Feedback by Tallimac
- ..on the contrary many papers, books and articles.. - You must have a bunch of articles ready for reference when writing a statement like this
That I have ;)
- optimisingly treated - I don't like that phrasing :)
Neither did I - it is gone
- I like the idea of "...to present the reader with a guide on how to perform a conventional SWOT..." - This should however in my opinion be in the abstract and not in the introduction. Actually i think that you should "slow down" and give a good and deep step by step guide in how to perform a SWOT
Thank you for this comment. I think you are right, the aim of the article should come in the beginning. And the step-by-step guide of the SWOT analysis will stay more or less the same but with an emphasis on the inherent implications ("paramount issues") before the actual guide, making the reader aware of the "pitfalls".
- Boring but okay :)
- These 3 steps are not enough try to elaborate on them and suggets how you might perform the steps
- Then i smooth connection will be that your step 3 will be going towards the TOWS and then action plan much later
- i Would rename External factors to synergy tools or something like that. Then write about how the SWOT brilliant works togehter with P5F and PESTEL
- Maybe create a simple pro-con list that can can help the reader decide if he/she can make use of the SWOT tool
- Remember the conclusion - and write the take home messages very simple
Review by "User"
Hej APPPM mate!
Before starting with the feedback I would like to say that I noticed of course, that you are not done with the article, and for me it is okay. Nevertheless am I going to give you some reasonable feedback, with which I might sometimes address some very obvious lacks. So just in case, please don’t feel offended or annoyed. Let’s go now…
In general, I think, you picked a very interesting analysis tool that proved itself in practice over the last decades. It is still not possible to imagine strategic planning without the SWOT analysis. Due to its age it could (1) be interesting if the tool or the way it applied changed over the years, how and why. Another aspect worth looking closer at could be (2) the application of SWOT within project, program and/or portfolio management. Subject to a research could be the actual use of the SWOT within PPPM. At which phases of a project life cycle is it applied, what is the system that is investigated (internal/external), what is the time demarcation (present/future), is it embedded to a process, who are the benefiters of the SWOT, who demands a SWOT (Lean perspective) = Pull) within PPPM. You could even think of dedicate an entire chapter to these PPPM-related questions and put this topic thereby in the focus of your article. But so far so good. Just take this as a form of inspiration for your further efforts!
Following you will find the...
- All figures are referenced, but check if you got the copyrights
- Grammatical or spelling are no subject to concern about
- Well, I think you basically fulfill all the formal requirements at this stage of your article, so I will continue with…
- I think you already have some good, even if basic, findings on the SWOT concept. Although I have the overall impression that you are not following any goal or research question with your article. Try to find some directions (also using my proposals given above: (1) and (2)) as soon as possible. Just do some quick and dirty reading and add some more sentences or leading questions to the abstract in order to get some more orientation. I hope everything will be way easier and more efficient then.
- By doing so, make sure it reflects more clearly the field of PPPM (as suggested above for example: (2)). Make it clear in the introduction already.
- By doing so, rethink the content categories your article could be assigned to.
- You are writing about a model/concept/tool so the “content category” is clear
- I am sure you will work on the length of the article ( :-) )
- You will also work on a starting summary (again: also try to use it as your own compass)
- Try to use good sources/reference, especially at critical – easy to argue – points. (e.g. “SWOT analysis has a very simple structure”)
- You say “there is no single guide or manual”. If it is like that you should briefly state how you are going to approach this lack of standards.
- If it is “performed in many contexts and on many levels”, make sure you name them or at least use some references.
- I am a little bit confused about the worse-case example given. Is it something good or bad, and what is the intention of this statement?
- I think you are on a good way with your History section. Nevertheless you should go a bit further and try to assign it to management schools or epochs. Interesting could also be the context of the development and why/when SWOT became so popular.
- I think you should reformulate the sentence after Figure 1. How about: “The above mentioned simplicity is at the same time the most criticisable aspect of the SWOT concept.”?! By the way, this might be a very good point for a reflection section.
- As a reader, I am slightly confused about the internal vs. external vs. now vs. future issue. Just double-check it and make sure that it expressed and distinguished as clear as possible through your article.
- I really like how you relate the external factors to Porter’s Five Forces etc.. That helps the reader to bring the reader into a line with other models. More of this!!
As you asked for advice regarding your headlines, I will come up with a rough proposal. How about:
- History of SWOT Analysis
- Applications/Types of SWOT Analysises (incl. everything you don’t need for PPPM application, but still want to mention)
- Application of SWOT Analysis in PPPM (maybe sub-sections for int., ext. factors, updating, etc…)
- Examples/Best Practice (optional)
Anyway, I hope my review will be useful for your efforts. All the best!