Information for making

decisions: Strategic
planning with SWOT,
PESTLE, SOAR, and So
what?
Companies have to be very schizophrenic. On one hand, they have to maintain continuity of
strategy. But they also have to be good at continuously improving. Michael Porter
As strategy thought-leader Michael Porter states in the quote above, organisations that are
successful are able to consistently focus their attention while at the same remain adaptable to
a rapidly changing environment. To do this, it helps to have a clear understanding of the
current situation.
Strategic planning is about making decisions on where you focus your attention. If you are
going to make decisions, you need information, and it helps if that information is complete,
relevant, accurate, and commonly understood by those making the decisions.
This is why most strategic planning processes include a conversation about the current
situation or context. Information helps us make the best decision to get us where we want to
go.
This conversation about our context can be involved. I hear leaders talk about the need to
simplify, in part because the environments in which they operate are becoming more
complicated and complex. Leaders deal with multiple relationships and multiple pieces of
information that are frequently changing, unpredictable, an influenced by factors outside of
the organisations control.

Choose your model

Many leaders intuitively know their context. This is one of the factors that makes them great
leaders. However, even the best leaders can have blind spots where they miss critical pieces
of information. Leaders also typically have teams around them, and everyone in that team
may not have the same information or agree on what the information means.
To help understand their context, leaders have available to them a suite of tools to help them
collect the information they need to make their decisions. Unfortunately, the tools can seem
as complicated and complex as the situation they are trying to understand.
The range of acronyms is impressive. A brief internet search introduces you to SWOT, SWT,
TOP, TOWS, NOISE, SOAR, SCORE, SCOPE, PEST, PESTLE, and 7S (not to be confused
with 5S). You do not have to go far to find support and criticism for any of the approaches.
Those who critique the tools that came before are keen to stake their consultancy claim on
their own approach.
My intent here is not to make an intellectual property land grab. I do not believe there is one
framework that will help all leadership teams make sense of their situation. The framework or
combination of frameworks that are most appropriate depends on a range of factors including
the maturity, personality and experience of the leaders, the complexity and urgency of the

situation, the history of the planning process in the organisation, and from a practical
perspective the time available in the workshop.
That said, there is value in having an awareness of the context analysis tools that are available
and where those tools fit. This is what I intend to do here.
Each of the models applies to a level of information. While this is not a perfect
categorisation, it provides a starting point to help put the different models in perspective.
The spheres of identity

It is important to understand the perspective from which the situation is being considered.
These include: The individual as a person, the individual as their role, the team, the
organisation, the industry, and the broader community and society.
What are the strengths an ambitions of each person? The team? The organisation? Where is
the market heading? Is there alignment? What are the areas of growth for the individuals?
How do those fit with where the company is heading?
The value is not in the information itself, but in the conversation it generates as each
participant puts themselves in the different roles. The spheres can be useful to align the
capabilities, challenges and potential at each level.

The horizon

Another question to answer when considering your context is what horizon you will use. A
typical horizon for senior leadership teams can be two to five years. Boards and those
responsible for long-term governance may look out 10 to 30 years. More operational teams
may look at a horizon of one to three years. A fast-paced start-up may forecast 6 to 18
months, with a start-up board looking at a sale process in 2 to 3 years.
The horizon is determined in part by the degree of certainty. A large 50-year transport
company has the momentum and history to be fairly certain about the future to look past the
next year or two. A 6-month old technology start-up paving new ground is learning
something new every day.
Both situations present an excuse not to plan. The large corporation can think nothing will
change and the small organisation may think the situation is changing so much that it is
impossible to plan. The response to the excuse is not to give up on planning but to change the
way planning is done.
The horizon will also determine what information about your situation is important. For
example, broad political shifts may be interesting, but those shifts may not impact an
operational team defining their one-year turn-around plan to improve efficiency and customer
service. Those same political shifts may be critical, however, for a board considering new
owners for a business in ten years.

The environmental factors (PESTLE)

Within each sphere, you will have different environmental factors. One of the more popular
depictions of this is the PESTLE, which stands for Political, Economic, Social,
Technological, Legal, and Environmental. Each factor can be considered to determine the
impacts on each of the spheres or the team as a whole.
The PESTLE is designed to provide a comprehensive view of a situation, which presents a
risk of capturing irrelevant information. If PESTLE is use, the information gathered can be
rated as to how relevant it is to the strategy of the team. If you are not going to use the
information to make decisions, it may be interesting but not worth your attention.

