131

Application of Combined SWOT and AHP: A Case Study for Military Decision Making Ü. Ahlat  Abstract— Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis examines both internal factors (strengths and weaknesses) and external factors (opportunities and threats) of current situation of an organization. In decision making, SWOT analysis does not provide effective tool because of its deficiencies in assessing decision alternatives. SWOT analysis with multicriteria decision making technique which is called Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) can replenish the deficiency in decision making. In addition, using the combined SWOT and AHP, it could enhance effectiveness of decision making. In this study, the application of combined SWOT and AHP in military decision making will be dealt. Index Terms—SWOT, AHP, Decision making, Multi Criteria Decision Making -MCDM,

I. INTRODUCTION

W

e make decisions to move toward a better future. Yet our thinking and decision making processes are not always as sound as we might imagine. All of us, even the most skilled advanced leaders, are subject to predictable cognitive and affective constraints and limitations which can distort and bias our judgment and decisions. But humankind has one particularly powerful and redeeming quality; through conscious deliberate examination of past experiences and imagined futures, we can learn, adapt and advance [1]. Decision making is the study of identifying and choosing alternatives based on the values and preferences of decision maker. Making a decision implies that there are alternative choices to be considered, and in such a case we want not only to identify as many of these alternatives as possible but to choose the one that best fits with our goals, objectives, desires, alues, and so on [2]. People often lack important information regarding a decision, fail to notice available information, face time and cost constraints, and maintain a relatively small amount of

Ümit AHLAT, War Colleges Command, Army War College, 4. Levent, 34330, Pbx: +90 212 398-0100/3262, İstanbul-Turkey, e-mail: [email protected].

information in their usable memory [3]. For this reason, making decision involves risk or uncertainty [4]. To reduce risk or uncertainty a little bit and make effective decision, SWOT and AHP must be used together. This mixed method has been employed in many fields such as developing strategic application plan, forest-certification case,[5] electronics firm [6], manufacturing firm [7], evaluation factor in tourism planning.[8] To our knowledge, this is the first SWOT-AHP study applied in the military. In this sense, there is a common saying for the road to victory “we can’t measure that we don’t know, we can’t control that we can’t measure and we can’t manage that we can’t control.” [9] So in the armed forces, when commanders face multidimensional problems, they need basic things to decide. Thanks to this hybrid method [10], it can assist on what should be done for ambiguous situations. Hence, this philosophy in a way is essential for success. II. SWOT ANALYSIS SWOT analysis is the most common techniques that can be used to analyze strategic cases [11]. SWOT is a frequently used tool for analyzing internal and external environments to attain a systematic approach and support for a decision situation. [12]. SWOT analysis is an uncompleted qualitative examination and mostly an internal and external environment factor list.[13] It is useful for both showing the current situation of the organization and analyzing the future status of organization. In order to give a response for changes in the world, organization must pursue internal and external environment, thereby it can develop a strategy [14].

132

INTERNAL ENVIRONMENT

STRENGHTS OPPORTUNİTİES

WEAKNESS SWOT THREATS

EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT Fig. 1. SWOT analysis internal and external environmental elements

As shown in figure 1, organization can do this by making analysis of internal environment, then analyzing external environment. While internal environment analysis finds strengths and weakness, external environment analysis can determine opportunities and threats. III. ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS (AHP) The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) method that helps the decisionmaker facing a complex problem with multiple conflicting and subjective criteria. [15] The Analytic Hierarchy Process utilizes qualitative descriptions to define a problem and to represent the interactions of its parts. It also makes use of quantitative judgments to assess the strengths of these interactions. The decision maker first identifies his or her main purpose in solving a problem. Criteria are chosen and weighted according to the priority of their importance to the decision maker. The different alternatives are then evaluated in terms of these criteria, and a best one or best mix is chosen. The alternatives are then potential solutions to the problem. [16] AHP is based on four steps: Problem modeling, weights valuation, weights aggregation and sensitivity analysis [17]. When modeled, it can be seen in fig.2. First, to find the best strategy, the items of SWOT should be determined as a main criterion. Then its items (strength, weakness, opportunities and threats) must be evaluated as a sub-criterion. After determining the weights, it should be modeled pairwise comparisons. At each node of the hierarchy, a matrix will collect the pairwise comparisons of the decision-maker. Once the comparisons matrices are filled, priorities can be calculated. The traditional AHP uses the eigenvalue method. As priorities make sense only if derived from consistent or near consistent matrices, a consistency check must be applied. The last step is to synthesize the local priorities across all criteria in order to determine the global priority. [18]

