INTRODUCTION
For a long time, human beings have tried to find out what could be the possible vicissitudes that could arise in their future or in the course of their lives or their projects or campaigns. A long way has been traveled since the time when fortune tellers, sorcerers and oracles among others were the favorite instruments in charge of seeing the future and alerting individuals of what the consequences of their actions and decisions might be.
The true diagnostic instruments are of recent appearance (mid-20th century), and they, based on scientific methods and planning, have managed to transform predictions into truthful diagnoses based on objective and quantifiable facts.
DOFA METHOD
The DOFA analysis grew out of research conducted by the Stanford Research Institute between 1960 and 1970. Its origins stem from the need to discover why corporate planning fails. The research was funded by Fortune 500 companies to find out what could be done about these failures. The research team consisted of Marion Dosher, Dr Otis Benepe, Albert Humphrey, Robert Stewart, and Birger Lie.
DOFA (in English SWOT), is the acronym used to refer to an analytical tool that will allow you to work with all the information you have about a business, useful for examining Weaknesses, Opportunities, Strengths and Threats.
This type of analysis represents an effort to examine the interaction between the particular characteristics of the business and the environment in which it competes. DOFA analysis has multiple applications and can be used by all levels of the corporation and in different analysis units such as product, market, product-market, product line, corporation, company, division, strategic business unit….., etc. Many of the conclusions, obtained as a result of the DOFA analysis, will be very useful in the market analysis and in the marketing strategies that are designed and that qualify to be incorporated into the business plan.
DOFA analysis should focus only on the key factors for the success of the company. It should highlight internal differential strengths and weaknesses by comparing it objectively and realistically with the competition and with key opportunities and threats in the environment.
This means that the DOFA analysis consists of two parts: one internal and one external.
1.- The internal part: it has to do with the strengths and weaknesses of the business, aspects over which there is some degree of control.
2.- The external part: look at the opportunities offered by the market and the threats that must be faced in the selected market. Here it is necessary to develop all our capacity and ability to take advantage of opportunities and to minimize or nullify those threats, circumstances over which we have little or no direct control.
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES:
Let's consider areas like the following:
- Resource Analysis: Capital, human resources, information systems, fixed assets, non-tangible assets. Activity Analysis: Management resources, strategic resources, creativity. Risk Analysis: In relation to the resources and activities of the company. Portfolio Analysis: The consolidated contribution of the different activities of the organization.
It is advisable to ask yourself questions like these:
- What are those five to seven aspects where you think you outperform your main competitors? What are those five to seven aspects where you think your competitors outperform you?
When evaluating the strengths of an organization, it should be borne in mind that these can be classified as follows:
1. Common Organizational Strengths: When a certain strength is owned by a large number of competing companies. Competitive parity occurs when a large number of competing companies are able to implement the same strategy.
2. Distinctive Strengths: When a certain strength is only owned by a small number of competing companies. Companies that know how to exploit their distinctive strength generally achieve a competitive advantage and obtain economic profits above the average of their industry. Distinctive strengths may not be imitable when:
- Its acquisition or development may depend on a unique historical circumstance that other companies cannot copy.Its nature and character may not be known or understood by competing companies. (It is based on complex social systems such as business culture or teamwork).
3. Imitation Strengths of Distinctive Strengths: It is the ability to copy the distinctive strength of another company and turn it into a strategy that generates economic profit.
Competitive advantage will be temporarily sustainable, when it subsists after all attempts at strategic imitation by the competition cease.
When evaluating the weaknesses of the organization, it must be borne in mind that it is referring to those that prevent the company from selecting and implementing strategies that allow it to carry out its mission. A company has a competitive disadvantage when it is not implementing strategies that generate value while other competing firms are.
OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS:
Organizational opportunities are found in those areas that could generate very high performance. Organizational threats are in those areas where the company finds it difficult to achieve high levels of performance.
Let's consider:
- Analysis of the Environment: industry structure (suppliers, distribution channels, customers, markets, competitors). Interest groups: government, public institutions, unions, unions, shareholders, community. The environment seen more broadly: demographic, political, legislative, etc.