The characteristics (SWOT, and derivatives)

In addition to the spheres and factors, you can also consider the characteristics of the
situation. One of the more popular ways of looking at the characteristics is the SWOT
analysis. SWOT stands for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats. Strengths
and weaknesses focuses internally and opportunities and threats are focus externally. Some
recommend switching the order to consider a TOWS in order to shift the emphasis from
internal to external.
The SWOT analysis has been criticised. Some say it is dated and that we should give SWOT
a rest, although the reasons given have perhaps more to do with the way it is facilitated more
than issues with the tool itself. Others point to an increasing rate of change to say that
opportunities and threats should simply be considered as Trends, shortening SWOT to SWT.
Another criticism of the SWOT is that it can be seen as a static one-off exercise and does not
produce relevant information. These concerns have spawned a myriad of alternatives,
including:

The SCORE approach, which stands for Strengths, Challenges,

Opportunities, Responses, and Effectiveness and adds an inherent
comparison to the outcomes.

The SCOPE model, highlighting the Situation, Core Competencies,

Obstacles, Prospects, and Expectations.

The NOISE analysis approach, which stands for Needs, Opportunities,

Improvements, Strengths, and Exceptions.

Previously mentioned Michael Porter also developed his own Porters

Five Forces Analysis that looks at Industry rivalry, Threat of new
entrants, Threat of new substitutes, Bargaining power of suppliers an
Bargaining power of buyers.

There is also a perspective that the SWOT analysis can have a negative focus. Rather than
dwelling on weaknesses and threats, the SOAR model aligns with an overall Appreciative
Inquiry planning framework and looks at Strengths, Opportunities, Aspirations and Results.
However, SOAR is more of a strategic planning framework rather than a context analysis,
describing a linear path to build from one aspect to another (Strengths to Opportunities and
Aspirations, then Results) as compared to the SWOT which looks at all aspects independently
(strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats).
Thinking frameworks

Thinking about an organisation using four characteristics can be helpful but will never be
sufficient in itself. This leads to another criticism of the SWOT which is perhaps unfair. I

suspect we may be asking the SWOT to do something it was not intended to do, and that is
for it to provide a comprehensive way of thinking holistically about the business.
For example, some criticise the SWOT and offer an alternative that looks
at capabilities across 20 variables. Others say the SWOT analysis is unable to adapt to the
complexity and rate of change, defining their own TOP analysis that looks at terrain,
operations, overseers, outliers, product, population, and players. The McKinsey
7S framework never positioned itself against the SWOT, and set out to provide a model that
looks at an organisations Shared values, Systems, Skills, Structure, Staff, Strategy, and Style.
The Business Model Canvas is another approach that considers how different parts of the
business interact with each other in consistent ways. The Canvas looks at four aspects of
revenue generation (Customer segments, Customer relationships, Channels, and Revenue
streams), four aspects of cost (Key partners, Key activities, Key resources, and Cost
structure), and the Value propositions that connect cost and revenue together.
A lot of research and thought goes into a viable thinking framework. As such, thinking
frameworks are often proprietary as intellectual property to the consultancy who develops
them and not often share publically outside of a paid engagement.

So which to use?
As I mentioned before, I do not believe there is a single best model. The question to ask is:
Do we have the information we need to make strategic decisions about our business?
Following a framework for the sake of the framework will likely not get you the results you
need. It is about the conversation that results from the framework and whether the
conversation leads you to make better decisions.
For example, here are a few ways I have mixed the tools:

Asking the team to define what contributed to their success; their

position in the market, the business life-cycle, and the global
corporation; and complete the business model canvas. Out of this
came a shift of focus on who they saw as their end customers, the
individual who used their product versus the distributor that paid their
invoice.

Working with the team to define their personal and team challenges
an ambitions, as well as their organisational an industry pressures
and potential. This understanding allowed the team to develop a
share consensus on the current state to prioritise their strategic
initiatives.

Developing position statements along a thinking framework and

rating each aspect on a scale of 1 to 10. Then working with the team
to consider, if the team were to invest the same amount into each

aspect, where they would have the most significant impact. This
provided a means to measure the impact of specific strategic
initiatives.

