Why SWOT Might Be Less Than Effective in Market Sensing ...

Journal of Marketing and Management, Special Issue 1 (1), 58-78, September 2014 58

A Crack in the Foundation: Why SWOT Might Be Less Than Effective in Market Sensing

Analysis

Robert F. Everett, Ph.D., Millersville University

Abstract

The effectiveness of Market Sensing programs relies on the ability to both explore markets with

unbiased curiosity and focus sensing efforts where there are the greatest possibilities of success.

Fortunately, strategic analysis models such as SWOT already exist to assist in achieving a

balance between open exploration and efficient focus. Unfortunately, these models, specifically

SWOT, are frequently poorly understood and/or misused. The research discussed in this article

shows that a major problem with SWOT Analysis is that the texts used in business schools to

teach this tool are, with a couple of exceptions, either insufficient in their presentation of SWOT

or just plain wrong! The implication for those conducting or managing Market Sensing

programs is that it is dangerous to assume that even trained business analysts will use tools such

as SWOT correctly, and that incorrect use can bias or even invalidate Market Sensing insights.

Market Sensing

Market Sensing is the way organizations learn about their environment. In order to make effective

decisions about products, services, prices, distribution channels, and promotional programs,

business managers must have as clear an understanding as possible about the needs and beliefs of

their current and potential markets.

Day (1994, 2002) provides an excellent overview of the concept of Market Sensing. According to

Day, Market sensing depends on open-minded inquiry rather than looking for information to


confirm pre-existing beliefs about the market. (2002, p.240) However, that inquiry cannot be too

open minded or it will devolve into a helter-skelter collection of data, most of which will prove

irrelevant. At the same time, the inquiry cannot be too restrictive or critical information, and

therefore critical insights, will be missed. The art of Market Sensing, in order to be cost effective,

must simultaneously involve the open minded collection and analysis of data on the one hand and

the focusing and refocusing of inquiries into the most productive areas on the other.

Day’s model incorporates these ideas by describing three basic components of Market Sensing:

1. Sensing Activities – Data is collected from the environment

2. Sense-Making Activities – The collected information is interpreted

3. Reflection – Resultant actions are evaluated and entered into the organization’s knowledge

base

Day further states that mastery of the complete market sensing process is rare. Most firms have

problems at one or more stages of the process. Their inquiries may be too restrictive, their mental

models too routine or conventional, the circulation of information within the organization too

restrictive, or the collective memory deficient. (Day, 2002:241.)

Heusinkveld, et al. (2009, 2012) also discuss biases in market sensing activities. In their study of

professional service firms, they found that there is often strong internal resistance to new market

service initiatives when those initiatives involve stepping outside of the established knowledge

areas of key internal staff. They cite research that showed that the data gathered in market sensing

activities was also subject to sorting, classification, and simplification (Day, 1994:43) and that


those processes were shaped by the mental models and political interests of the organizational

personnel involved.

The implication of these studies is that the gathering and processing of market sensing data requires

not only the will and the resources, but also the discipline to perform analyses in the spirit of open

inquiry and integrity. These are values that can be inculcated or eroded in many different ways

during an individual’s career.

Analytical Tools for Market Sensing

There are two basic ways to apply Day’s three components for Market Sensing. In the first way,

a manager would simply use experience, judgment, and insight to identify the areas of inquiry for

their organization and to analyze the information gathered during that inquiry. The second way

would be to utilize one or more analytical tools to inform those inquiries and analyses.

Fortunately, market analysts have developed a number of excellent analytical tools that can be

used in the market sensing process. These include SWOT Analysis, Internal and External Factor

Evaluations, the BCG (Boston Consulting Group) Matrix, the GE (General Electric) Business

Screen Model, etc. These analytical models tie the search for external factors to the evaluation of

internal factors and vice-versa.

In particular, SWOT Analysis is the foundational methodology upon which many of the more

sophisticated analytical models are built. The tool involves the identification of the organization’s

primary internal strengths and weaknesses in the context of the most pressing external


opportunities and threats the organization faces. In other words, SWOT looks at what the

organization is capable of doing in response to market sensing data. At the same time, SWOT can

help inform the search for market data, based on the organizations strengths and weaknesses.