Fig. 2. The hierarchical structure of the AHP

IV. APPLICATION OF SWOT AND AHP IN DECISION MAKING Complex decisions are usually characterized by a large number of interacting factors. The problem is how to properly assess the importance of these factors in order to make tradeoffs among them; how to derive a system of priorities that can guide us to make good decisions by choosing a best alternative. SWOT factors which are not independent of each other may even be a relationship among some factors. Because the factor weights are computed by assuming that the factors are independent, the weights including the dependent relations could be different. It can affect the strategies to choose while possible changes in the factor weight may change the priorities of alternative strategies. Therefore, it is necessary to employ analyses which measure and take the possible dependencies among factors into account in SWOT analysis. SWOT analysis is performed using the AHP which allows measurement of dependency among SWOT factors. SWOT analysis alone can’t explain the importance of each factor that identified at the result of examination. It must be used with the values of the factors. AHP has the advantage of permitting a hierarchical structure of the criteria, which provides users with a better focus on specific criteria and sub-criteria when allocating the weights.[19] Decision making is the thought process of selecting a logical choice from the available options. When trying to make a good decision, a person must weigh the positives and negatives of each option, and consider all the alternatives. For effective decision making, a person must be able to forecast the outcome of each option as well, and based on all these items, determine which option is the best for that particular situation. In this process, decision makers should: identify the problems, construct the preferences, evaluate the alternatives, and determine the best alternative(s) [20] but where is the SWOT and AHP’s place in decision making process. In order to understand situation, place of SWOT and AHP will be showed in figure 3.

133

everything changes so fast? Used with AHP, it helps us which strategy can be best for making decision. TABLE I COMPARISON LIST [23] LAND SYSTEMS: • Tanks (MBT / Light) • Armored Fighting Vehicles • Self-Propelled Guns • Towed Artillery Pieces • Rocket Projectors (MLRS)

AIR POWER: • Total Aircraft • Fighters/Interceptors • Attack Aircraft • Transport Aircraft • Trainer Aircraft • Helicopters • Attack Helicopters • Serviceable Airports

Fig. 3. SWOT and AHP’s place in decision making process

V. METHODOLOGY AND APPLICATION In fact, all decision making theorists agree that values and beliefs jointly influence willingness to act under uncertainty. However, there is considerable disagreement about how to measure values and beliefs, and how to model their influence on decisions. Therefore, first it needs to be modeled problem. To do this, the decision-maker(s) should structure the problem, which can be divided into three parts: goal (best strategy to win war), criteria (strengths, weakness, opportunities, threats and its sub-criteria) and alternatives (attack, defend and withdraw) [21]. Step 1: Define the problem and goal. The decision-maker first identifies his or her main purpose in solving a problem. Step 2: Criteria are chosen and weighted according to the priority of their importance to the decision-maker. In this case, we used the SWOT analysis to assess the situation of tactical level. In table 2, strength, weakness, opportunities and threats must be applied to pairwise comparison. Then sub-criterion must be applied to pairwise comparison compatible with the alternatives. Our alternatives are offensive, defense and withdraw. Step 3: The different alternatives are then evaluated in terms of these criteria, and best one or best mix is chosen. Firstly, in military decision making process, it begins with the receipt of the mission. [22] Then mission is analyzed. While those are happening, SWOT analysis must be done with a view to mission. But SWOT analysis is not enough to evaluate actual danger. So what should be done when

