Vol. 7(18), pp.

1859-1874, 14 May, 2013

DOI: 10.5897/AJBM12.381
African Journal of Business Management
ISSN 1993-8233 © 2013 Academic Journals
http://www.academicjournals.org/AJBM

Full Length Research Paper

Strategic planning with fuzzy analysis network process

approach (FANP)
Farangis Siavashan1, 2* and Ali Khari3
1
Payam- e- Noor University, Tehran branch, Tehran, Iran.
2
No. 4, Nasim building, Esfande sharghi, Gorgan, Iran.
3
Human Resources Management, Golestan Non Beneficial High Educational Institute, Gorgan, Iran.
Accepted 8 October, 2012

The main purpose of this research is to use a decision approach in prioritizing strategy choice for
SWOT matrix analysis. This research was done in 2010, in Frab Co. which works in the field of
installation of water and energy projects in Tehran. Based on the nature of the research, its statistical
society was managers and experts of different units of the organization. The members of this team
include the managing director, management of human resources, director of planning and project
control, inspection and quality control manager, financial and administrative management and
engineering management and deputy of projects affairs. The present research in terms of purpose is an
applied research; it is also considered as a descriptive research. In this research for determining
important weight, fuzzy analytic network process was used. The fuzzy method used was Chang’s extent
analysis (EA) method. Excel software was used to calculate analytic network process by using extent
analysis method for determination of important weights, and MATLAB software was used to get the
final results of the study. Research results showed that when dependence exists among SWOT
(strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) factors, this dependence could change weight and
priority of strategy alternative, and eventually WO (weaknesses- opportunities) strategy with the final
weight of 0.317 was selected as the best strategy.

Key words: Strategic planning, SWOT matrix, analytic network process, fuzzy analytic hierarchy process,
Chang’s extent analysis method, triangular fuzzy numbers.

INTRODUCTION

Nowadays, organizations are faced with restive and attention to its competitors, it competes blindly. Today’s
turbulent environment. Environmental threats from all success can guarantee tomorrow’s success.
side threaten life and survival of organizations. Organi- Success always causes new and various problems. In
zations should identify their current position. They should fact, companies must choose goals and strategies that
precisely analyze their strengths and weaknesses; and ensure their survival in competition, based on their
by relying on their strengths they should use environ- available resource and the information from the environ-
mental opportunities and prepare themselves to face ment. This is possible in the form of strategic planning
threats. If a company is not able to identify actions and within strategic planning framework of the organization
strategies of its competitors, it should not be expected to used to analyze its capability and environmental condition
win its rivals. In other words, if a company does not pay based on the organization’s specific available goals and

*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]. Tel/Fax: 00981712231931.

1860 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.

the method for reaching them. These factors play a key way that also measures the dependence between SWOT
and vital role in the success of the organization. Many agents (Yuksel and Dagdeviren, 2007). The proposed
approaches and techniques can be used in strategic algorithm in this research uses fuzzy analysis network
analysis in the process of strategic management (Dincer, process (FAND) which also provides the possibility of
2004) such as Boston consulting group, the porter model measuring the dependence between strategic factors. In
or GE model that was introduced by General Electric many decision issues, it is desirable to imagine the
Company. But among these techniques, SWOT matrix interaction between criteria to be the same as the real
analysis, which evaluates opportunities, threats, strength world. NAP powerful tool with fuzzy approach gives the
and weaknesses of an organization, is one of the most opportunity for decision makers to model SWOT factors.
famous methods. In SWOT analysis two environments Also, it has become an attractive multi-criteria decision
must be carefully analyzed and evaluated; one is internal making tool that causes dependence among SWOT
environment, which requires identifying strength and factors, affects the weight of sub-branches of SWOT
weakness of an organization and the other one is agents and the weight of strategy options, and it might
external environment of an organization (Kangas et al., serve as a process for quantifying the analysis of SWOT
2003). The data from environmental analysis can be leading dependence between SWOT factors.
shown systematically in a matrix (Houben et al., 1999).
Various combinations from four factors of matrix if anal-
yzed properly can be a good basis for the compilation Importance of the research
and designing of strategy. But the analysis of SWOT has
flaws in evaluation and measurement of steps (McDonald, For many years, the process of network analysis (ANP),
1993). Routinely, this method does not specify as a comprehensive approach, is used to solve many
quantitatively the amount of influence of each of these problems of decision making. In this research, FANP, the
factors on the proposed program or the chosen strategy new and powerful tool is used, which links fuzzy concepts
(Masozera et al., 2006). with network analysis process. This method can be useful
In other words, SWOT analysis is not specifically an when decisions with several options and indicators are to
analytical tool for determination of relative importance of be made. With the theory of fuzzy system, fuzzy logic
each of these factors. It does not also have the ability to theory and fuzzy sizes parameters such as knowledge,
prioritize the options for our strategy. This method usually experience and human judgment can be entered into the
gives a general and brief description of the impact of model; and by creating flexibility in the model, a gray
each factor, and it is expected that SWOT matrix should picture of the gray world can be created.
be able to specify quantitatively in analyzing the precise Clearly, the results of such models, due to the
impact of each of these factors (Hill and Westbrook, availability of real condition, would be more accurate and
1997). SWOT matrix must also be able to rank these practical (Azar and Faraji, 2008). The final output of this
factors in relation to a decision; in this way it provides process provides a method for determining important
opportunity for decision makers to analyze the weights of indictors and priority of options. SWOT
importance of strategic factors in comparison with each analysis does not only have this ability in analyzing
other (Shrestha et al., 2004). As a result of ignorance of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, but is
deficiencies, SWOT matrix analysis only provides a list of also one of the key elements of the strategic planning
strategic factors or an incomplete qualitative examination which is very challenging in the analytical method.
of these factors. Several methods are used in enhancing the accuracy of
Due to these reasons, SWOT matrix analysis could not the results. Using the FANP in SWOT is one of the new
fully and comprehensively carry out the process of issues, which is the innovation of this research.
strategic decision-making that enables organizations to
implement the right strategic decision. Kurttila et al.
(2006, 2000) and Kajanus et al. (2004) developed a Research question
combined technique to eliminate defects in SWOT. This
technique uses analytical hierarchy process (AHP) in the This research has one main question: What is the
SWOT analysis. Although AHP techniques remove main process of using FANP in SWOT and how can its results
flaws in the evaluation and measurement of SWOT be analyzed?
analysis, the drawback of this method is that it cannot
measure the possible associations between SWOT
factors. It is assumed that in the AHP, SWOT agents are RESEARCH METHODS
independent in a hierarchical structure; although, this
assumption may not always be correct due to the effects In this study, in order to determine the importance of
that both external and internal environment have on each weight, fuzzy analytic network process was used. The
other. So it is essential that we use SWOT analysis in a fuzzy method used was Chang’s extent analysis (EA)
 Siavashan and Khari 1861