Most any framework can produce value. The question is not whether the information can be
used, but the amount of effort that is required to make the information useful. The much
criticised SWOT remains one of the more popular tools for its ability to create clear lines of
sight to the strategic approach, be it a:

Conservative or Re-orientation strategy (weaknesses and

opportunities),

Defensive strategy (weaknesses and threats),

Offensive or aggressive strategy (Strengths and opportunities), or

Competitive or diversification strategy (strengths and threats)

Simply having the information is meaningless unless you identify how you will exploit and
capitalise on your strengths and opportunities, and overcome or mitigate your weaknesses
and threats.

When it is difficult to define your context

Not all teams take the time to understand their situation before they develop their strategic
plan. Here are some conditions that will make it difficult to define your context:
You have already made your decision
Teams occasionally go into strategic planning with their minds already made up as to the
outcome. If this is the case, information will be ignored or discredited. It is best in these
cases not to waste the time of everyone involved and be honest with mandating the outcome
rather than going through the motions of people feeling as though they are having an impact.

You mistake analysis for planning

For some, gathering an analysing information can become an art form. For others, analysing
information can mask a fear of making decisions. There may never be enough information to
make that difficult decision.
Analysing information is not planning. Pouring over information may prepare you for
company trivia night, but without planning you will be ill-equipped when decisions need to
be made about the survivability of your company.
You do not believe the information is useful
What you focus on, you create. If you go into a planning process believing it is a waste of
time, you will likely meet your own expectations.
You facilitate the conversation yourself
This one may seem self-serving, given my current role in facilitating strategy conversations.
I make this point coming from a career as a manager who felt he could facilitate the strategic
conversation for his own team. If you are facilitating your own strategic planning
conversation, it is difficult to participate as there is an inherent conflict of interest. A good
facilitator challenges the team, and if it is your own team you may be perceived as pushing
your agenda.
Facilitating strategic planning is also a skill that is developed with practice. You may have
practice running meetings, but if the only time you facilitate a strategic planning session is
once a year, then you may not get the same value that you would if you bring someone in
who helps teams with the process on a regular basis across different environments.

Know your so what? to get you where you

want to go
Teams who are clear about their current situation have a solid foundation on which to plan.
The value is not knowing what the information is saying, but in asking so what does it
mean? and how it can help you make decisions. You can also read more about where the
information sits in the strategic planning process in my previous post on future-focused
strategic planning approaches.
If you are involved in or are a recipient of planning in your organisation, my hope is that this
information is useful to you. This list is far from complete. I would be interested in
your experience an what you have found helpful an not so helpful in the planning process.
As you gather your information, I encourage you to ask yourself so what? and surround
yourself with those you who will challenge you to make your information useful to help you
get to where you want to go.

OT is a very common process used for planning. Its essentially a way to list the
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats related to a new project or
idea youre taking on. Its supposed to lay everything out for you so that you
can achieve your goals.
It also splits these four categories into internal and external issues. Strengths and
weaknesses are internal, while opportunities and threats are external. You can apply
what is called matching and converting too. Matching is where you link strengths and
objectives together, while converting is making your weaknesses and threats into
strengths and opportunities.
Its all fairly straight forward and is a simple way to visualise different aspects of the
task ahead.
SWOT has been around for quite sometime now with its origins in the 60s. However,
as a form of analysis, it has been criticised on a number of levels.
Its been suggested the wording is misleading. Threats for example sounds overly
dangerous, while weaknesses is said to suggest inadequacy. It is thought more
effective terms may be available that better describe the issues at hand such as
replacing threats with obstacles or something similar. The inside/outside
categorisation has also been criticised for being too limiting, while its also suggested
that SWOT does not encourage a continuing use of analysis. All too often it is used at
the start of a project and then quickly discarded as things move on.
It will come as no surprise then that people have come up with alternatives.

SCORE
SCORE stands for:

Strengths

Challenges

Options

Responses

Effectiveness

You can see fairly quickly that the language has changed somewhat from SWOT.
There is a lot less negativity, with challenges the only section that really suggests any
issues. This might raise some eyebrows for being too idealistic, but if you dig a little
deeper you can see that it still manages to cover all the bases.
Challenges is quite a vague term as it includes pretty much all the tasks youll
encounter, but importantly it is not particularly defeatist. SCORE still makes clear there
will be problems, but it concentrates more on how these eventualities can be solved
rather than framing them simply as negatives and nothing more.
For example, a challenge may be dealing with a competing product backed by a much
vaster and wealthier company than yours. SWOT would list why you are weaker than
them and the threat they pose to you. That doesnt do a whole lot of good nor does it
really link smoothly to the other half of the grid.
With SCORE, once your challenge is listed youre straight into your options and
responses, finishing off with how effective they might be. This is a much more
proactive method and encourages you to start planning around future obstacles rather
than leaving a festering, menacing looking list like SWOT produces.
The intention of SCORE is to create a very clear and concise roadmap to success and
it does this very well.