The questions that can be asked are:
- What are the biggest threats you face in the environment, what are your best opportunities?
DOFA matrix analysis
Completing the matrix is easy and appropriate for workshops and brainstorming meetings. It can be used for company planning, strategic planning, competitor evaluation, marketing, business or product development, and research reports. Developing a DOFA matrix can be useful in team building games.
DOFA analysis is a subjective evaluation of data organized in the DOFA format, which places them in a logical order that helps to understand, present, discuss, and make decisions. It can be used in any type of decision-making, since the template encourages pro-active thinking, instead of the common instinctive reactions.
Some usage examples for DOFA analysis:
- A company (its position in the market, commercial viability, etc.). A method of sales distribution. A product or brand. A business idea. A strategic option (how to enter a new market or launch a new product). An opportunity to make an acquisition. Evaluate a change of supplier. A potential partnership. Decide the outsourcing of a service, activity or resource. Analyze an investment opportunity.
All four dimensions are an extension of the simple Pro and Contra headings.
The DOFA analysis template is generally presented as a matrix of four sections, one for each of the elements: Weaknesses, Opportunities, Strengths and Threats. The example below includes sample questions, the answers of which should be inserted in the corresponding section. The questions are just examples, or discussion points, that can obviously be modified according to the topic of the analysis. It is important to clearly identify and describe the topic analyzed by DOFA, so that the people who participate understand the purpose and its implications.
DOFA analysis template
| Analysis topic: (define the topic to be analyzed here) | |
| Internal STRENGTHS | INTERNAL WEAKNESSES |
|
|
| External OPPORTUNITIES | External THREATS |
|
|
This example is based on an imaginary situation. The setting is a business-to-business manufacturing company that has historically relied on distributors to deliver their products to the end customer. The opportunity, and consequently the object of the DOFA analysis, is for the company to create a new company of its own, which directly distributes its products to certain sectors of end customers, which are not being covered by its current distributors.
|
Analysis topic: Creation of an own distributor company, to access sectors of final customers that are not being developed. |
|
| Internal STRENGTHS | INTERNAL WEAKNESSES |
|
|
| External OPPORTUNITIES | External THREATS |
|
|
SCENARIO ANALYSIS
This prospective technique was introduced by Herman Kahn, founder of the Hudson Institute in the 1950s, and has been widely used by the French prospective school.
The term prospective, was created by the French philosopher Gaston Berger to designate a new scientific discipline that aims to discover the future problems of man and societies from the study of current trends in evolution, with a view to developing rational plans and effective organization and long-term human, cultural and social promotion.
A scenario is a consistent and coherent vision of what the future could be like. Its utility lies in the ability to combine the interrelated impacts of a broad set of economic, social, technological, cultural factors, etc., in a series of alternative images of the future, in order to be able to foresee the lines of action of each of them.
As a prospective method it is characterized by three ranges:
1. Considers that the problems are not one-dimensional and, therefore, that the systems must be analyzed globally.
2. It only makes sense in the long run.
3. It considers the phenomena of rupture, that is, it supports the processes of innovation and change.
The concept of scenario implies the representation of futures that describe the evolution of a certain system (company, group, organization, sector, market, institution, etc.) taking into account the most probable evolution of the key variables and to start from hypotheses about the behavior of the actors.
There are several ways to classify scenarios, so we could talk about possible, achievable and desirable scenarios. Although perhaps the distinction between exploratory scenarios and anticipation scenarios is more relevant.
Exploratory scenarios: they try to describe a whole series of events that lead logically to a certain future (defined as a possible future) based on the current situation of the system. Within this type of scenario it is necessary to differentiate between scenarios:
- Trends (those that rely on the inherent system) Referential (those most likely) Framing (those aimed at delimiting the space of possible futures).
The anticipation scenarios: they start from the image of a possible future. These can be in turn:
- Regulatory (those futures that are possible and desirable). Contrast (those that are far from the current situation). Utopics (those that are beyond the limit of what is possible).