method. So in the various steps, due to the exten- Analytic Network process (ANP)
siveness of information, on one hand, and the high
volume of calculations, on the other hand, two computer Saaty (1996) presented a method for multi criteria called
programs are used based on network analysis process analytic network process. The aim of its presentation is to
technique of expansion analysis method. EXEL software design a model through which complex issue of multi
was used for the calculations relating to analytic network decision can be analyzed into smaller pieces and using
process by using expansion analysis method for deter- reasonable value to analyze them into simpler com-
mination of importance of weights, and for final results, ponents and then integrate these values to get a final
MATLAB software was used. decision.
The present research in terms of purpose is considered The method of analysis network process (ANP) is the
as an applied research. Applied research is a research developed form of analytical hierarchy process (AHP)
whose findings could have scientific use. The subjective that has the capacity to model the correlations and
realm of the research is fuzzy analytic network process feedbacks among effective factors and also calculates
(FANP) and the local realm is Frab Company. The the effects of decision on internal components. Therefore,
reason for the use of Analytic Network Process in the due to this feature, this technique is distinctive and
SWOT matrix is that it can eliminate the major flaws in superior to previous model (Saaty, 1996; Chung et al.,
the assessment and measurement of the SWOT matrix 2006). Therefore, top- down hierarchical structure is not
analysis steps, but the main drawback of this method is suitable for a complex system. A feedback system can be
that it could not measure the possible dependence shown as a network.
between SWOT factors. In the analytical hierarchy pro- Structural difference between a network and a hier-
cess, it is assumed that these factors are independent of archy is shown in Figure 1. Elements in a cluster can
each other in the hierarchical structure. Although the affect the elements in other branches. A network can be
assumption is not always true in terms of effects on both organized as source, intermediate and sink clusters.
internal and external environments, an organization can Relationships within the network is shown with arcs, and
use internal strengths to take advantage of external arcs direction shows the dependence (Saaty, 1996;
opportunities; or by exploiting available opportunities in Chung et al., 2006) and interdependence between two
external environment it can improve internal weaknesses, clusters, called outer dependence and is displayed with a
or by using internal strength it can reduce the effects of two-way arrow. Internal dependence among the elements
threats in the environment or eliminate them. As it was of a cluster is shown by looped arcs (Chung et al., 2006;
said these factors are not independent of each other and Sarkis, 2002).
in addition, a connection may exist between some of Network analysis process consists of four main steps:
these factors. In the technique of analytical hierarchy making model and the issue of structure: at first, the
process SWOT factors’ weights are calculated with the issue should be clearly stated and analyzed into a logical
assumptions that these factors are independent of each system like a network (Figure 1).
other; but it is possible that these factors are related to
each other and in this situation these dependencies can Pair wise comparisons matrices and priority vector
affect SWOT factors’ weights and this will ultimately
change priorities of strategic options. So it is essential In network analysis process like analytical hierarchy
that we use a state of SWOT analysis which considers process, decision elements in each cluster are compared
the possible associations between SWOT factors in pair wise according to their importance in those criteria,
decision (Yukse and Dagdeviren, 2007). and the clusters also are compared par wise with each
The proposed algorithm in this research uses fuzzy other according to their effects on the goal. Decision-
analytical network process (FANP) which makes it makers are asked in terms of a series of pair wise com-
possible for us to measure dependence among SWOT parisons. They were asked what effects two elements or
factors. In many issues, the favorable decision is the one two clusters have in comparison with each other on the
that links real world; we can imagine the inter-relation- above criteria.
ships among criteria. It became an attractive multi-criteria Furthermore, if interdependence exists among ele-
decision making tool because it is a powerful tool of ments of one part, we should specify the amount of effect
network analysis process with fuzzy approach available of each element on the other elements by using a pair
modeling of SWOT factors for decision–makers. Depen- wise comparisons matrix and getting special vector of
dence among SWOT factors affect both the weights of each element.
SWOT factors’ branches and the weights of strategy
options, and may also change the priority of the strategy Super matrix formation
options. In summary, this study shows the process for
quantifying SWOT matrix analysis in a situation where Super matrix is like Markov chain process. For obtaining
there is dependence among SWOT factors. global priorities in the mutual influence system, the
1862 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.