SWOT is used extensively in both academics and commercial practice. The origins of SWOT

Analysis appear to be lost, or at least in contention. Friesner (2006?) attempted to trace its origins

but was unable to find a first author. In particular, Friesner was not able to support the common

claim that SWOT was developed by Albert Humphrey at Stanford during the 1960’s.

No matter who is ultimately responsible for the first SWOT, its use as an analytical tool has

proliferated over the last fifty years. According to the article database Business Source Complete,

SWOT was cited over 2100 times in academic journals between January 2000 and March 2014.

When we included all business publications since 2000, the search yielded over 40,000 citations.

(Interestingly, 98.8% of all mentions of SWOT in the literature have been made since the year

2000.) A Google search on the term SWOT Analysis produced over 3 million hits! This means

that SWOT Analysis is not only potentially effective in Market Sensing, but is also widely known

and used.

It is our contention that the ability to conduct an effective SWOT analysis can have a very positive

impact in both the sensing and sense-making stages of the market sensing process. When managers

have an accurate understanding of their company’s strengths and weaknesses, they are less likely

to pursue, or even study, opportunities that are far less accessible to them. At the same time, if

those managers have a clear appreciation for the potential of a given opportunity, they can more


clearly assess the value of making the investments necessary to develop the organizational

strengths to overcome what weaknesses they might have.

Critiques of SWOT

Despite its simplicity and extensive use SWOT has gathered some scholarly critics. Manon, et al.

(1999) found a negative relationship between situation analyses and market performance among a

sample of Fortune 1000 companies operating in stable environments. Citing the Manon study and

pointing to other critics, Wharton professor J. Scott Armstrong (2009) advises “Don’t do SWOT.”

Hill and Westbrook (1997) argue that when it comes to SWOT “It’s Time for a Product Recall.”

In addition, several other authors have made meaningful critiques of SWOT as a strategic planning

tool. (Bernroider (2002), Chermack & Kassahanna (2007), Edwards (1993), Houben & Lenie

(1999), Humphries (2007), Lee & Lin (2008), Rudder & Louw (1998), Yuksel & Dag deviren

(2007)).

Valentin (2005) (another opponent of SWOT) summarized published discussions of the problems

with SWOT analysis as follows:

It yields banal or misleading results

It has a weak theoretical basis

It implies that organizational factors can be neatly categorized as positive or negative

It encourages superficial scanning and impromptu categorization

It promotes list building as opposed to thoughtful consideration

It does not look at tradeoffs among factors

It promotes muddled conceptualizations


Panagiotou and van Wijen (2005) also examine SWOT as a strategic planning tool and find it

lacking. They cite a number of other studies of SWOT and, like Valentin, provide an excellent

summary of the various critiques of SWOT.

In general, we agree with the substance of these critiques, but not the conclusions. SWOT is a

very simple conceptual tool that helps focus attention onto relevant internal and external issues.

And, much like any simple tool (e.g., a hammer), it is easily subject to misuse. In particular, the

research shows that SWOT becomes problematic when too much is expected of it. For example,

SWOT is not designed to look at the tradeoffs among factors, but is designed to help strategists

make lists. If users do not make good lists, that should reflect on their lack of effort or insight

rather than on SWOT for not providing more guidance.

However, we do not think that SWOT should be abandoned simply because it has been badly used.

Instead, we believe that the real problem is not with the fundamental theoretical concept of

SWOT analysis, but rather with how SWOT analyses are done in practice. As managers and

business educators, that makes it our problem. If we fail to teach and use such a basic tool

effectively, it is no wonder that the tool becomes ill used in general practice. Therefore, we need

to take a hard look at what is, in fact, being taught to our students and colleagues.

The Real Problem with SWOT

Our wake-up call to the problems with SWOT analysis came with the difficulty there seemed to

be in teaching SWOT in business school courses and in using SWOT Analysis in strategic


consulting engagements. This problem occurred when we were teaching sophomore

undergraduates or third year MBA candidates and when we were working with a small family

business or a major technology company and this problem persisted across several academic

institutions and over many years.