The scenario method can be broken down into the following essential phases:
The first stage: consists of the construction of the base of the stage, the base of the stage is the image of the current state of the system. This stage involves three phases:
Phase 1: the delimitation of the system, which is defined as a set of interrelated elements. This phase involves the identification of the elements of the system and their interrelationships, or, what is the same, of its structure. For this reason, this phase is called structural analysis.
Phase 2: study of the past, which consists of the historical consideration of the system, analyzing its evolution and operation.
Phase 3: involves the study of the inflows and outflows of the system, its environment, its regulation and control mechanisms, germs or factors of change, etc.
The second stage: consists of the construction of scenarios, based on the previous information. The construction of the scenarios involves the performance of both a synchronous analysis (coherence reasoning) and a diachronic analysis (trend dynamics). Synchronous analysis involves checking the consistency of the different elements of the system. The diachronic analysis begins with the analysis of the temporal evolution and trends of each of the information offered by the base. Finally, the coherence of the evolutions will have to be verified from a new synchronous perspective.
Scenario analysis objectives:
- Discover which are the priority study points (key variables), linking, through a global explanatory analysis as exhaustive as possible, the variables that characterize the studied system. Determine, mainly from the key variables, the fundamental actors, their strategies, the means available to them to carry out their projects. Describe, in the form of scenarios, the evolution of the studied system taking into account the most probable evolutions of the key variables and from hypotheses on the behavior of actors.
Scenario Types
Elaboration of a scenario
DELPHI METHOD
The name Delphi comes from Ancient Greece. Delphos was the town where the most famous Panhellenic sanctuary was, centered on the Oracle of Apollo, where according to legend, the Oracle of Apollo manifested the will of Zeus through a priestess ('the fortune teller). whose ambiguous words the priests interpreted. This oracle achieved prestige in the 5th, 6th and 7th centuries before JC
The first Delphi study was conducted in 1950 by the Rand Corporation for the US Air Force and was given the name "Project Delphi". The objective of this study was to obtain the greatest possible consensus in the opinion of a group of experts by means of a series of intensive respondents, to whom controlled feedback was inserted. The purpose of this study was the application of expert opinion to the selection (from the point of view of Soviet strategy planning) of an optimal North American industrial system and the estimation of the number of "A-Bombs" required to reduce the ammunition production up to a certain amount. It is important to emphasize that the alternative methods of handling this problem would have involved a practically prohibitive process, in terms of cost and time,information collection and processing.
Thus, as the original justifications for this first Delphi study are still valid for many applications, when the precise information is not available, it is very expensive to obtain or the evaluation requires subjective data on the main parameters.
The Delphi technique has become a fundamental tool in the area of technological projections, including in the area of classical administration and research operations. There is a growing need to incorporate subjective information (for example risk analysis) directly in the evaluation of models that deal with complex problems facing society, such as the environment, health, transportation, communications, economics, sociology, education and others.
Try to give a definition of the Delphi method. is to limit the scope and content of said method. What is most interesting is to give a general description of the method, its characteristics, limitations, uses and applications. However, it can be affirmed that: "The Delphi Method is a carefully elaborated program, which follows a sequence of individual interrogations through questionnaires, from which the information that will constitute the feedback for the following questionnaires is obtained."
Whatever the Delphi types, four phases can be distinguished:
- The first phase is characterized by the exploration of the topic under discussion. Each individual contributes the additional information they deem pertinent. The second phase comprises the process in which the group achieves an understanding of the topic. The agreements and disagreements that exist between the participants regarding the topic are revealed. The third phase explores the disagreements, the reasons for the differences are extracted and an evaluation is made of them. The fourth phase is the final evaluation. This occurs when all the information previously gathered has been analyzed and the results obtained have been sent as feedback for new considerations.