Cluster



Elements

Hierarchical structure Network

_ structure
Figure 1. The structural differences between network and hierarchy (Sarkis, 2002;
Chung et al., 2006).

relative priority vectors should be entered into the appro- contains the connected parts, more calculations would be
priate columns of matrix. As a result, a super matrix is, in needed to achieve the overall priorities of options and
fact, a segmented matrix that each matrix part shows a finally the option which has the most weight is recognized
relationship between two clusters in a system. Suppose a as the best option.
decision system which has CK parts and K= 1, 2, 3,.., n
and each k cluster is shown through ek1, ek2, … ekmk .
Priority vectors are obtained relatively in the second The proposed algorithm for SWOT matrix
step; they were placed in sections and in the appropriate
position in the super matrix according to the effect of The hierarchical model and the presented network in this
direction from one cluster to another. A standard for study are designed in a four- level analysis of SWOT
super matrix is shown in the following (Saaty, 1996). matrix. Its structural difference can be seen in Figure 2.
The purpose (selection of the best strategy) is placed in
the first level, criteria (SWOT factor) in the second level,
sub criteria (sub branches of SWOT factors) in the third
level and in last level, alternative (strategy alternatives).
Super matrix is a hierarchical SWOT matrix structure
which is composed of four levels and is defined as
follows:

Purpose
SWOT factors
W= Sub branches of SWOT factors
Alternatives

In which:

W21: is a vector which shows effect of purpose on the

criteria.
Selecting the best position W32: is a matrix which shows effect of criteria on each of
the sub criteria.
If the former super matrix in the third step covers all W43: is a matrix which shows effect of sub-criteria on any
networks, option weights can be found in the normalized of the options.
super matrix column. On the other hand, if a super matrix I: is one unit matrix.
 Siavashan and Khari 1863

A B

Purpose Best strategy Best strategy

W1 W 21
Criteria W2 SWOT
SWOT factors
factors
_
W3 W 32
Sub branches of Sub branches of
Sub criteria SWOT factors SWOT factors

W4 W 43
Strategy Strategy
Alternative alternatives alternatives

Figure 2. Structure difference of SWOT model between a hierarchy of A and a network

of B.

Figure 2 shows a state of hierarchical structure with Step one: Identifying the sub branches of SWOT
interdependence between clusters without any feedback. factors (identification of strategic factors) and
Here SWOT factor, sub branches of SWOT factors and determination of strategic options with regard to the
strategies, respectively are put in the place of criteria, sub analysis of these factors.
criteria and alternatives and there is an internal Step two: Determining the importance of degree of
dependence among factors. Based on the design shown SWOT factors with assumption that there is no
in Figure 2(B), the super matrix in this research which is dependence between SWOT factors (W 1, that is matrix
used for SWOT is as follows: calculation).
Step three: identifying interdependences between
Purpose SWOT factors and based on these relationships for
SWOT factors dependency the matrix of each of the SWOT factors
W=
with regard to other factors is formed (W 2, that is matrix
Sub branches of SWOT factors
calculation).
Alternatives Step four: Determining priority of SWOT factors,
according to the dependency that exists between them
(W SWOT factors = W1×W2).
Step five: Determining relative important degree of sub
branches of SWOT factors (W sub branches of SWOT
W 1: is a vector which shows effect of purpose on the factors, that is calculation).
criteria Step six: Determining general important degree of sub
W 2: is a matrix which shows internal dependence among branches of SWOT factors (W general sub-branches of
SWOT factors SWOT factors= W factors × W relative sub branches of
W 3: is a matrix which shows effect of SWOT factors on SWOT factors).
each of the sub branches of SWOT factors. Step seven: Determining important degree of strategy
W4: is a matrix which shows the effect of the sub options with regard to each sub branch of SWOT factor
branches of SWOT factors on any other options. (W 4).
Step eight: calculation of the final priority of strategy
In this research for better understanding, matrix used to options, considering the internal relations among
show calculation details of the main steps of the SWOT factors (W alternatives= W 4 ×W general sub
proposed framework can be summarized as follows: branches).
1864 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.

The main inputs required in the technique of network triangular fuzzy number is calculated as follows:
analysis process for calculating W1, W2, W3, W4 pair
wise comparison are existed elements in each cluster In which K represents row number and I and J
composed of a pair wise comparison matrix. Pair wise respectively represent options and indexes.
comparisons matrices and output evaluation are in the In this method after the calculation of Sk, you should get
fuzzy analytical hierarchy process. In analytical hierarchy their largeness degree in relation with each other. In
process, according to the traditional method, pair wise general, if M1 and M2 are two triangular fuzzy numbers,
comparisons are done based on the relative scale. M1 largeness degree on M2 is defined as follows:
Although a discrete scale has advantages of easy
understanding and use, but due to incompatibility with
human mind’s map, cannot lead us to the actual results.
This research is studied using theoretical concepts of
fuzzy sets and triangular fuzzy numbers with analytic
network process, improving the results and making them
closer to reality as much as possible.
In this study, fuzzy analytical hierarchy process is used
based on specific model of network structure and
existence of internal relationship change in fuzzy analytic Otherwise, also if L2≥U1, put zero.
network process. As we go on, we study some
relationships and the main operators using triangular In this case, we have: Hgt (M1∩M2)=
fuzzy numbers and we also present a method for extent
analysis.