Students and managers were easily able to understand the concepts of Strengths, Weaknesses, and

Threats, but consistently failed to grasp the concept of Opportunity. Instead of considering

opportunities to be unmet demands in a marketplace or beneficial changes in competitive,

technological, or regulatory environments, many managers and students looked at opportunities as

things that a company could do to improve its profitability. In other words, there seemed to be a

consistent confusion between opportunities and business strategies or actions.

Practitioners must be able to distinguish between opportunities (positive external factors that

cannot be controlled) and strategies (actions that an organization takes to take advantage of

opportunities). This statement may seem so obvious as to not warrant mentioning at all. However,

the ability to make this distinction is often not present in either students or practitioners. For

example, we have personally had students/executives declare the following to be opportunities:

The introduction of a new product

Expanding into a new geographic market

Changing pricing structure

Acquiring another company


As defined in a proper SWOT analysis, these are not opportunities. They may, in fact, be blunders.

In a proper SWOT analysis, an opportunity is a situation in a company’s external environment that

could be exploited to that company’s advantage if the correct strategies and tactics were used.

While introducing a new product may, in fact, be an effective strategy, it would be so only because

a need for what that product could do already existed in the market.

This is exactly the type of myopic bias about which Day warns those doing market sensing!

What made this observation more troubling was the persistence that this misunderstanding of

SWOT opportunities has. We have found that even after multiple class discussions and warnings

that the correct definitions would be part of their final examination, many students continued to

think (even insist) that opportunities were somehow actions.

If managers are confusing opportunities (i.e., potentially positive changes in the external

environment) with possible market strategies, this can easily lead to asking the wrong questions

during the Sensing phase and biased interpretations during the Sense-Making phase. This

misconception can be exacerbated because it is generally much easier for managers to generate

action ideas within their areas of expertise than it is to maintain an unbiased, open-minded inquiry

of the reality, good and bad, of their environment. Given the critical role Market Sensing plays in

the effective management of organizations and the pervasiveness of SWOT Analysis as a core

analytical tool, it is important to ensure that SWOT is used properly.


A Potential Underlying Cause

About ten years ago, we began to notice that some of the textbooks that were being used to teach

undergraduate marketing and management strategy contained exactly the same “opportunity error”

we had been noticing in practice. This fact brought to mind an essay we had read by the Harvard

biologist Stephen Jay Gould (1992). In his essay “The Case of the Creeping Fox Terrier Clone,”

Gould discussed how descriptions, or even errors, seemed to pass from text to text without being

updated or corrected. Perhaps this might be the case with SWOT Analysis.

Any scholar/educator/practitioner knows how important a text can be in influencing the success or

failure of a course. Elbeck, et al. (2009) conducted an extensive review of the literature on

textbook adoption and specifically studied the adoption of Principles of Marketing texts. They

stress that while the criteria used by instructors to select texts may be many and varied, the adopted

textbook greatly influences the content of the course and often serves as the primary teaching tool

of the professor. (p 49). In this context, we believe it essential that scholar/educators ensure that

these texts are especially clear in presentation and free of errors when discussing fundamental

concepts.

However, a number of researchers have found that this is not always the case. Dickenson (2002)

found problems with the presentation of price elasticity in marketing management texts. Hubbard

and Armstrong (2006) not only found inconsistencies in ways various marketing research texts

discussed statistical significance, but also confusion over the very meaning of the concept of

statistical significance itself. (p.114).


In more general critiques of business texts, Hackley (2003) finds marketing management texts

generally lacking in intellectual rigor. In a detailed analysis of twenty-one marketing principles

texts, DeMoss and Nicholson (2005) found only minimal coverage of environmentally sustainable

marketing practices. Smith, et al (2010), in exploring the lack of relationship between current

research and textbook content, found that most textbook authors who had published in a leading

journal, The Journal of Strategic Management, had not mentioned their own cutting edge research

in their own textbooks.