The Delphi method aims to extract and maximize the advantages of expert group-based methods and minimize their drawbacks. For this, the synergy of the debate in the group is taken advantage of and the undesirable social interactions that exist within any group are eliminated. In this way, it is hoped to obtain the most reliable consensus possible from the group of experts. This method has three fundamental characteristics:
- Anonymity: During a Delphi, no expert knows the identity of the others that make up the discussion group. This has a number of positive aspects, such as:
- It prevents the possibility that a member of the group may be influenced by the reputation of another member or by the weight of opposing the majority. The only possible influence is the consistency of the arguments. It allows a member to change their opinions without causing a loss of image. The expert can defend his arguments with the peace of mind that comes from knowing that if they are wrong, your mistake is not going to be known to the other experts.
- Iteration and controlled feedback: Iteration is achieved by presenting the same questionnaire several times. As, in addition, the results obtained with the previous questionnaires are presented, it is achieved that the experts get to know the different points of view and can modify their opinion if the arguments presented seem more appropriate than theirs.
- Group response in statistical form: The information presented to the experts is not only the point of view of the majority, but all the opinions are presented indicating the degree of agreement that has been obtained.
In the making of a Delphi a specific terminology appears:
Circulation: It is each one of the successive questionnaires that is presented to the group of experts.
Questionnaire: The questionnaire is the document that is sent to the experts. It is not only a document that contains a list of questions, but it is the document with which experts are able to interact, since it will present the results of previous circulations.
Panel: It is the set of experts that takes part in the Delphi.
Moderator: The person responsible for collecting the panel's responses and preparing the questionnaires.
Delphi Phases:
Before starting a Delphi, a series of previous tasks are carried out, such as:
- Define the context and the time horizon in which you want to make the forecast on the topic under study. Select the panel of experts and get your commitment to collaboration. The people who are chosen must not only be highly knowledgeable about the topic on which they are carry out the study, but must present a plurality in their approaches. This plurality should avoid the appearance of biases in the information available in the panel. Explain to the experts what the method consists of. With this, the aim is to obtain reliable forecasts, since the experts will know at all times what the objective of each of the processes required by the methodology is.
In a classic Delphi four circulations or phases can be distinguished:
- First circulation:
The first questionnaire is unstructured, there is no fixed script, but experts are asked to establish what are the most important events and trends that will happen in the future regarding the area under study.
When the questionnaires are returned, it carries out a work of synthesis and selection, obtaining a manageable set of events, in which each one is defined as clearly as possible. This set will form the questionnaire for the second circulation.
- Second circulation:
The experts receive the questionnaire with the events and are asked for the date of occurrence. Once answered, the questionnaires are returned to the moderator, who performs a statistical analysis of the forecasts for each event. The analysis focuses on the calculation of the median (year in which there are 50% of experts who think that it will happen in that year or earlier), the first quartile or lower quartile (in which the same occurs for 25 % of experts) and third quartile or upper quartile (for 75%).
The moderator prepares the questionnaire for the third circulation that includes the list of events and the statistics calculated for each event.
- Third circulation:
The experts receive the third questionnaire and are asked to make new forecasts. If they reaffirm their previous forecast and it falls outside the margins between the lower and upper quartiles, they must explain why they think their forecast is correct and that of the rest of the panel is not.
These arguments will be fed back to the panel in the next circulation. As these comments are anonymous, experts can express themselves freely, without being subject to the problems that appear in face-to-face meetings.
When the moderator receives the answers, he performs the statistical analysis again and, in addition, organizes the arguments given by the experts whose forecasts go beyond the interquartile ranges. The questionnaire for the fourth circulation will contain the statistical analysis and the summary of the arguments.
- Fourth circulation:
The experts are requested to make new forecasts, taking into account the explanations given by the experts. All experts are asked to give their opinion regarding the discrepancies that have arisen in the questionnaire. When the moderator receives the questionnaires, he performs a new analysis and synthesizes the arguments used by the experts.
Theoretically, the Delphi would have already been completed, leaving only the preparation of a report that would indicate the dates calculated from the analysis of the experts' responses and the comments made by the panelists. However, if a consensus had not been reached, there being very distant positions, the moderator should confront the different arguments to find out if an error has been made in the process.
