Sammenlign metoder

	Porter's Five Forces Industry Analysis	SWOT-AHP Hybrid Analysis
Fagområde	Strategisk ledelse	Strategisk ledelse
Familie	Process / pipeline	MCDM
Oprindelsesår	1979	2000
Ophavsperson	Michael E. Porter	Mikko Kurttila, Mauno Pesonen, Jyrki Kangas & Miika Kajanus
Type	Industry-attractiveness framework based on five competitive forces	Hybrid multi-criteria SWOT prioritization
Oprindelig kilde	Porter, M. E. (1979). How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy. Harvard Business Review, 57(2), 137-145.	Kurttila, M., Pesonen, M., Kangas, J., & Kajanus, M. (2000). Utilizing the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in SWOT analysis — a hybrid method and its application to a forest-certification case. Forest Policy and Economics, 1(1), 41-52.
Aliasser	Five Forces Framework, Porter Competitive Forces Analysis, Industry Attractiveness Analysis, Competitive Forces Model	A'WOT Analysis, Quantified SWOT Analysis, AHP-Weighted SWOT, Hybrid SWOT-AHP Prioritization
Relaterede	3	3
Resumé	Porter's five forces framework explains the underlying profitability of an industry through five competitive forces that together determine how much of the value an industry creates is captured by its firms rather than competed or bargained away. Introduced in Michael Porter's 1979 Harvard Business Review article and developed fully in his 1980 book Competitive Strategy, the framework identifies the threat of new entrants, the bargaining power of suppliers, the bargaining power of buyers, the threat of substitute products, and the intensity of rivalry among existing competitors as the collective forces that set an industry's profit potential. The stronger these forces, the more pressure on margins and the less attractive the industry; the weaker they are, the more room firms have to earn superior returns. Five forces analysis assesses each force to judge industry attractiveness and, crucially, to find a position where a firm can defend itself against the forces or shift them in its favor.	SWOT-AHP, also called A'WOT, is a hybrid strategy method that quantifies an ordinary SWOT analysis by applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process to its factors. Kurttila, Pesonen, Kangas, and Kajanus introduced the technique in 2000, motivated by the fact that classic SWOT lists strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats without saying which matter most. By treating the four SWOT groups and the factors within them as an AHP hierarchy and eliciting pairwise comparisons on Saaty's 1-9 scale, the method derives numerical priority weights for every SWOT factor. The result is a SWOT analysis whose factors are ranked and commensurable, so strategists can see not just what the relevant factors are but how important each one is relative to the others.