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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Forest policy and economics 2012-07, Vol.20, p.1-9 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
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 |