Example of diagram by the Delphi Method:
Steps to guarantee the quality of the results:
Delphi's predictability is based on the systematic use of intuitive judgment made by a group of experts.
In other words, the Delphi method proceeds by questioning experts with the help of successive questionnaires, in order to reveal convergences of opinions and deduce possible consensus. The survey is carried out anonymously (it is currently customary to conduct it using email or through established Web questionnaires) to avoid the effects of "leaders". The objective of the successive questionnaires is "to decrease the interquartile space specifying the median".
The questions refer, for example, to the probabilities of hypotheses or events in relation to the subject of study. The quality of the results depends, above all, on the care taken in preparing the questionnaire and in the choice of the experts consulted.
As a whole, therefore, the Delphi method will allow us to foresee the most important transformations that may occur in the phenomenon analyzed in the course of the coming years.
Although, the theoretical formulation of the Delphi method itself includes several successive stages of sending questionnaires, emptying and exploitation, in most cases it can be limited to two stages, which, however, does not affect the quality of the results. and as demonstrated by the experience accumulated in similar studies.
As it is known, the objective of the successive questionnaires is "to decrease the interquartile space, that is, how much the expert's opinion deviates from the opinion of the whole, specifying the median", of the responses obtained. The objective of the first questionnaire is to calculate the interquartile space. The second provides each expert with the opinions of his colleagues, and opens a transdisciplinary debate, to obtain a consensus on the results and a generation of knowledge on the subject. Each expert will argue the pros and cons of the opinions of others and their own. With the third consultation, an even closer approach to a consensus is expected.
In summary, the steps that will be carried out to guarantee the quality of the results, to launch and analyze the Delphi, should be the following:
Phase 1: formulation of the problem
It is a fundamental stage in the realization of a Delphi. In an expert method, the importance of precisely defining the field of research is very great since it is necessary to be very sure that the experts recruited and consulted all have the same notion of this field.
The elaboration of the questionnaire must be carried out according to certain rules: the questions must be precise, quantifiable (for example, they are about probabilities of hypothesis and / or events, most of the time about data about the realization of events) and independent (the supposed realization of one of the questions on a certain date does not influence the realization of some other question).
Phase 2: choice of experts
The stage is important in that the term "expert" is ambiguous. Regardless of their titles, their role or their hierarchical level, the expert will be chosen for their ability to face the future and possess knowledge on the subject consulted. The lack of independence of the experts can be a drawback; for this reason the experts are isolated and their opinions are collected by post or electronically and anonymously; thus, the real opinion of each expert is obtained and not the opinion more or less falsified by a group process (it is about eliminating the effect of the leaders).
Phase 3: Preparation and launch of the questionnaires (in parallel with phase 2)
The questionnaires will be prepared in a way that facilitates, to the extent that an investigation of this nature allows, the response by the respondents.
Preferably the answers should be able to be quantified and weighted (year of realization of an event, probability of realization of a hypothesis, value that a variable or event will reach in the future,…).
Questions will be asked regarding the degree of occurrence (probability) and importance (priority), the date of realization of certain events related to the object of study: information needs of the environment, information management of the environment, evolution of systems, evolution in costs, changes in tasks, need for training,….
Sometimes categorized responses are used (Yes / No; Very much / Medium / Little; Strongly agree / Agree / Indifferent / Disagree / Strongly disagree), and then the responses are treated in percentage terms trying to locate the Most of those consulted in a category.
Phase 4: practical development and exploitation of results
The questionnaire is sent to a certain number of experts (non-responses and dropouts must be taken into account. It is recommended that the final group is not less than 25). Naturally, the questionnaire is accompanied by a presentation note that specifies the purposes, the spirit of the Delphi, as well as the practical conditions of the development of the survey (response time, guarantee of anonymity). In addition, in each question, it may be asked that the expert must assess his own level of competence.
The objective of the successive questionnaires is to decrease the dispersion of opinions and to specify the agreed average opinion. In the course of the second consultation, the experts are informed of the results of the first consultation of questions and must give a new answer and, above all, they must justify it in the event that it is strongly divergent with respect to the group. If necessary, in the course of the 3rd consultation, each expert is asked to comment on the arguments of those who disagree with the majority. A fourth round of questions allows the definitive answer: average consensus opinion and dispersion of opinions (interquartile intervals).