In largeness amount of a triangular fuzzy number from k,

Group decision through change expansion analysis another triangular fuzzy number is obtained from the
method following relationship:

As previously noted, to calculate W1, W2, W3, W4, pair V(M1≥M2,…..,Mk)= V(M1≥M2) and … V(M1≥Mk).
wise comparisons with verbal data are required. The
mentioned matrices can be calculated by using fuzzy Also, for the calculation of indices in pair wise
analytical hierarchy process methodology. There are comparisons matrix the following is performed:
several types of fuzzy analytical hierarchy process
methods but the calculation and level of complexity of
some of these methods are based on the least
logarithmic squares method. In this research, Chang
Extent Analysis method is preferred because its stages
are easier than other fuzzy analytical hierarchy processes. Thus, the weight vector of indicators will be as follows:
Concepts and definition of fuzzy analytical hierarchy
process based on the Chang Extent Analysis (EA) are as
follows:
This is the non-normalized coefficient vector of fuzzy
Consider two triangular fuzzy numbers M1= (L1, m1, u1) hierarchy process (Azar and Faraji, 2008).
and M2= (L2, m2, u2) (Figure 3) Since the used numbers in change extent analysis
method are triangular fuzzy numbers, so we assumed
M1+M2= (l1+l2+m1+m2,u1+u2) that decision-makers set these words for weighting. You
M1.M2= (l1l2, m1m2, u1u2) can see its fuzzy scale and diagram in Table 1 and
Figure 4.

It should be noted that product of two triangular fuzzy Implementing decision algorithm
numbers or reverse of a triangular fuzzy number is not a
triangular fuzzy number any more, and this relationship First step: Specifying organization’s strategic factors
tells only of approximation of the true product of two and determining strategy options with respect to
triangular fuzzy numbers and reverse of a triangular fuzzy these factors
number. In the extent analysis method for each row of
pair wise comparisons matrix, the value which is a In this study, environmental analysis should be done at
 Siavashan and Khari 1865

L2 m2 L1 u2 m1 u1
Figure 3. Display of two triangular fuzzy numbers.

EI WMI SMI VSMI AMI

RI

Figure 4. Verbal scale for measuring the relative importance. Chung et al (2006) and
Shrestha et al (2004).

first. Analysis of external and internal environment is the 4. WO strategies: cooperation and strategic partnership
first stage of algorithm implementation. A team of mana- In this study, the aim of SWOT analysis is to prioritize
gers from different parts of the organization who were strategy alternatives and select the best strategy for the
familiar with operation and organization environment was organization (Table 2).
formed to do environmental analysis. After identification After the identification of the organization’s strategic
of strategic factors (that is identification of strengths (S), factors and strategy alternatives, we should convert the
weaknesses (W), Opportunities (O) and threats (T), we issue into a hierarchy, in the way that we are able to
selected possible strategies through the analysis of these analyze it by analytic network process (ANP). This
factors. The organization is faced with four strategy network structure is shown in Figure 5. The goal for
alternatives, which are as follows: selecting the best strategy is in the first level of analytic
network process model, SWOT factors (strengths, weak-
1. SO strategy: market development- the foreign goal nesses, opportunities, threats) are in the second level,
market sub branches of SWOT factors which include 6 factors for
2. WO strategy: professional reinforcing of manpower strengths, 5 factors for weakness, 6 factors for oppor-
and infrastructure in the area of thermal power plants tunities and 5 factors for threats are in the third level of
3. ST strategies: developing and implementing of new the model, and according to SWOT matrix, four strategies
technologies are selected for the organizations that are in the last
1866 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.

Figure 5. Analytic network process model for SWOT matrix.

level of the model (Figure 5). Third step: Forming dependence matrix of each
SWOT factor with regard to other factors:

Second step: Determining important degree with At this stage, the interdependence between SWOT
assumption that no dependence exists among SWOT factors (Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) is
factors. specified by analyzing the impact of each factor on other
factors. After the analysis, these relationships were
At this stage, we assume that there is no dependence identified (Figure 6).
and interaction among SWOT factors (Strengths, weak- Based on the dependence that exists among SWOT
nesses, opportunities and threats). We form pair wise factors, we formed pair wise comparisons matrix based
comparisons matrix of SWOT factors with the goal of on fuzzy numbers and extent analysis method (Tables 4,
selecting the best strategy. The results of comparisons 5, 6 and 7).
are shown in Table 3. W2 matrix is formed by the obtained vectors of each
 Siavashan and Khari 1867

S W

Figure 6. The inner dependence among SWOT factors.

Table 1. Verbal scale for assessing the relative importance.

Verbal scale of relative importance Triangular fuzzy scale Triangular fuzzy scale in the other side
Same (1,1,1) (1,1,1)
Equal importance (1/2,1,3/2) (2/3,1,2)
Relatively more important (1,3/2,2) (1/2,2/3,1)
More important (3/2,2,5/2) (2/5,1/2,2/3)
Very important (2,5/2,3) (1/3,2/5,1/2)
Exactly very important (5/2,3,7/2) (2/7,1/3,2/5)

table (WJ). This matrix shows relative important weights As we see, significant differences exist between the
of SWOT factors where we recognize the interdepen- results obtained in the weights of SWOT factors in
dence between them which is displayed in the following comparison with situation which ignores inner depen-
matrices: dence among these factors; and the results have
changed respectively: strengths, from 0.382 to 0.445;
weaknesses, from 0.108 to 0.153; opportunities, from
0.401 to 0.341; and threats, from 0.109 to 0.061.