Research Questions & Methodology

We decided at that point that an analysis of how SWOT was being presented in text books was

called for. If business school students (who often became senior managers) were learning to do

SWOT incorrectly, then that bias could influence critical decisions later on and be difficult to

correct, much like learning to hold a golf club incorrectly when first getting involved with the

game.

In order to be rigorous in our analysis, we decided that we had to review ALL of the textbook

offerings from the major publishers in the fields of principles of management, management

strategy, principles of marketing, marketing management, and marketing strategy. These are the

areas where SWOT is usually first learned.

We approached the four major publishers of business texts: McGraw-Hill, Prentice Hall, Cengage,

and Wiley. Each publisher was asked to provide us with review copies of ALL of their


undergraduate texts in the five subject areas. In each case, we were above board in informing them

of the use to which the texts would be put. We then checked the texts received against each

publisher’s on-line catalog to ensure that we had them all, and ordered the ones we had not

received. In all, eighty-five (85) textbooks were provided, comprising the complete available list

for each of the four publishers. The texts we received and reviewed are listed in full citations at

the end of this article.

We next conducted a content analysis of each text in order to answer three main questions:

1. How much space, if any, was dedicated to the definition and discussion of SWOT analysis?

2. Were any examples of a completed SWOT analysis provided?

3. If examples were presented, were they correct?


Results

The results of our analysis are presented in Table 1. A summary of basic findings follows.

1. Of the 85 texts, 15 (17.6%) did not mention SWOT at all. Interestingly, given that SWOT

is considered to be a strategic analysis tool, only 2 of the 8 marketing strategy texts (Ferrell

& Hartline (2011) and Kerin & Peterson (2010)) mentioned SWOT, while 17 of the 22

management strategy texts did so.

2. Of the 70 that did mention SWOT, 15 of them (21.4%) devoted two paragraphs or less to

it.

3. Of the 70 texts mentioning SWOT, only 19 of them (27.1%) provided at least one example

of a completed SWOT Analysis.

4. And of those providing an example, 14 of the 19 (73.7%) contained at least one significant

error.

5. Only one text (Ferrell & Hartline (2011)) provided instructions on how to perform a SWOT

Analysis in practice. This text also provided a discussion of reasonable cautions regarding

SWOT’s use and expectations.

There was one very significant finding regarding inconsistencies in the presentation of SWOT.

This was between the way Opportunity (as used in SWOT analysis) was defined in various texts

and the examples of Opportunities actually presented in the SWOT examples. While the

definitions of opportunities (and threats) consistently stated that they were factors in the company’s

external environment, many of the examples of opportunities were actually strategic or tactical


actions that a firm could take. Examples of opportunities cited in some texts included such things

as adding to product line, expansion outside the U.S., and implementing online sales. Interestingly,

none of the texts providing examples showed any inconsistencies in the other three cells of the

SWOT matrix.

The most striking results from our study was that despite the fact that SWOT was cited in the

business literature more than 40,000 in the business literature in the last fourteen years, only one

of the eight-five texts reviewed actually explained how to do one. In informal discussions with

other practitioners and faculty, the consensus seemed to be that students and business people were

simply assumed to know how to conduct a proper SWOT. At the same time, close to three quarters

of the texts that did show an example of a SWOT had at least one error!

Conclusions

The message to those who want to take advantage of SWOT Analysis (and its derivatives) to

analyze and focus their market sensing program is simple: do not assume that you or those who

work for you know what they are doing when it comes to SWOT. It is likely that you and they

have had the misfortune of being taught to use this tool incorrectly and could use retraining.

Ignoring this suggestion is likely to lead to biased sensing results as “opportunities” are confused

with possible tactics. Those business professionals involved in the process of market sensing or

who are basing decisions on the results of market sensing efforts should be aware of these potential

analytical vulnerabilities and take steps to ensure that the underlying foci and analyses of the

market sensing efforts have been done properly before acting.


Table 1. Textbook Review Results – Summary

Does the Text Mention SWOT Analysis?