Delphi appears to appear to be a simple procedure, easily applicable within the framework of expert consultation. However, there is a risk that failures and / or disappointments will discourage "amateur users". The method is useful for decision-making applications, but it must be adapted according to the objective of the study for prospective purposes. In particular, it is not necessary to obtain a median consensus opinion at all costs, but it is important to highlight several groups of responses for the analysis of multiple points of convergence.
Delphi is undoubtedly a technique that has been the subject of multiple applications around the world for about forty years.
From the original procedure, other approaches have been developed. In this way, the mini-Delphi proposes a real-time application of the method: the experts meet in one place and discuss each question before answering. Lately, the use of new modes of interaction between experts, such as email, tend to develop and make the procedure more flexible and faster.
VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS
Vulnerability analysis is a "x-ray plate" taken from the core processes of an organization. A Vulnerability Analysis, also known as Business Impact Analysis, is the identification of the processes that make up the Critical Chain of Value Creation of an organization and the characteristic interdependence between them to determine the “death” curve. business ”as a consequence of an interruption in the organization's Critical Value Creation Chain.
Based on the Vulnerability Analysis, the priorities and order of restoration of the processes that support the organization are established, to ensure the prompt recovery of normal business activities and ensure the continuity of operations.
Typically, managers tend to highlight the strengths and opportunities offered by the organization's strategies and plans while tending to minimize their weaknesses. This analysis tries precisely to bring out these weaknesses. In this tool, managers are obliged to play the role of "Devil's Advocate", that is, to maintain a critical position, contrary to the organization's strategies.
The vulnerability analysis consists of six stages:
1. Identify those elements that if they disappeared would seriously endanger the organization, which we can call “pillars”. It is usually done through brainstorming with groups of senior managers.
2. Express these pillars in the form of competitive threats.
3. Posing the possible consequences or risks derived from the materialization of said threats.
4. In the worst case scenario, imagine and estimate the potential impact of each threat on the organization.
5. Estimate the probability that each threat will materialize.
6. Identify possible reactions or contingencies to the materialization of each threat.
Depending on the severity of the impact of each threat on the organization and the shelf reaction capacity, four company positions can be distinguished in relation to their weaknesses.
| Reaction capacity | ||
| Impact of weakness | Low | high |
| high | I
helpless |
II
Dangerous |
| Low | III
Vulnerable |
IV
Prepared |
Quadrant I: The company is defenseless for those weaknesses that are in the first quadrant, so it must abandon the corresponding strategy or plan; and if this is not possible, you should try to increase your reaction capabilities.
Quadrant II: In the second quadrant the threat is very dangerous, although theoretically the company has the capacity to react. In this case, the company must work on developing contingency plans making sure not to let its guard down.
Quadrant III: These are minor threats in which the company has little to do. In this case, it is enough to work on preventing certain changes from increasing their possible impact and on reinforcing their strengths.
Quadrant IV: The company is prepared to face this type of threat.
CONCLUSION
- In the current times in which we live, it is essential to know where we are in relation to the market and our competitors. This is in order to be able to make decisions quickly and objectively, but this requires some method or procedure. It is here where Diagnostic Methods appear, which are nothing more than a set of indicators that, taking certain information from the project, the idea or the step to be taken by a company, will show in advance what the results may be. These instruments (scenario analysis, vulnerability analysis, Dolpha method, Delphi, etc.) have been used throughout the years, and have been constantly “tuned”, being able to classify them as effective instruments in the study of factors.By themselves these instruments do not have any effect on the future, but the result that each one of them will produce will merit projects for their achievement and implementation.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- Diez de Castro, García del Junco. ADMINISTRATION AND ADDRESS. Mc. Graw Hillhttp: //www.eumed.net/www.gestiopolis.comwww.monografias.comhttps: //es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: Cover
