From SOFT approach to SWOT analysis, a historical reconstruction

IF 0.9 Q4 MANAGEMENT
Richard W. Puyt, Finn Birger Lie, Dag Øivind Madsen
{"title":"From SOFT approach to SWOT analysis, a historical reconstruction","authors":"Richard W. Puyt, Finn Birger Lie, Dag Øivind Madsen","doi":"10.1108/jmh-05-2023-0047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>The purpose of this study is to revisit the conventional wisdom about a key contribution [i.e. strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats (SWOT) analysis] in the field of strategic management. The societal context and the role of academics, consultants and executives is taken into account in the emergence of SWOT analysis during the 1960–1980 period as a pivotal development within the broader context of the satisfactory, opportunities, faults, threats (SOFT) approach. The authors report on both the content and the approach, so that other scholars seeking to invigorate indigenous theories and/or underreported strategy practices will thrive.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>Applying a historiographic approach, the authors introduce an evidence-based methodology for interpreting historical sources. This methodology incorporates source criticism, triangulation and hermeneutical interpretation, drawing upon insights from robust evidence through three iterative stages.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>The underreporting of the SOFT approach/SWOT analysis can be attributed to several factors, including strategy tools being integrated into planning frameworks rather than being published as standalone materials; restricted circulation of crucial long-range planning service/theory and practice of planning reports due to copyright limitations; restricted access to the Stanford Research Institute Planning Library in California; and the enduring popularity of SOFT and SWOT variations, driven in part by their memorable acronyms.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality</h3>\n<p>In the spirit of a renaissance in strategic planning research, the authors unveil novel theoretical and social connections in the emergence of SWOT analysis by combining evidence from both theory and practice and delving into previously unexplored areas.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Research implications</h3>\n<p>Caution is advised for scholars who examine the discrete time frame of 1960–1980 through mere bibliometric techniques. This study underscores the risks associated with gathering incomplete and/or inaccurate data, emphasizing the importance of triangulating evidence beyond scholarly databases. The paradigm shift of strategic management research due to the advent of large language models poses new challenges and the risk of conserving and perpetuating academic urban legends, myths and lies if training data is not adequately curated.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":45819,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management History","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Management History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jmh-05-2023-0047","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to revisit the conventional wisdom about a key contribution [i.e. strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats (SWOT) analysis] in the field of strategic management. The societal context and the role of academics, consultants and executives is taken into account in the emergence of SWOT analysis during the 1960–1980 period as a pivotal development within the broader context of the satisfactory, opportunities, faults, threats (SOFT) approach. The authors report on both the content and the approach, so that other scholars seeking to invigorate indigenous theories and/or underreported strategy practices will thrive.

Design/methodology/approach

Applying a historiographic approach, the authors introduce an evidence-based methodology for interpreting historical sources. This methodology incorporates source criticism, triangulation and hermeneutical interpretation, drawing upon insights from robust evidence through three iterative stages.

Findings

The underreporting of the SOFT approach/SWOT analysis can be attributed to several factors, including strategy tools being integrated into planning frameworks rather than being published as standalone materials; restricted circulation of crucial long-range planning service/theory and practice of planning reports due to copyright limitations; restricted access to the Stanford Research Institute Planning Library in California; and the enduring popularity of SOFT and SWOT variations, driven in part by their memorable acronyms.

Originality

In the spirit of a renaissance in strategic planning research, the authors unveil novel theoretical and social connections in the emergence of SWOT analysis by combining evidence from both theory and practice and delving into previously unexplored areas.

Research implications

Caution is advised for scholars who examine the discrete time frame of 1960–1980 through mere bibliometric techniques. This study underscores the risks associated with gathering incomplete and/or inaccurate data, emphasizing the importance of triangulating evidence beyond scholarly databases. The paradigm shift of strategic management research due to the advent of large language models poses new challenges and the risk of conserving and perpetuating academic urban legends, myths and lies if training data is not adequately curated.

从 SOFT 方法到 SWOT 分析的历史重构
本研究的目的是重新审视关于战略管理领域的一项重要贡献[即优势、劣势、机会和威胁(SWOT)分析]的传统观点。本研究考虑了 1960-1980 年间 SWOT 分析法出现的社会背景以及学者、顾问和高管所扮演的角色,将其视为 "满意、机会、缺陷、威胁"(SOFT)分析法大背景下的一项关键发展。作者对该书的内容和方法进行了报告,从而使其他寻求振兴本土理论和/或未被充分报道的战略实践的学者能够蓬勃发展。设计/方法/途径作者运用历史学方法,介绍了一种基于证据的方法来解释历史资料。该方法结合了史料批判、三角测量和诠释学解释,通过三个迭代阶段从有力的证据中汲取见解。研究结果对SOFT方法/SWOT分析的报道不足可归因于几个因素,包括战略工具被整合到规划框架中,而不是作为独立的材料出版;由于版权限制,重要的长期规划服务/规划理论与实践报告的发行受到限制;访问加利福尼亚州斯坦福研究所规划图书馆受到限制;以及SOFT和SWOT变体的持久流行,部分原因是其令人难忘的首字母缩略词。独创性作者本着战略规划研究复兴的精神,将理论和实践中的证据结合起来,并深入到以前未曾探索过的领域,揭示了 SWOT 分析出现过程中的新的理论和社会联系。研究意义对于仅通过文献计量技术研究 1960-1980 年这一离散时间段的学者,我们建议他们谨慎从事。本研究强调了收集不完整和/或不准确数据所带来的风险,强调了在学术数据库之外进行三角测量的重要性。由于大型语言模型的出现,战略管理研究的范式发生了转变,这带来了新的挑战,如果不对训练数据进行充分的整理,就有可能使学术界的都市传奇、神话和谎言得以保存和延续。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
50.00%
发文量
28
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信