Yes No Total

Management

Principles 27 93.1% 2 6.9% 29

Strategy 17 77.3% 5 22.7% 22

Total 44 86.3% 7 13.7% 51

Marketing

Principles 24 92.3% 2 7.7% 26

Strategy 2 25.0% 6 75.0% 8

Total 26 76.5% 8 23.5% 34

Total 70 82.4% 15 17.6% 85

Does the Text Provide an Example of a SWOT Analysis?

Yes No Total

Management

Principles 3 11.1% 24 88.9% 27

Strategy 4 23.5% 13 76.5% 17

Total 7 15.9% 37 84.1% 44

Marketing

Principles 10 41.7% 14 58.3% 24

Strategy 2 100.0% 0 0.0% 2

Total 12 46.2% 14 53.8% 26

Total 19 27.1% 51 72.9% 70

Does the Example Contain the Opportunity Error?

Yes No Total

Management

Principles 3 100.0% 0 0.0% 3

Strategy 1 25.0% 3 75.0% 4

Total 4 57.1% 3 42.9% 7

Marketing

Principles 9 90.0% 1 10.0% 10

Strategy 1 50.0% 1 50.0% 2

Total 10 83.3% 2 16.7% 12

Total 14 73.7% 5 26.3% 19


References

Armstrong, J. (2009). Don’t do SWOT, A Note on Marketing Planning. Manyworlds.com

Bernroider, E. (2002). Factors in SWOT Analysis Applied to Micro, Small-to-Medium, and

Large Software Enterprises: An Austrian Study. European Management Journal; 20(5),

562.

Chermack, T. & Kassahanna, K. (2007). The Use and Misuse of SWOT Analysis and

Implications for HRD Professionals. Human Resource Development International;

10(4), 383-399.

Day, G. (1994). The Capabilities of Market-Driven Organizations. Journal of Marketing

58(October 1994), 37-52.

Day, G. (2002). Managing the market learning process. Journal of Business & Industrial

Marketing, 17(4), 240-252.

DeMoss, M & Nicholson, C. (2005). The Greening of Marketing: An Analysis of Introductory

Textbooks. Journal of Education for Business, July/August, 338-346.

Dickenson, J. (2002). A Need to Revamp Textbook Presentations of Price Elasticity. Journal

of Marketing Education, 24, 143-149.

Edwards, C. (1993). What's SWOT? Management Services; 37(6), 38.

Elbeack, M, et al. (2009). What Marketing Educators Look for when Adopting a Principles of

Marketing Textbook. Marketing Education Review, 19(2), 49-62.

Friesner, T. (2006?). History of SWOT Analysis. http://www.marketingteacher.com/

swot/history-of-swot.html

Gould, Stephen Jay (1991). The Case of the Creeping Fox Terrier Clone. Bully for

Brontosaurus: Reflections in Natural History W.W. Norton & Co. New York.

Hackley, C. (2003). ’We Are All Customers Now…’ Rhetorical Strategy and Ideological

Control in Marketing Management Texts. Journal of Management Studies, 40(5), 1325-

1352.

Heusinkveld, S., Benders, J., & van den Berg, R. (2012), From market sensing to new concept

development in consultancies: The role of information processing and organizational

capabilities. Technovation 29(2009), 509-516.

Heusinkveld, S., Benders, J., & van den Berg, R. (2012). New practice development in

professional service firms: the role of market sensing. Handbook of research on

entrepreneurship in professional services, Edward Elgar Publishing, 202-218.

Hill, T. & Westerbrook, R. (1997). SWOT Analysis: It's Time for a Product Recall. Long

Range Planning, 30(1), 46-52.

Houben, G. & Lenie, K. (1999). A knowledge-based SWOT-analysis system as an instrument

for strategic planning in small and medium sized enterprises. Decision Support Systems,

26(2), 125.

http://www.marketingteacher.com/


Hubbard, R. & Armstrong, J. (2006). Why We Don’t Really Know What Statistical

Significance Means: Implications for Educators. Journal of Marketing Education, 28,

114-120.

Humphreys, J. (2007). Weakness or Opportunity? MIT Sloan Management Review. 48(3),

96-96

Kong, E. (2008). The development of strategic management in the non-profit context:

Intellectual capital in social service non-profit organizations. International Journal of

Management Reviews 10(3), 281-299.