SOAR
For a somewhat more New Age approach, you have something called SOAR:

Strengths

Opportunities

Aspirations

Results

Youll notice its gone even further than SCORE and removed any negative criteria
completely. This seems, at best, unwise. How do you plan for problems when you
dont include them in your analysis? Its possible you could fit some within
opportunities, but it seems forced and, ultimately, confused. It is overly idealistic, but
that doesnt mean it isnt completely without merit.
The idea is that SOAR is meant to encourage collaboration above all else. It attempts
to do this with the 5 Is:

Initiate

Inquire

Imagine

Innovate

Inspire and implement

Unfortunately, this is where SOAR starts to veer off into hippy buzzwords that lack any
real direction or worth. Imagine for example is a strange one. Surely this isnt
something you need to be told to do and would be a part of a new idea or plan
anyway. The point of this kind of analysis is to help you make sense of what you have
already imagined previously. This kind of language is helpful to some though and, for
those with the right mindset, they may find this list a good way to find motivation and
energy when it comes to their planning.
SOAR is also meant to make use of appreciative inquiry or AI. This is, in its most
simple form, a heavy reliance on positive action and the abilities of those involved in
planning. According to Wikipedia it:

advocates collective inquiry into the best of what is in

order to imagine what could be
Its all very flowery, but it has its advantages. There are certainly many firms out there
for whom this kind of process would yield some great results. Its definitely more of a
creative ilk, but I would say it leans a little too much to the area of brainstorming to be
of use to everyone. SOAR has a lot of potential in the creation of ideas by bringing

people together, but it might not fit so well with the two-man plumbing business based
in Ealing.

NOISE
Created by Michael Cardus of Creative Learning, NOISE stands for:

Needs

Opportunities

Improvements

Strengths

Exceptions

For the most part, its a fairly straightforward alternative to SWOT, with some
similarities to SCORE in that it attempts to remove some of the overt negativity.
Problems would now go under the heading of needs, although that isnt exactly tidy.
While it is at first seemingly more positive, I get the impression needs may breed
more depression than you first expect.
Issues get changed into what you dont have rather than what needs to be completed.
For example, one of the future problems you envisage might be that is finding new
clients. NOISE would change that to you needing new clients. Its not a massive
change really, but if I was to choose between phrasing issues as challenges to
overcome or as needs to be met, I know which would create more enthusiasm for
the work ahead.
One of the more interesting aspects of NOISE is the exceptions category. Its defined
on Carus site as :

Of the N, O, & I listed, what is already happening, even

just a little bit?
He goes into more detail of the concept in this blog post. Essentially the point is to
foster a sense of cooperation between team members. This is done by moving focus

away from any problems and looking at what is or already has worked and go from
there. This is meant to highlight how the team has previously interacted positively in
order to show that advances and achievements can be made. It is about taking stock
of what you can already do rather than worrying about what you cant do. The idea is
that youll eradicate any negative issues by using positive past experiences and gains
as a starting point.
Its a good idea in terms of improving team cohesion, but I think that it may possibly
cause future irritation. What you can do can only go so far and looking back may not
help you move forward. By talking about how well something was done before, it may
hinder your ability to discover new solutions that may work better. It seems to suggest
that if a process worked before, theres no need to try and create a new and better
one.
So, all in all, each alternative offers a differing perspective from SWOT. They all have
an intention to encourage more positivity, although obviously some strive for this more
than others. Theyre interesting ideas and it may be worth considering tweaking or
merging them to make them fit you and your team better. None of these are set in
stone and you shouldnt feel like creating your own versions isnt an option.
In the end, its about getting the most out of your planning and there are plenty of
options to take from the analyses above.

