution of the A'WOT method with AHP, SMART and SMAA-O techniques applied within SWOT, and studies their applicability and the MCDS methods more generally, through required assessment techniques of decision-makers' preferences. The usability of the techniques is analysed with case studies in the field of strategic natural resources management planning. The article focuses mainly on analysis of the differences in MCDS methods from the perspective of the planning situation approached by SWOT.</description><subject>AHP</subject><subject>Benefits</subject><subject>case studies</subject><subject>Decision-making</subject><subject>Economics</subject><subject>environmental factors</subject><subject>Environmental policy</subject><subject>Forestry</subject><subject>natural resource management</subject><subject>Natural resources</subject><subject>planning</subject><subject>prioritization</subject><subject>SMAA-O</subject><subject>SMART</subject><subject>Strategic planning</subject><subject>SWOT</subject><subject>TOWS</subject><issn>1389-9341</issn><issn>1872-7050</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkc9u1DAQhyNEJUrLGyDhI5eEsZ3EyQUJLeWPtFUP24qj5TrjxUtiL54Eqbc-RJ-QJ8GrcIbTzOH7zWjmK4rXHCoOvH13qFxMxzhWArioQFYAzbPinHdKlAoaeJ572fVlL2v-onhJdADgCrg8L9y1-eHDni2ELDp2vfm4YxPO3-NAzAe2-3Zzy0ww4wN5-v34tEWiGIiNaFKYTwTNycy495YFMy_JjCwhxSVZJDbl5B4nDPNlcebMSPjqb70o7j5d3W6-lNubz183H7allX07l7xVvVWo6lY0fBiUM5b3xg1C1qAaqO-FNQ2gagQoPhgU1lrX3nc2X9YPppMXxdt17jHFnwvSrCdPFsfRBIwLac4bDrXoFfwfBVl3ohaiyWi9ojZFooROH5OfTHrIkD4Z0Ae9GtAnAxqkzgZy7M0acyZqs0-e9N0uA_Xp-7LtVSberwTmn_zymDRZj8Hi4BPaWQ_R_3vFHxoWm34</recordid><startdate>20120701</startdate><enddate>20120701</enddate><creator>Kajanus, Miika</creator><creator>Leskinen, Pekka</creator><creator>Kurttila, Mikko</creator><creator>Kangas, Jyrki</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120701</creationdate><title>Making use of MCDS methods in SWOT analysis—Lessons learnt in strategic natural resources management</title><author>Kajanus, Miika ; Leskinen, Pekka ; Kurttila, Mikko ; Kangas, Jyrki</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-1679c7e746251dd7fac19afd23407504b2ca50e752071dae2cccf6b8c9349da83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>AHP</topic><topic>Benefits</topic><topic>case studies</topic><topic>Decision-making</topic><topic>Economics</topic><topic>environmental factors</topic><topic>Environmental policy</topic><topic>Forestry</topic><topic>natural resource management</topic><topic>Natural resources</topic><topic>planning</topic><topic>prioritization</topic><topic>SMAA-O</topic><topic>SMART</topic><topic>Strategic planning</topic><topic>SWOT</topic><topic>TOWS</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kajanus, Miika</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leskinen, Pekka</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kurttila, Mikko</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kangas, Jyrki</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Forest policy and economics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kajanus, Miika</au><au>Leskinen, Pekka</au><au>Kurttila, Mikko</au><au>Kangas, Jyrki</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Making use of MCDS methods in SWOT analysis—Lessons learnt in strategic natural resources management</atitle><jtitle>Forest policy and economics</jtitle><date>2012-07-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>20</volume><spage>1</spage><epage>9</epage><pages>1-9</pages><issn>1389-9341</issn><eissn>1872-7050</eissn><abstract>Connecting Multiple Criteria Decision Support (MCDS) methods with SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) analysis yields analytical priorities for the SWOT factors and makes them commensurable. Decision alternatives can also be evaluated with respect to each SWOT factor. SWOT analysis provides the basic frame for analyses of operational environments to support strategic decision-making. MCDS methods enhance SWOT analysis and its results so that alternative strategic decisions can be prioritised overall. This benefits the utilisation of the SWOT-results in the decision making process. The methods also help in defining the action line alternatives that are based on the recognition of the most important operational environmental factors and their possible interdependencies. The MCDS method applied initially and most often within the SWOT framework has been the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), and the hybrid approach has been called the A'WOT. Any MCDS method, and its prioritisation principles, can, however, be applied and the existence of different techniques allows the adaptation of use of the MCDS method according to the needs of the decision-maker and the specific planning situation. This paper reviews the evolution of the A'WOT method with AHP, SMART and SMAA-O techniques applied within SWOT, and studies their applicability and the MCDS methods more generally, through required assessment techniques of decision-makers' preferences. The usability of the techniques is analysed with case studies in the field of strategic natural resources management planning. The article focuses mainly on analysis of the differences in MCDS methods from the perspective of the planning situation approached by SWOT.</abstract><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><doi>10.1016/j.forpol.2012.03.005</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1389-9341
ispartof Forest policy and economics, 2012-07, Vol.20, p.1-9
issn 1389-9341
1872-7050
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1151042970
source PAIS Index; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)
subjects AHP
Benefits
case studies
Decision-making
Economics
environmental factors
Environmental policy
Forestry
natural resource management
Natural resources
planning
prioritization
SMAA-O
SMART
Strategic planning
SWOT
TOWS
title Making use of MCDS methods in SWOT analysis—Lessons learnt in strategic natural resources management
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T22%3A10%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Making%20use%20of%20MCDS%20methods%20in%20SWOT%20analysis%E2%80%94Lessons%20learnt%20in%20strategic%20natural%20resources%20management&rft.jtitle=Forest%20policy%20and%20economics&rft.au=Kajanus,%20Miika&rft.date=2012-07-01&rft.volume=20&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=9&rft.pages=1-9&rft.issn=1389-9341&rft.eissn=1872-7050&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.03.005&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1151042970%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1034824225&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S1389934112000871&rfr_iscdi=true