Fifth step: Determination of the relative important

degree of SWOT factors in sub branches

Fourth step: Priority determination of SWOT factors At this stage, we should calculate the relative priority of
considering the dependence among them sub branches of SWOT factors by using pair wise
comparisons matrix (Tables 8, 9, 10 and11).
Priority vectors obtained from the analysis of pair wise
W SOWAT comparison matrix are as follows:
factors =
W2 ×
W 1=

At this step, we should calculate priority of SWOT factors W ( strength)= W ( weaknesses)=

according to the dependence that exists between these
factors; this vector is obtained from the product of W2
matrix in W1 vector.
1868 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.

Table 2. SWOT matrix.

Strength (S) Weaknesses (W)

-staff professional skills (s1) -Being a young company (W1)
Internal factor -no restriction in recruiting of skilled manpower(S2) -lack of acquisition of equipment and certain
-there are strong information system and software (S3) machinery(W2)
-the spirit of team work(S4) -lack of experience in oil projects (W3)
External factor - good relationships with technology owners(S5) -lack of quality control system(W4)
-Expertise in water project (S6) -lack of equipment and proper infrastructure(W5)
Opportunities (O)
-the country’s abundant energy resources(O1)
-restrictions for foreign contractors(O2) SO strategy WO strategy
-continued growth in domestic international demand for energy(o3) -market development-the foreign goal market -professional reinforcing of manpower and
-the existence of specialist contracting units(O4) infrastructure in the area of thermal power plants
- the weakness of the region countries(O5)
-company’s access to the world update technology (O6)

Threat (T)
- instability in the economic environment(T1) WT strategy
-the presence of competitors with well-known brand names(T2) ST strategy -cooperation and strategic partnership
-government policies in line with privatization (T3) -development and implementing of new technology
-low labor productivity in the country(T4)
-significant market share of competitors(T5)

Table 3. Pair wise comparisons matrix of SWOT factors with no dependence of SWOT factors.

WJ T O W S SWOT factors
0.382 (1,1.42,1.88) (0.73,0.96,1.29) (1.88,2.38,2.88) (1,1,1) Strength (S)
0.108 (0.75,1.17,1.63) (0.43,0.54,0.75) (1,1,1) (0.35,0.42,0.53) Weakness (W)
0.401 (1.63,2.13,3.26) (1,1,1) (1.33,1.85,2.35) (0.77,1.04,0.38) Opportunities (O)
0.109 (1,1,1) (0.38,0.47,0.62) (0.62,0.86,1.33) (0.53,0.71,1) Threat (T)
 Siavashan and Khari 1869

Table 4. The inner dependence matrix of SWOT factors with regard to the strengths.

Wj T O W Strengths
0.267 (1.25,1.67,2.13) (0.41,0.52,0.71) (1,1,1) Weakness (W)
0.733 (1.75,2.25,2.75) (1,1,1) (1.41,1.94,2.45) Opportunity(O)
0 (1,1,1) (0.36,0.44,0.57) (0.47,0.6,0.8) Threats (T)

Table 5. The inner dependence matrix of SWOT factors with regard to the
weaknesses.

Wj T S Weakness
0.881 (1.21,1.60,2) (1,1,1) Strengths (S)
0.119 (1,1,1) (0.50,0.63,0.83) Threats (T)

Seventh step: Determining important degree of

strategy options with respect to each of the sub
branches of SWOT factors
W (opportunity)= W ( threats)=
At this stage, we should calculate important degree of
strategy options with respect to each of the sub-
branches of SWOT factors. Due to the calculations
volume, to illustrate how to do this stage we only
Sixth step: Determination of the general important calculate the first and last tables and put their resultant
degree of SWOT factors in sub branches vectors respectively in the first and last columns of W4
matrix (Tables 13 and14).
The following results were obtained: These tables should be conducted for all of the
strategic factors and W4 matrix is obtained by putting the
W general sub branches of SWOT factors = W factors resultant vectors from each table in the appropriate
×W Relative sub branches of SWOT factors (Table 12). column:

W4=

Eighth step: Determining the final priority of strategy (FANP) shows that WO strategy with final weight of 0.317
alternatives is chosen as the best strategy. Priority of strategy
alternatives with regard to the method of fuzzy analytic
At the end, we calculate the final priority of strategy network process is as follows in the order of priority:
options with regard to the relationship that existed among
SWOT factors, through the following way: 1) Professional reinforcing of man power and infra-
structure in the area of thermal power plants (WO) with a
final weight of 0.317.
2) Market development- the foreign goal market (SO) with
a final weight of 0.282.
W alternative = = W4 ×W general sub branches of SWOT = 3) Development and implementation of new technologies
(ST) with a final weight of 0.278.
Analyzing the results of fuzzy analytic network process 4) Cooperation and strategic partnership (WT) with a final
1870 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.