If you think that the analysis you use to identify the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and
threats (SWOT) in your business is adequate, beware. It is intended to provide a 360-degree
view of your risks and opportunities but often fails to fill that requirement because of superficial
applications and failure to look at risks from connected systems.
If your risk and opportunity analysis techniques are lacking, you could be very unprepared for the
next recession, disruptive technology or game-changing way of thinking that could soon affect
you. Too often, the last domino that struck in the last crisis is the main focus of all future riskmitigation efforts. The whole string of triggers and threatening signals that led up to that last
publicized tipping point and bursting bubble are ignored.
Here are the 10 most common shortcomings for SWOT analysis:
1.
Underestimating the role that vertical and lateral cascading human factors can play and
having fragile back-up plans

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Absence of war gaming, stress testing and disruptive failure mode analysis testing of
your leadership mindset, strategy, work culture, processes, products and services
Lack of focus on disruptive innovations; you respond to them but do not create them with
proven innovation-on-demand techniques
Assumptions that cyber security and patents are safe, so they arent stress tested with
advanced cyber-circumvention and patent-busting techniques
Taboo talk rules; uncomfortable discussion topics are avoided or not identified with
focused and anonymously solicited inputs from employees
Ignoring Trojan horse risks that are secretly lurking in the hearts and minds of your
employees or piggy-backing on purchased technology, software, products or services
Lack of use of gamification techniques to address the most sensitive threats in a
disciplined, humane, engaging and effective manner
Failure to include effective strategies to attract and retain key human talent
Failure to identify low-profile threats that create unstoppable cascading risks from
leadership to culture to processes to bad performance to weak responses to critical situations
Lack of use of external perspectives to challenge group-think assumptions of perceived
safety and robustness
Simple SWOT analysis and risk-management techniques will not offer the protection required to
survive the next economic crisis or disruptive technology. KISS concepts (keep it simple, stupid)
have lost their ability to identify and protect against complex cascading risks. The world is a
fragile, hyper-connected and cascading system full of surprises that will punish casual optimists
and reward those who hope for the best but seriously plan for worst-case scenarios.
The World Economic Forums 2014 World Risk Report describes the global risks that can quietly
cascade across borders and affect organizations in unsuspecting and surprising ways from a
variety of threatening and linked factors. The complex dynamics that exist between developed,
developing and emerging world markets is further complicated by the fact that many
organizations know very little about the cascading system dynamics within their own four walls.
Classic methods that attempt to describe the risk and opportunity landscape for individuals and
organizations have not kept pace with the rising complexity and interactions between highly
networked workplaces, global economies and internal and external threats. We have now
entered a new era where we need new ways to describe and understand the complex world we
have created, which has outgrown the simple tools we like to describe it with.

SCOPE Planning
SCOPE -- situation, core competencies, obstacles, prospects and expectations -- attempts
to take the SWOT idea a little further. It not only analyzes internal and external factors,
but it also attempts to align the internal with the external to provide a road map of
strategic development. Situation refers to prevailing conditions under which everything
must be considered, while internal core competencies of the business are aligned with
external prospects. Obstacles and expectations can be either internal or external. This
model can present more information and has more flexibility than SWOT.

SOAR
SOAR is a positive-thinking method of analysis that identifies strengths, opportunities,
aspirations and results. It's intended for creative problem solving, and asks the user to
perform five key "I" actions when facing a decision or formulating a strategy: initiate,
inquire, imagine, innovate and implement. Proponents of SOAR say it's a way to include
the key factors of motivation and engagement into business planning.
Related Reading: How to Do a SWOT Analysis

Defensive/Offensive Evaluation
This method divides a business's aims into two basic realms. The first is defending its
existing product or market and the resulting profits. The second is the offensive aim of
gaining new products or markets and, hence, additional profits. Executives can identify
both internal and external challenges under each of these two themes. For instance, the
defensive aim includes analyzing the business's vulnerability to imitation and innovation
by competitors, but it also involves internal costs, quality assurance and the supply
chain.

CORE Assessment
Companies can use this technique in a narrower range of circumstances than a classic
SWOT analysis. It's most often used by start-up businesses and entrepreneurs as a
method to chart their plans for future growth. CORE stands for capital investment,
ownership involvement, risk assessment and exit strategy. It looks at how the business
will be funded; what its ownership structure will be and whether those owners also will be
managers, what the external and internal risks are to the basic business model and
whether the entrepreneur plans to eventually sell the company as a going concern or
continue to develop it personally.