Learned E. P., Christensen, R., Andrews, K., & Guth, W. (1965). Business Policy: Text and

Cases. Irwin, Homewood, IL

Lee, K. & Lin, S. (2008). A fuzzy quantified SWOT procedure for environmental evaluation

of an international distribution center. Information Sciences; 178(2), 531-549.

Menon, A, et al. (1999). Antecedents and Consequences of Marketing Strategy Making: A

Model and a Test. Journal of Marketing 63(April 1999), 18-40.

Panagiotou, G. & van Wijnen, R. (2005). The telescopic observations framework: an attainable

strategic tool. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 23(2), 155-171.

Rudder, L. & Louw, L. (1998). The SPACE Matrix: A Tool for Calibrating Competition. Long

Range Planning, 31(4), 549-559.

Smith, W., Barney, C, & Elias, S. (2010). Academic Reflexivity and AACSB Criteria: Does

Research Translate into Textbook Content? Annual Review of Management &

Organizational Inquiry, 6(1).

Valentin, E. (2005). Away With SWOT Analysis: Use Defensive/Offensive Evaluation

Instead. Journal of Applied Business Research; 21(2), 91-104.

Yüksel, İ. & Dagˇdeviren, M. (2007). Using the analytic network process (ANP) in a SWOT

analysis – A case study for a textile firm. Information Sciences; 177(16), 3364-3382.


Citations for Texts Reviewed in this Research

Management

1. Anderson, James C. & Narus, James A., & Narayandas, Das (2009). Business Market

Management: Understanding, Creating, and Delivering Value (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle

River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.

2. Baldwin, Timothy T. & Bommer, William H., & Rubin, Robert S. (2008). Developing

Management Skills: What Great Managers Know and Do. McGraw-Hill Irwin.

3. Barney, Jay B. (2007) Gaining and Sustaining Competitive Advantage (3rd ed.) Upper

Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.

4. Bateman, Thomas S. & Snell, Scott A. (2011). Management: Leading & Collaborating in

a Competitive World (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill Irwin.

5. Best, Robert J. (2009). Market-Based Management: Strategies for Growing Customer

Value and Profitability (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.

6. Certo, Samuel C., & Certo, S. Trevis (2009). Modern Management: Concepts and Skills

(11th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.

7. Daft, Richard L. (2010). Management (9th ed.). South-Western Cengage Learning.

8. Daft, Richard L., & Marcic, Dorothy (2011). Understanding Management (7th ed.).

Mason: Cengage Learning.

9. Dessler, Gary & Phillips, Jean (2008). Managing Now! Houghton Mifflin Company.

10. DuBrin, Andrew (2009). Essentials of Management (8th ed.). South-Western Cengage

Learning.

11. Dumler, Michael P. & Skinner, Steven J. (2008). A Primer for Management (2nd ed.).

Thomas South-Western.

12. Dyck, Bruno & Neubert, Mitchell J. (2010). Management: Current Practices and New

Directions. Houghton Mifflin Jarcourt Publishing Company.

13. Griffin, Ricky W. (2008). Fundamentals of Management (5th ed.). Houghton Mifflin

Company.

14. Griffin, Ricky W. (2010). Management (10th ed.). Mason: South-Western Cengage

Learning.

15. Harrison, Jeffrey S. & John, Caron H. (2010). Foundations in Strategic Management (5th

ed.). South-Western Cengage Learning.

16. Hill, Charles W.L. & McShane, Steven L. (2008). Principles of Management. McGraw-

Hill Irwin.

17. Jones, Gareth R. & George, Jennifer M. (2009). Contemporary Management (6th ed.).

New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

18. Kreitner, Robert (2009). Management (11th ed.). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing

Company.


19. Lussier, Robert (2009). Management Fundamentals (4th ed.) Mason: South-Western

Cengage Learning.

20. McKee, Annie (2010). Management: A Focus on Leaders (1st ed.) Upper Saddle River,

N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.

