SWOT–AHP & TOWS Strategy Analyzer

Robust SWOT–AHP prioritization with bootstrap uncertainty, scenario sensitivity & SPI strategy ranking — runs entirely in your browser

Contact: Dr. Gehendra Kharel (g.kharel@tcu.edu) · Texas Christian University
© 2025–2026 Dr. Gehendra Kharel. All rights reserved.
Survey I CSV Required
Within-category pairwise comparisons. One row per respondent, columns for each pair (e.g. S_S1_vs_S2). Values 1–9 on directional Saaty scale.
Columns: S_S1_vs_S2, S_S1_vs_S3, ... T_T4_vs_T5 (40 comparisons)
⬇ CSV template
Survey II CSV Optional
SWOT category comparisons. One row per respondent, 6 columns for pairwise comparisons among S, W, O, T. If omitted, equal category weights are used.
Columns: CAT_S_vs_W, CAT_S_vs_O, CAT_S_vs_T, CAT_W_vs_O, CAT_W_vs_T, CAT_O_vs_T
⬇ CSV template
Upload Survey I CSV or click "Run with demo data"
© 2025–2026 Dr. Gehendra Kharel, Texas Christian University. All rights reserved.
SWOT–AHP & TOWS Strategy Analyzer · g.kharel@tcu.edu · All computation runs locally in your browser — no data is uploaded anywhere.
▸ Methodological References & Citations

Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP):

Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3), 234–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5

Saaty, T. L. (1989). Group decision making and the AHP. In The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Applications and Studies (pp. 59–67). Springer.

Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590

SWOT–AHP Hybrid (A'WOT):

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-9341(99)00004-0

Kajanus, M., Leskinen, P., Kurttila, M., & Kangas, J. (2012). Making use of MCDS methods in SWOT analysis — Lessons learnt in strategic natural resources management. Forest Policy and Economics, 20, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.03.005

Consistency Diagnostics:

Saaty, T. L. (1977). op. cit. — Original derivation of CI, RI, and CR for judgmental consistency evaluation.

Ishizaka, A., & Labib, A. (2011). Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(11), 14336–14345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.143

Geometric Mean Aggregation:

Aczél, J., & Saaty, T. L. (1983). Procedures for synthesizing ratio judgements. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 27(1), 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(83)90028-7

TOWS Strategy Matrix:

Weihrich, H. (1982). The TOWS matrix — A tool for situational analysis. Long Range Planning, 15(2), 54–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(82)90120-0

Bootstrap Resampling for AHP Uncertainty:

Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1993). An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman & Hall/CRC.

Tóth, W., Vacik, H., Panagopoulos, T., & Varga, A. (2018). Sensitivity analysis and evaluation of forest management strategies with the AHP. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 10(2), 160–178.

Rank Acceptability:

Lahdelma, R., Hokkanen, J., & Salminen, P. (1998). SMAA — Stochastic multiobjective acceptability analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 106(1), 137–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(97)00163-X

SWOT Analysis (general):

Gürel, E., & Tat, M. (2017). SWOT analysis: A theoretical review. Journal of International Social Research, 10(51), 994–1006. https://doi.org/10.17719/jisr.2017.1832

Helms, M. M., & Nixon, J. (2010). Exploring SWOT analysis — where are we now? Journal of Strategy and Management, 3(3), 215–251. https://doi.org/10.1108/17554251011064837