SWOT Alternative The SCOPE Planning

Model
For generations in marketing and business weve used the SWOT model to provide an
initial analysis and classification of the issues facing a business as it starts to evaluate
its position and devise strategy. It has served us well since its inception in the 1960s
with its simplicity, functionality and intuitiveness; remaining un-changed and unequivocal for over 40 years. It provides a useful tool for segmenting internal and external
factors into positives and negatives, yet in doing so it can be limiting in its scope to
introduce wider factors which could or should come into play when developing our
plans. Most executives merely use the SWOT as a method of grouping factors into the 4
buckets, with limited conscious effort to align internal Strengths to specific external
Opportunities, or to understand Weaknesses in regard to mitigating Threats. In this
respect, the SWOT doesnt provide a progression in its strategic development. Id
therefore like to put forward the SCOPE planning model for consideration as a SWOT
alternative please try it on your brand or business and let me know your experience
and thoughts.
S SITUATION: Rear-view pertaining conditions which have a relevant and material
impact on the planning decision with regards to internal or external environmental
factors.

C CORE COMPETENCIES: Unique strengths and abilities of the business which

provide the fundamental basis for the provision of added value to customers and are
critical to the delivery of competitive advantage.
O OBSTACLES: Potential issues and threats that could jeopardize the realisation of
future Prospects.
P PROSPECTS: Possibilities, chances and opportunities existing both internally or
externally to the business which have an apparent probability of enhanced sales and / or
profits created through the leveraging of its Core Competencies.
E EXPECTATIONS: Future-view anticipated developments in internal and external
conditions that could materially influence or impact the delivery of plans to meet the
identified Prospects.

The SCOPE Planning Model1

SCOPE retains many similarities to SWOT, yet allows extra freedom to present
additional information and reflections pertinent to the planning process.
The Situation provides an outline and understanding of the prevailing conditions upon
which the strategic plan is to be developed. It should consider both internal and external
factors which have led the business to its current status, and which have a bearing on
the identification of future opportunities, trends and plans.
Core Competencies are specific factors that a business sees as being central to the
way it operates which fulfil 3 key criteria:
1. Are not easy for competitors to imitate, i.e. are unique
2. Can be leveraged across products and markets
3. Contribute to the end consumers experienced benefits, i.e. add value
In these respects, Core Competencies provide the fundamental basis for the business
achieving a competitive advantage in its defined market given the pertaining conditions.
Obstacles may be either internal or external, and reflect specific issues which need to
be addressed if the business is to realise future Prospects. In this respect, they shouldnt
necessarily be defined as either a Weakness or Threat but rather be perceived as
hurdles to the plan to be overcome over the duration. Weaknesses imply longer-term
systemic issues causing a strategic disadvantage. Obstacles are shorter-term situations
that need to be resolved.
Prospects are chances for the business to create additional sales and / or profits by
taking advantage of its Core Competencies in the context of its Situation. Identification of
Prospects provides the foundation for both goal setting and strategic development going
forward.
Expectations reflect anticipated developments, i.e. what does the planner see
happening in the future which could have either a direct or indirect influence on the
execution of the plan and achievement of the defined Prospects. What are the key
predications that will have a bearing on the plan? These can be both quantifiable and
subjective, providing the planner with an appreciation of and insights into the future on
which to direct their strategic thinking.
SCOPE provides an alternative way of categorising the factors upon which strategic
development can take place. It enables us to structure our analysis and thinking in order
to develop strategies and plans in a naturally progressiv1e fashion.

NOISE ANALYSIS AN
ALTERNATIVE TO SWOT
STRATEGIC PLANNING
CORPORATE TEAM BUILDING, CREATIVITY, IMAGES, INNOVATION, LEADERSHIP, LEADERSHIP
AGENDA,LEADERSHIP COACHING, MANAGEMENT, MANAGER TRAINING, ORGANIZATION
DEVELOPMENT,PROBLEM SOLVING, PRODUCTS, SOLUTION-FOCUSED, SUCCESSFUL TEAMS, TEAM
BUILDING, TEAM BUILDING ACTIVITY, TEAM BUILDING AGENDA, TEAM TRAINING
December 12, 2012 mike 1 Comment

Contact Mike to schedule a strategic planning meeting that

will deliver results and engaged staff that are part of the
plan.