NAVAL POWER: • Total Strength • Aircraft Carriers • Frigates • Destroyers • Corvettes • Submarines • Patrol Craft • Mine Warfare

MANPOWER: • Total Populations • Available Manpower • Fit for Service • Reaching Military Age Annually • Active Military Manpower • Active Reserve Military Manpower RESOURCES: • Oil Production • Oil Consumption • Proven Oil Reserves LOGISTICAL: • Labor Force • Merchant Marine Strength • Major Ports and Terminals • Roadway Coverage • Railway Coverage FINANCIAL: • Annual Defense Budget • External Debt • Reserves of Foreign Exchange and Gold • Purchasing Power Parity GEOGRAPHIC: • Square Land Area • Coastline • Shared Borders • Waterway Coverage

In this case, it is showed that most important think tank organizations compare two countries when crisis arise. As shown in table 1, global fire power and cia-fact book [24] explain basic element of the comparison. Since this level is strategic level, it is going to be reduced to the tactical level. So, tactical level capabilities are analyzed consistent with strategic level. If reduced to brigade level, it must be like table 2. As seen in table 2, decision makers evaluate the internal and external factor. Then it should be modeled according to the situation.

134

TABLE 2 PROBLEM MODELING

SUB-CRITERİON • Available Manpower • Towed Artillery Pieces • Leadership • Training • Logistics • Reserve Manpower • Armored Fighting Vehicles • Helicopters • Land Area • Intelligence • Tanks (MBT / Light) • Self-Propelled Guns • Rocket Projectors (MLRS) • Roadway Coverage • Maintenance • Mine field • UAVs • Attack Helicopters • Attack Aircraft

Strenght

Weakness

Opportunities

Threats

X X X X X X X X X X

Fig. 6. Pairwise comparison matrix for the sub-criteria with respect to Weakness

X X X X X X X X X

In table 2, strength, weakness, opportunities and threats must be applied to pairwise comparison. Then sub-criterion must be applied to pairwise comparison compatible with the alternatives. Our alternatives are offensive, defense and withdraw. This part will be explained via expert choice 2000 program. This program is used for AHP. Thanks to expert choice 2000 program, table 2 will be analyzed and in the end the best alternative will be decided.

Fig. 7. Pairwise comparison matrix for the sub-criteria with respect to Opportunities

Fig. 8. Pairwise comparison matrix for the sub-criteria with respect to threats

Fig. 4. Pairwise comparison matrix of the main criteria (SWOT) with respect to the Goal

As seen figure 4, after the comparison of the relative importance with respect to goal, inconsistency must be below 0,1 otherwise it can’t be accepted. After SWOT factors are compared, it must be applied to all sub-criterias. Figure-5, 6,7,8 are the sub-criteria’s comparisons.

Fig. 5. Pairwise comparison matrix for the sub-criteria with respect to Strength

Fig. 9. Best strategy

Battle field is so dynamic that all information and intelligence suddenly change. It must be evaluated every minute. Through expert choice 2000, it becomes available to see the effect of variables. As seen in figure 10, normal analysis result is showed. But war always change as time pass. The strength that we have may turn into the weakness, the opportunities might transform into the threats. Dynamic sensitivity exactly fits war changing conditions. For this reason, it will be showed in figure 6.

135

REFERENCES [1]

[2] [3] [4]

[5]

Fig. 10. Dynamic analysis result. [6]

[7]

[8]

[9] [10] Fig. 11. Subsequent dynamic analysis

In battlefield, after the condition change, as seen figure 6, (threats and weakness increased) program warns us to change the strategy according to the condition.