Table 6. The inner dependence matrix of SWOT factors with regard dependence is of the most important strategic planning
to the opportunities. issues. With this technique, we could identify and
measure the dependence between SWOT factors and
Wj W S Opportunity also specify quantitatively each of these factors’ impact
0.759 (1.1,1.5,1.92) (1,1,1) Strengths (S) on the strategy alternatives. SWOT factors and strategy
0.241 (1,1,1) (0.52,0.67,0.91) Weakness (W) options changed to a model of fuzzy analytic network
process. As we observed, SWOT matrix network model is
designed in four levels: the purpose (the best strategy
Table 7. The inner dependence matrix of SWOT factors with regard selection), SWOT factors, sub branches of SWOT factors
to the threats. and the strategy options. Also, to illustrate the impact of
dependence among SWOT factors on both the weights of
Wj W S Threats SWOT factors, sub branches and priority of strategy
1 (1.32,1.71,2.1) (1,1,1) Strengths (S) options, we used the method of fuzzy analytical hierarchy
0 (1,1,1) (0.48,0.59,0.76) Weakness (W) process in the SWOT analysis in order to compare the
results of these two approaches. In both methods of
fuzzy analytical hierarchy process and fuzzy analytic
network process we used the same pair wise
weight of 0.123. comparisons matrices; however, different results were
obtained. As observed both weights and strategies rank
was different from each other in fuzzy analytical hierarchy
Comparing the results of fuzzy analytical hierarchy process and fuzzy analytic network process. These
process with fuzzy analytic network process differences are predictable because analytical hierarchy
process does not consider the dependence among
This case was also solved with a hierarchical structure SWOT factors in the analysis and sole problem with the
(assuming there is no dependence between SWOT assumption that these factors are independent of each
factors). In pair wise comparisons matrix, determining the other. While in the method of analytic network process
final priority of strategy options in the method of fuzzy the dependence among SWOT factors is taken into
analytic network process is like that of pair wise consideration and with respect to this dependence, this
comparisons matrix used in the fuzzy analytic network issue can be analyzed. For this reason, fuzzy analytic
process, and the results are as follows: network process can be a better modeling for real world
problems compared to hierarchical approach. Other
organizations and companies that want to use this
method in their strategic planning process should pay
W alternative (FAHP)= = attention to this point that dependence among SWOT
factors and its sub branches is largely related to types of
organizations and their activities. In this study, we only
analyzed dependence among SWOT factors, but it is
In the analysis of fuzzy analytic network process, WO possible that for other organizations dependence among
strategy with a final weight of 0.316 is selected as the sub-branches of SWOT factors is more important than
best strategy. Also, the priority of strategy options in the dependence among SWOT factors. In general, it can be
order is WO, ST, SO, WT. The analysis results of fuzzy concluded in cases where there is internal interaction or
analytical hierarchy process and fuzzy analytic network dependence among SWOT factors (strengths, weak-
process have been compared in Table 15. As you see, nesses, opportunities, threats) or among its sub branches,
when we analyze the dependence among SWOT factors, the method of analytic network process must be used to
this dependence impacts the weights and priority of prioritize strategic options, for using these approaches
strategies compared to the state that assumed these and techniques enables organizations to take correct
factors are independent of each other. strategic decision. Also in cases where there is no
dependence among SWOT factors or among its sub
branches or can be ignored, analytical hierarchy process
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION technique can be used.
In the SWOT analysis, strategic options are selected
In this study, fuzzy analytic network process technique based on the strengths, weakness, opportunities and
was selected as an analysis tool according to its capa- threats that organizations are facing. These factors are
bilities. Analytic network process in decision making identified through analysis of external and internal
considers some angles of the issue which does not exist environment of organizations. However, SWOT analysis
in fuzzy analytical hierarchy process. Internal alone is not able to quantify weights and effects of each
 Siavashan and Khari 1871

Table 8. Relative importance degree of the strengths.

Strengths (S) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 Wj
Technical skills of the staff(S1) (1,1,1) (1.2,1.7,2.2) (1,1.43,1.9) (0.43,0.68,0.97) (0.68,0.97,1.33) (0.8,1.3,1.8) 0.191
No restriction in recruiting of skilled manpower(S2) (0.45,0.59,0.83) (1,1,1) (1.08,1.5,1.93) (0.46, 0.67,0.97) (0.78,1.13,1.53) (0.86,1.13,1.47) 0.163
There are strong information system and software(S3) (0.53,0.70,1) (0.52,0.67,0.93) (1,1,1) (0.73,0.91,1.17) (0.46,0.83,1.1) (0.46,0.83,1.1) 0.128
The spirit of team work(S4) (1.03,1.47,2.34) (1.03,1.5,2.17) (0.86,1.09,1.38) (1,1,1) (0.65,0.98,1.33) (0.66,1,1.37) 0.189
Good relationships with the technology owners(S5) (0.75,1.03,1.47) (0.65,0.88,1.28) (0.91,1.20,1.56) (0.75,1.02,1.55) (1,1,1) (0.9,1.4,1.9) 0.177
Expertise in water projects(S6) (0.56,0.77,1.25) (0.67,0.88,1.16) (0.91,1.2,1.56) (0.73,1,1.52) (0.53,0.71,1.11) (1,1,1) 1.52

Table 9. Relative importance degree of the weaknesses.

Weaknesses(W) W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 Wj
Being a young company (W1) (1,1,1) (1.05,1.31,1.63) (0.75,1.08,1.43) (1.5,2,2.5) (1.38,1.8,2.23) 0.298
Lack of a question in equipment and certain machinery (W2) (0.61,0.76,0.96) (1,1,1) (0.64,0.9,1.21) (1,1.43,1.9) (0.68,1.1,1.53) 0.197
Lack of experience in oil projects (W3) (0.7,0.93,1.34) (0.82,1.11,1.57) (1,1,1) (1.1,1.6,2.1) (1.5,1.93,2.4) 0.271
Lack of quality control system (W4) (0.4,0.5,0.67) (0.53,0.7,1) (0.48,0.63,0.91) (1,1,1) (0.55,0.81,1.13) 0.09
Lack of equipment and proper infrastructure (W5) (0.45,0.56,0.72) (0.65,0.91,1.47) (0.42,0.52,0.67) (0.88,1.23,1.83) (1,1,1) 0.1444

Table 10. Relative importance degree of the opportunities.