NOISE ANALYSIS
Working with companies developing strategic plans most feel that
the default method is a SWOT analysis strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, threats, Ive never been a fan and wondered if
there was an alternative.
In the High-Performance Team Building class a smart friend Brian
Pagkos shared an idea SNOT Analysis strengths, needs,
opportunities, threats.
While preparing for a focus group meeting it came to me NOISE

Needs
Opportunities

Improvements
Strengths
Exceptions

A method that uses solution-focused language and can build upon

the teams knowledge and goals.
OBJECTIVE

When planning, determining what we want to have happen

and understanding the roadblocks are necessary. Developing
knowledge plus skills to navigate the plan allows us to choose
focus points plus what to eliminate. The NOISE analysis is a
planning technique of looking at what is working and
determining areas to improve. It gives us a format to explore
opportunities that we may know about or be missing. When we
understand the NOISE conditions, we can create a path towards
the future that allows the company or team or project to
flourish.
MATERIALS

Flip Chart Paper

Markers

Lots of Post-its
GROUP SIZE

5 to 20

Ive led this with larger groups you can break the group into
teams of 6 or less. Each team of 6 works independently then
get together to share (or the facilitator finds commonalities and
categorizes them) OR lead a series of focus groups with smaller
teams separately.
TIME FRAME

At least 3 hours, I have led this over multiple days.

GUIDELINES
1. Before the meeting, it may prove helpful to decide on a goal
(what-by-when) to be achieved or to send some pre-work to the
participants. Examples of pre-work:

Share these 8 Planning Questions and ask them to come

prepared to share some responses.

Have them work through the question of What is your

department accountable for? How can others help you in

accomplishing your accountability? and come prepared for

each department to share their responses.
2. On a piece of flip chart paper draw a circle in the middle.
Create four quadrants radiating from the center circle. See below.
While drawing the NOISE analysis chart explain what would be
useful information in each area. Feel free to change the bullets to
match your needs better.
EXCEPTIONS

In the center, circle write Exceptions.

Exceptions = Of the N, O and I Listed

what is already happening, even just a
little bit?

STRENGTHS

In the upper left quadrant write

Strengths.

Strengths = What is working well?

How do you know? What is your team
good at? Examples?

*
NEEDS

In the upper right quadrant write Needs.

Needs = When we have ________ this

is a better place to work, or we are more
useful in completing our plan or make it
fit what you need.

Organizational needs

Individual needs

*
OPPORTUNITIES

In the lower left quadrant write

Opportunities

Opportunities = Other departments

/ locations / companies / teams / etc are
doing ____________

An area of untapped talent OR under-utilized resources

____________

What do we currently have that could be used differently?

*
IMPROVEMENTS

In the lower right quadrant write

Improvements.

Improvements: Miracle
Question: You leave here today and go to
sleep. While you are sleeping a miracle
happens and what you need to be more
effective with your work happens, but you dont know because
you were asleep. You arrive tomorrow the 1st thing you would
notice that makes you realize this has happened is? How would
you know?

Scaling Question: On a scale of 0 -10 with 10 optimal and 0

being the opposition; Currently the department, organization,
team (choose appropriately) operates at X, what does X + 2
look like?
*

NOISE ANALYSIS CHART

3. After illustrating plus sharing the format with the group ask
them to grab some flipchart papers, markers, and post-it notes.
Take about 45 minutes to 1 hour as a team to complete as many
responses to the NOISE analysis as possible. PLEASE ask people
just to share, this is a brainstorming-planning time we will
evaluate the ideas later; for right nowwe are looking for
quantity.
3a. If you feel people will be too judgmental.

Ask them to work individually filling out post-it notes by

themselves on each of the areas. Start with Strengths then
progress to Needs,Opportunities, Improvements, and end
with Exceptions.

After people have had a chance to think and work by

themselves, ask them to share their responses (post-it notes)
on the NOISE areas.

4. With the team go through the NOISE areas. Starting

with Strengthssort the ideas in common affinity groups, finding
clusters of ideas that may fit together. Take the ideas that may be
outliers and also recognize those ideas they may be breakthrough
ideas.
At this stage, the smaller teams of 6 or less are necessary this
way any confusion over the ideas can be explained by the person
that had the idea. Plus the team is small enough to discuss what
belongs together and what may be outliers.
Repeat the process in each of the other NOISE areas in this
order: Needs,Opportunities, Improvements, and end
with Exceptions.
5. Once you are done sorting and clustering into common
groups, the team will look for broad categories for each small
cluster. For example Communication between sales and
production or More knowledge of how to use our internal
knowledge management system. As the group reaches
agreement on the broad categories re-write these in the proper
NOISE areas.
6. Now that everyone feels comfortable with the general
categories re-write them in each NOISE area and ask the team to
dot vote on which they believe are most relevant based upon the
purposes of our planning time.
7. We have broad categories and a bunch of ideas on how to
focus and improve themNext steps would be to take the general
categories and ask the team to develop some short term

