131

Application of Combined SWOT and AHP: A

Case Study for Military Decision Making
. 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 TermsSWOT, AHP, Decision making, Multi Criteria
Decision Making -MCDM,

I. INTRODUCTION

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

mit AHLAT, War Colleges Command, Army War College, 4. Levent,

34330, Pbx: +90 212 398-0100/3262, stanbul-Turkey, e-mail:
umitahlat@gmail.com.

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 cant measure that we dont know, we cant control that
we cant measure and we cant manage that we cant 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
OPPORTUNTES

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 cant
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 AHPs 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 AHPs 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-CRITERON
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 cant be accepted. After SWOT factors are
compared, it must be applied to all sub-criterias. Figure-5,
6,7,8 are the sub-criterias 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, 4152.
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. 201220,.
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. 33643382
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 AWOT
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.