[11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

VI. CONCLUSION In this case, we used the combined method to make decision. Decision making in uncertainties are the essence of military success. In crisis time, there are many organizations that compare two countries which are on the brink of the war. But their comparisons are at the strategic level. We applied it from strategic level to tactical level. After that, by using SWOT, we find the results of our comparison. As it is seen, SWOT analyses alone do not provide an analytical means to identify the importance of factors. And it is not enough to assess decision alternatives. For this reason, SWOT analysis deficiencies in the measurement and evaluation steps can be alleviated by using AHP. This paper makes several important contributions to the military literature. First goal of this paper is to use this hybrid method in military decision making. Second goal is to show benefits of the hybrid method in military decision making in crisis time as it is very easy to model and can give an idea to select the best alternative. Third, by applying this method, military decision process time will decrease. Of course, this is not the only one tool. This tool may just provide one of best tools while making decision.

[16] [17] [18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22] [23] [24]

P.B. Zimmerman, R.M. Kanter, “Decision Making for Leaders”, A Synthesis of Ideas from the Harvard University, Advanced Leadership Initiative Think Tank, 2012, pp 7-8, Harris, R.; “Introduction to Decision Making”, VirtualSalt. http://www.virtualsalt.com/crebook5.htm,1998 Katherine L. Milkman, Dolly Chugh, ,”How Can Decision Making Be Improved?”, 2008,pp 3-4, Steward, R., “Strategic Implementation of IT/IS Projects in Construction: a Case Study, Automation in Construction; 2002, pp.684685. Kurttila, M; Pesonen, M.;J. Kangas, M. Kajanus, “Utilizing the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in SWOT analysis-a hybrid method and its application to a forest-certification case”, Forest Policy and Economics 1, 2000, 41–52. Seker,Sukran;Ozgurler,Mesut;,”Analysis of the Turkish Consumer Electronics Firm using SWOT-AHP method”, 8th International Strategic Management Conference, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 58, 2012, pp.1544 – 1554 Gorener,A., Toker K., “Application of Combined SWOT and AHP: A Case Study for a Manufacturing Firm” 8th International Strategic Management Conference, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2012, pp 1525 – 1534 Wickramasinghe, V. and Takano, S., Application of combined SWOT and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for tourism revival strategic marketing planning: A Case of Sri Lanka tourism, Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 8, 2010, pp. 954-969. Unal, M., , “Strategic Management and Leadership”, BETA press, 2012, pp.24-28 Aktan C.C., “New management technics in 20th ”, TUGIAD Press, 1999,p.25 Hill, T. and Westbrook, R.,. “SWOT Planning” 30, 1997, pp.46-52. Kotler, P.; “Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation and Control”, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey,. 1988 Bryson J.M.; “Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations”, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1988 Wheelen, T.L. and Hunger, J.D.,. “Strategic Management and Business Policy”, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA., 1995 Sharma, M. J., Moon, I. and Bae, H.; Analytic hierarchy process to assess and optimize distribution network, Applied Mathematics and Computation, Vol. 202, 2008, pp. 256-265. Saaty, T.L; Luis, G Vargas;(1982) “The Logic of Priorities”; University of Pittsburgh, Springer Science+Business Media, p.3-4 A.Ishizaka, A. Labib, “Analytic Hierarchy Process and Expert Choice: Benefits and Limitations.”, ORInsight, 22(4), 2009, pp. 201–220,. Saaty, Thomas L.; “How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process”; European Journal of Operational Research; 48(1);; 1990, pp.12-14 Yuksel, Ihsan; Dagdeviren, Metin “Using the analytic network process (ANP) in a SWOT analysis – A case study for a textile firm”, Elsevier Inc., 2007,pp. 3364–3382 Lunenburg, Fred C.; “The Decision Making Process”, national forum of educational administration and supervision journal volume 27, number 4, 2010 Gallego-Ayala, J. And Juizo D., “Strategic implementation of integrated water resources management in Mozambique; An A’WOT analysis,Physics and Chemistry of the Earth”, Vol 36, 2011, pp 11031111 US. Army, U. S. Field Manual 101-5: Staff Organization and Operations. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1997. http://www.globalfirepower.com/powerindex, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world factbook/rankorder/ rankorderguide.html

Captain Umit Ahlat is a student in Army War College. He is interested in Terrorism, Multi-criteria decision making.