measurement/ milestones to show progress and achievement in

the categories.
8. Management (or the team leader) gathers all the broad
categories and short term measurements/ milestones for
achievement and types them up in a Plan Document shares
them with the team, ensures that they are all in agreement.
9. Any feedback is taken into consideration and changes are
made as needed. This Plan Document along with all the great
ideas is now your improvement or strategic plan.
10. Routinely return to the Plan Document and check for
relevancy and success, intend to deal with plus correct setbacks.

How to Create a SWOT Action Plan

March 26, 2015 By Ron

Theres not much point in creating a SWOT analysis unless it causes

change. If the SWOT analysis just produces a lot of good discussion and
then gets put away in a book, its not of much value.
You need a system where the SWOT analysis will drive action. That system
is the SWOT Action Plan. The SWOT Action Plan is another matrix that
looks at where the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats
cross each other. At these crossing points,

Strengths can be used to win Opportunities and reduce Threats

Opportunities can be used to build new Strengths and bolster
Weaknesses
And more

The SWOT Action Plan is Critical to Success in strategic change, projects,

and career moves.

Use the SWOT Action Plan to identify actions that are Critical to
Success.

Download SWOT Analysis and SWOT Action Plan Templates Critical to

Success
Move the rank ordered Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats
from each quadrant of your SWOT into the headings for the SWOT Action
Plan. You may need to rewrite the Post-It Notes so they fit along the sides
of the SWOT Action Plan.
Consider what actions you must take inside each quadrant. You want to
develop a short list of actions that have a high imperative. A good way to do
this is to take Strength #1 and compare it to each Opportunity. Then, take
Strength #2 and compare it to each Opportunity. Because this adds up to a

lot of questions, only consider comparisons that are highly probable and/or
that have high impact.
A good way to do this that insures youve considered all the combinations is
to create a Post-It Note work area on the wall or paper worksheets like this.
If youre using the large Post-It Notes, then its easy to move them between
matrices.

Use a SWOT comparison table to make sure youve compared all

possibilities.
Download SWOT Analysis and SWOT Action Plan Templates Critical to
Success
Here are some questions to think through when doing your comparisons.
Strengths-Opportunities Actions
How can we use our strengths to leverage opportunities?
What new strengths will this opportunity give us?
Strengths-Threats Actions
How can our strengths counteract or minimize threats?
What new strengths do we need to build in order to counter these threats?
Weaknesses-Opportunities Actions

How can we reduce or eliminate our weaknesses by leveraging these

opportunities?
What weaknesses could this opportunity introduce?
Weaknesses-Threats Actions
How can we reduce our weaknesses when dealing with these threats?
What weaknesses must we strengthen to reduce these threats?
Rank your answers to get the three most important action items in each
quadrant. Then, choose the three most important from the entire SWOT
Action Plan. These are what you MUST DO!
The SWOT analysis and the SWOT Action Matrix should be debriefed and
available to the teams that are implementing the action plans. They need to
understand what the drivers and environment are.

Executing Your SWOT Action Plan with the

Art of the Quick Win
Your SWOT Action Plan could produce twelve objectives, projects, or action
items (three times four quadrants). Although its probably been around a
long time, I try to use something I call the Rule of Three. Its rare that
people or organizations can focus on more than three objectives at one
time. Its true for work and true for home. As a Dad who stayed home to
raise his pre-school daughter for a few years I would recommend cutting
that Rule of Three in half if you are also taking care of the higher priority

kids.
An important skill to learn is the Art of the Quick Win. Becoming a Ninja
Master in the Art of the Quick Win is a skill that is Critical to Success. You
want to pick tasks, projects, and organizational changes that have a high
probability of success, that create visible impact, and that will gain you
more backing from stakeholders.

Quick Wins meet these qualifications,

They have a key stakeholder that really wants you to win

That stakeholder will back you up and present you to higher
management when you win

The project is low to moderate risk

The project can be finished in a relatively short time frame

The project has a high impact

Key personnel on the Quick Win