Opportunities O1 O2 O3 O4 O5 O6 Wj
The country s abundant energy resources and
(1,1,1) (1.38,1.73,2.13) (1.2,1.63,2..1) (1.1,1.6,2..1) (1.2,1.7,2.2) (0.78,1.2,1.63) 0.245
reserves(O1)

Restrictions for foreign contractors (O2) (0.47,0.58,0.72) (1,1,1) (0.47,0.57,1.1) (0.86,1.13,1.47) (1.2,1.63,2.1) (0.87,1.28,1.7) 0.167
Continued growth in domestic and international demand
(0.48,0.61,0.83) (0.91,1.34,2.14) (1,1,1) (1.1,1.6,2.1) (1.3,1.8,2.3) (1,1.43,1.9) 0.216
for energy(O3)

The existence of specialist contracting unit(O4) (0.48,0.63,0.91) (0.68,0.88,1.16) (0.48,0.63,0.91) (1,1,1) (1.4, 1.9, 2.4)) (0.6,1.03,1.5) 0.158
The weakness of the region countries (O5) (0.45,0.59,0.83) (0.48,0.61,0.83) (0.43,0.56,0.77) (0.42,0.53,0.71) (1,1,1) (0.96,1.23,1.58) 0.085
Company s access to the world update technology (O6) (0.61,0.83,1.28) (0.59,0.78,1.15) (0.53,0.7,1) (0.67,0.97,1.67) (0.63,0.81,1.04) (1,1,1) 0.129

strategic factor on strategy options. Some studies influence of relationship and internal dependence (strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats)
have used this measure; however, few studies of factors using SWOT analysis. In general, we are independent of each other. In real world, we
have been able to identify and evaluate the could not assume that the SWOT factors can observe the effects that these factors have on
1872 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.

Table 11. Relative importance degree of the threats.

Threats T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 Wj
Instability in the economic environment (T1) (1,1,1) (1.6,2.1,2.6) (1.3,1.8,2.3) (1.6,2.03,2.5) (1.3,1.8,2.3) 0.431
The presence of competitors with well-known brand names (T2) (0.38,0.48,0.63) (1,1,1) (1.37,1.78,2.2) (1.27,1.68,2.1) (0.88,1.3,1.73) 0.269
government policies in line with privatization (T3) (0.43,0.56,0.77) (0.45,0.56,0.73) (1,1,1) (1.3,1.67,2.1) (1.2,1.57,2) 0.196
Low labor productivity in the country(T4) (0.4,0.49,0.63) (0.48,0.6,0.79) (0.48,0.6,0.77) (1,1,1) (0.68,1.03,1.43) 0.026
Significant market share of competitors (T5) (0.43,0.56,0.77) (0.58,0.77,1.14) (0.5,0.64,0.83) (0.7,0.97,1.47) (1,1,1) 0.078

Table 12. General priority of SWOT factors sub branches.

Factors Sub factors Weights of sub General priority

SWOT factor SWOT sub factors
weights weight factors of sub factors
Technical skills of the staff(S1) 0.191 0.085 1
No restriction in recruiting of skilled manpower(S2) 0.163 0.072 6
There are strong information systems and
0.128 0.057 8
Strengths(S) 0.445 software(S3)
The spirit of team work (S4) 0.189 0.084 2
Good relationships with the technology owners(S5) 0.177 0.079 4
Expertise in water projects(S6) 0.152 0.068 7

Being a young company (W1) 0.298 0.046 10

Lack of a question in equipment and certain
0.197 0.030 13
machinery (W2)
Weaknesses (W) 0.152 Lack of experience in oil projects (W3) 0.271 0.042 12
Lack of quality control system (W4) 0.090 0.014 18

Lack of equipment and proper infrastructure (W5) 0.144 0.022 16

The country’ s abundant energy resources and

0.245 0.083 3
reserves(O1)
Restrictions for foreign contractors (O2) 0.167 0.057 8
Continued growth in domestic and international
0.216 0.074 5
Opportunities (O) 0.342 demand for energy(O3)
The existence of specialist contracting unit(O4) 0.158 0.054 9
The weakness of the region countries (O5) 0.085 0.029 14
Company s access to the world update technology
0.128 0.044 11
(O6)
 Siavashan and Khari 1873

Table 12. Contd.

Instability in the economic environment (T1) 0.431 0.026 15

The presence of competitors with well-known brand
0.269 0.016 17
names (T2)
Threats 0.061
government policies in line with privatization (T3) 0.196 0.012 19
Low labor productivity in the country(T4) 0.026 0.002 21
Significant market share of competitors (T5) 0.078 0.005 20

Table 13. The importance degree of strategy options with regard to the professional skills of employees.

Professional skills of employees (S1) SO WO ST WT Wj

Market development- the foreign goal market(SO) (1,1,1) (1.36,1.77,2.18) (1.08,1.43,1.83) (0.88,3.1,1.73) 0.354
Professional reinforcing of manpower and infrastructure in the
(0.46, 0.57,0.74) (1,1,1) (1.2,1.7,2.2) (1.1,1.53,2) 0.301
area of thermal power plants (WO)

Development and implementing of new technologies (ST) (0.55,0.7,0.93) (0.45,0.59,0.83) (1,1,1) (1.1,1.53,2) 0.211
Cooperation and strategic partnership (WT) (0.58,0.77,0.14) (0.5,0.65,0.91) (0.5,0.65,0.91) (1,1,1) 0.134

Table 14. The importance degree of strategy options with regard to the significant market share of competitors.