21. Plunkett, Warren R., Attner, Raymond F., & Allen, Gemmy S. (2008) Management:

Meeting and Exceeding Customer Expectations (9th ed.) Mason: South-Western Cengage

Learning.

22. Rue, Leslie & Byers, Lloyd (2009). Management: Skills & Application (13th ed.) New

York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

23. Robbins, Stephen P., Decenzo, David A., & Coulter, Mary (2009). Fundamentals of

Management: Essential Concepts and Applications (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.:

Pearson Prentice Hall.

24. Robbins, Stephen P., & Coulter, Mary (2009). Management (10th ed.). Upper Saddle

River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.

25. Schermerhorn, John R., Jr. (2010). Management (10th ed.). Chichester: John Wiley &

Sons Ltd.

26. Schermerhorn, John R., Jr. (2010). Exploring Management (2nd ed.). Chichester: John

Wiley & Sons Ltd.

27. Williams, Chuck (2010). Management (6th ed.). Mason: South-Western Cengage

Learning.

28. Williams, Chuck (2010). MGMT3, Mason: South-Western Cengage Learning.

29. Kinicki, Angelo & Williams, Brian (2010). Management: A Practical Introduction (5th

ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.

Management Strategy

1. Bamford, C. & West, G. (2010). Strategic Management: Value Creation, Sustainability,

and Perfromance. Mason: South-Western Cengage Learning.

2. Barney, J. & Hesterly, W. (2010). Strategic Management and Competitive Advantage (3rd

ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.

3. Carpenter, M. & Sanders, W. (2009). Strategic Management: a Dynamic Perspective:

Concepts and Cases (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.

4. Collis, D. & Montgomery, C. (2004). Corporate Strategy: A Resource Based Approach

(2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

5. Coulter, M. (2009). Strategic Management in Action (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River:

Prentice Hall.

6. David, F. (2008). Strategic Management Concepts (12th ed.). Upper Saddle River:

Prentice Hall.


7. David, F. (2011). Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases (13th ed.). Upper Saddle

River: Pearson Education.

8. Dess, G., Lumpkin, G. & Eisner, A. (2010). Strategic Management Creating Competitive

Advantages (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

9. Gamble, J. & Thompson, A. (2009). Essentials of Strategic Management: The Quest for

Competitive Advantage (1st ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

10. Grant, R. (2010). Contempary Strategy Analysis. (7th ed.). Chichester: John Wiley &

Sons Ltd.

11. Hill, C. & Jones, G. (2009). Essentials of Strategic Management (2nd ed.). Mason:

Cengage Learning.

12. Hill, C. & Jones, G. (2010). Strategic Management: An Integrated Approach (9th ed.).

Mason: South-Western Cengage Learning.

13. Hitt, M., Ireland, R. & Hoskisson, R. (2011). Strategic Management: Competitiveness

and Globalization (Concepts) (9th ed.). Mason: South-Western Cengage Learning.

14. Huff, A., Floyd, S., Sherman, H. & Terjesen, S. (2009). Strategic Management: Logic &

Action. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

15. Hunger, J. & Wheelen, T. (2010). Essentials of Strategic Management (5th ed.). Upper

Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

16. Ireland, R., Hoskisson, R. & Hitt, M. (2006). Understanding Business Strategy. Mason,

Thomson South-Western.

17. Ketchen, D., Eisner, A., Dess, G., & Lumpkin, G. (2009). Strategy: 2008-2009. New

York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

18. Marcus, A. (2011). Management Strategy: Achieving Sustained Competitive Advantage

(2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

19. Parnell, J. (2005). Strategic Management Theory and Practice (2nd ed.). Grand Rapids:

Atomic Dog.

20. Pearce, J., & Robinson, R. (2009). Strategic Management: Formulation, Implementation,

and Control (11th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

21. Thompson, A., Strickland, A. & Gamble, J. (2010). Crafting and Executing Strategy (17th

ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

22. Wheelen, T. and Hunger, J. (2010). Strategic Management and Business Policy:

Achieving Sustainability (12th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Marketing

1. Armstrong, G., & Kotler, P. (2011). Marketing: An Introduction (10th ed.). Upper Saddle


2. Boone, L. & Kurtz, D. (2011). Contemporary Marketing (2011 Update). Mason: Cengage

Learning.


3. Dalrymple, D. & Parsons, L. (2000) Basic Marketing Management (2nd ed.) New York:

John Wiley & Sons.

4. Egan, J. (2008) Relationship Marketing (3rd ed.) Harlow: Pearson Education, Ltd.

5. Grewal, D. & Levy, M. (2010). Marketing (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

6. Hiam, A. & Rastelli, L. (2007). Marketing, Hoboken, John Wiley & Sons.

7. Iacobucci, D. (2010). MM, (2009-2010 ed.) Mason: Cengage Learning.

8. Kerin, R., Hartley, S., & Rudelius, W. (2011). Marketing, (11th ed.) New York, McGraw-

Hill.

9. Kotler, P. & Armstrong, G. (2010). Principles of Marketing (13th ed.). Upper Saddle


10. Kotler, P. & Keller, K. (2008). Framework for Marketing Management (4th ed.). Upper

Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

11. Kotler, P. & Keller, K. (2008a). Marketing Management (13th ed.). (Marketing

Management). 13th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

12. Lamb, C., Hair, J., & McDaniel, C. (2011). Marketing (11th ed.). Mason: Cengage

Learning.

13. Lamb, C., Hair, J., & McDaniel, C. (2009). Essentials of Marketing (6th ed.). Mason:

Cengage Learning.

14. Lamb, C., Hair, J., & McDaniel, C. (2011a). MKTG4 (2010-2011 ed.). Mason: Cengage

Learning.

15. Levens, M. (2010). Marketing: Defined, Explained, Applied. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

16. Marshall, G. & Johnston, M. (2010). Marketing Management. New York: McGraw-

Hill/Irwin

17. Mullins, J. & Walker, O. (2010) Marketing Management: A Strategic Decision-Making

Approach, (7th ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin

18. Perreault, W., Cannon, J. & McCarthy, E. (2006). Basic Marketing (16th ed.). New York:

Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

19. Perreault, W., Cannon, J. & McCarthy, E. (2010). Essentials of Marketing (12th ed.).

New York: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

20. Peter, J. & Donnelly, J. (2009). Marketing Management: Knowledge and Skills (9th ed.).

New York: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

21. Pride, W. & Ferrell, O. (2011). Foundations of Marketing (4th ed.). Mason: Cengage

Learning.

22. Pride, W. & Ferrell, O. (2010). Marketing (2010 ed.). Mason: Cengage Learning.

23. Pride, W. & Ferrell, O. (2011a). Marketing Express (2nd ed.). Mason: Cengage Learning.


24. Solomon, M., Marshall, G. & Stuart, E. (2009). Marketing: Real People, Real Choices.

6th ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.

25. Winer, R. (2006). Marketing Management (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

26. Wood, M. (2006). The Marketing Plan Handbook (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson

Education.

Strategic Marketing

1. Aaker, D. (2011) Strategic Marketing Management (9th ed.). Hoboken, John Wiley &

Sons.

2. Cravens, D. & Piercy, N. (2009). Strategic Marketing (9th ed.). New York:

Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

3. Donaldson, B.& O’Toole T. (2007) Strategic Marketing Relationships (2nd ed.). West

Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

4. Ferrell, O. & Hartline, M. (2011) Marketing Strategy (5th ed.). Mason, Cengage Learning

5. Jain, S. & Haley, G. (2009). Marketing: Planning & Strategy (8th ed.). Mason: Cengage

Learning.

6. Kerin, R. & Peterson, R. (2010). Strategic Marketing Problems: Cases and Comments.

Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

7. Lehmann, D. & Winer, R. (2008) Analysis for Marketing Planning (7th ed.). New York:

Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

8. Walker, O. & Mullins, J. (2011). Marketing Strategy: A Decision-Focused Approach (7th

ed.). New York: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

Why SWOT Might Be Less Than Effective in Market Sensing ...

Documents

Transcript of Why SWOT Might Be Less Than Effective in Market Sensing ...