Significant market share of competitors (T5) SO WO ST WT Wj

Market development- the foreign goal market (SO) (1,1,1) (1.34,1.67,2.01) (0.78,1.13,1.53) (1.18,1.53,1.93) 0.351
Professional reinforcing of manpower and infrastructure in the
(0.5,0.6,0.75) (1,1,1) (0.68,1.03,1.43) (1.2,1.63,2.1) 0.26
area of thermal man plants (WO)

Development and implementing of new technologies (ST) (0.65,0.88,1.28) (0.7,0.97,1.47) (1,1,1) (1.5,2,2.5) 0.316
Cooperation and strategic partnership (WT) (0.52,0.65,0.85) (0.48,0.61,0.83) (0.4,0.5,0.67) (1,1,1) 0.073

each other. In this research, through one analysis is used in making decision and considers majority of problems related to strategic planning.
example, we showed that where there is depen- issues which are not feasible in the analytical Combining fuzzy logic with the ANP was a new
dence between SWOT factors, we can make a hierarchy process. This technique enables us to point considered in this study. Using fuzzy logic to
quantity analysis of SWOT. In this thesis, fuzzy measure the dependence between SWOT factors reduce the ambiguity of words played a significant
network analysis technique was selected due to and identify the impact of each of these factors on role in doing the required comparison.
its capabilities as an analytical tool. Network strategy options. Internal dependence exists in the SWOT agents and strategy options were
1874 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.

Table 15. Strategies weight and priorities in FANP and FAHP. and using special structures such as self managed teams
and using the methods like brainstorming pave the way
SO WO ST WT for better and effective results.
Weights in FAHP 0.274 0.316 0.286 0.124
Rank in FAHP 3 1 2 4
Weights in FANP 0.282 0.317 0.278 0.123 REFERENCES
Rank in FANP 2 1 3 4 Azar A, Fraji H (2008). Fuzzy management sciences, pressed by book
institute of Mehran nashar.
Chung SH, Lee AHL, Pearn WL (2006). Analytic network process
(ANP) approach for product mix planning in semiconductor fabricator,
changed into a model for fuzzy network analysis process. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 96:15-36.
Network analysis process model in order includes Dincer O (2004). Strategy Management and Organization Policy, Beta
Publication, Istanbul.
purpose (the selection of the best strategy), SWOT Hill T, Westbrook R (1997). SWOT analysis it’s time for a product recall,
agents, sub-branches of SWOT agents and strategy Long Range Plann. 30:46-52.
option. Houben G, Lenie K, Vanhoof K (1999). Aknowledge-based SWOT-
Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process method (FAHP) was analysis system as an instrument for strategic planning in small and
medium sized enterprises, Decis. Support Syst. 26:125-135.
used in SWOT factors analysis in order to compare the Kajanus M, Kangas J, Kurttila M (2004). The use of value focused
effect of dependence between SWOT factors in the thinking and the A’WOT hybrid method in tourism management,
weight of sub-branches of SWOT factors and also the Tourism Manage. 25:449-506.
prioritization of strategy options. Kangas J, Kurttila M, Kajanus M, Kanga A (2003). Evaluating the
management strategies of a forestland estate-the S-O-S approach, J.
Although we used similar paired comparison matrices Environ. Manag. 69:349-358.
in both FAHP and FANP methods, we observed different Kurttila M, Kangas J, Kajanus M, Leskinen LA, Leskinen P (2006).
results. These differences are predictable because FAHP Adapting modern strategic decision support tools in the participatory
does not consider the dependence between the agents strategy process-a case study of a forest research station, Forest
Policy Econ. 8:267-278.
and it is assumed that SWOT factors are independent of Kurttila M, Pesonen M, Kangas J, Kajanus M (2000). Utilizing the
each other while FANP brings this dependence into analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in SWOT analysis-a hybrid method
account. Because of this, the fuzzy network analysis and its application to a forest-certification case, Forest Policy Econ.
process can model real world issues better compared to 1:41-52.
Masozera MK, Alavalapati JRR, Jacobson SK, Shresta RK (2006).
hierarchical methods. Assessing the suitability of community-based management for the
In this study, we represented that the dependence bet- Nyungwe Forest Reserve, Rwanda, Forest Policy Econ. 8:206-216.
ween SWOT factors are different in the weights of McDonald MHB (1993). The Marketing Planner, Butter-worth-
strategy options and also in the priority of effective Heinemann, Oxford pp.234-247.
Saaty TL (1996). Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback:
strategy options obtained through FANP and FAHP The Analytic Network Process, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh.
methods. Sarkis J (2002). A model for strategic supplier selection, J. Supply
Chain Manage. 38:18-28.
Shrestha RK, Alavalapat JRR, Kalmbacher RS (2004). Exploring the
potential for silvopasture adoption in South-central Florida: an
PRACTICAL PROPOSALS application of SWOT-AHP method, Agric. Syst. 81:185-190.
Yuksel I, Dagdeviren M (2007). Using the analytic process (ANP) in a
1. It is recommended that the management of Frab SWOT analysis- A case study for a textile firm, Inform. Sci.
Company focus on its goals and resources on WO 177(16):3364-3382, Turkey.
strategy which is professional reinforcing of manpower
and infrastructure in the area of thermal power plants.
2. It is recommended that before organizations decide to
implement strategic planning, by comprehensive training
create necessary organizational knowledge and attitude