---
title: "From SWOT to TOWS: how to pair factors into options"
description: "A SWOT but no next step? The TOWS matrix pairs SO, ST, WO and WT. A hypothetical garment workshop, a way to rank the options, and the limits of the method."
url: "https://staging.khoi.co.uk/en/blog/tows-tu-swot-den-lua-chon"
lang: en-GB
author: "Lê Quốc Khôi"
date: 2026-11-03
updated: 2026-11-03
topics: ["Strategy & leadership"]
tags: ["SWOT", "TOWS matrix", "Strategic planning", "Strategy for SMEs"]
---

# From SWOT to TOWS: turning analysis into choices

## Key takeaways

- SWOT lists, TOWS pairs. According to the library framework (origin: Weihrich, 1982), the TOWS matrix links internal factors (strengths, weaknesses) with external ones (opportunities, threats), giving four groups of options: SO, ST, WO and WT (Weihrich, 1982).
- According to the library's notes, two common mistakes are listing more than five items per box and stopping at brainstorming without ranking by impact and ease.
- The hypothetical example in this post: a garment workshop with 15 SWOT items yields 6 candidate actions, which are scored to pick 3 jobs with 90-day milestones.
- The WT cell is defensive and sometimes necessary. In my view there is no obligation to fill all four cells.
- I have not read the full text of Weihrich (1982), and none of the sources here measures whether TOWS beats a SWOT used on its own.

The SWOT chart is on the wall, four boxes full of text, and the meeting ends with "so what do we do next?". Nobody can answer, because each box says where you stand and none says where to step. The [TOWS](https://staging.khoi.co.uk/en/framework/tows-matrix) matrix exists to answer exactly that question.

## Why does a finished SWOT still leave you without a next step?

Because [SWOT](https://staging.khoi.co.uk/en/framework/swot) only sorts. It gives you four lists: strengths and weaknesses inside, opportunities and threats outside. Strategy lives in the links between the boxes: which strength helps seize which opportunity, and which weakness makes you miss which opportunity. The library's note on SWOT also names the usual failing, which is to stop at listing without ranking or testing.

## What does TOWS pair with what?

In this post, each internal factor is paired with each external one, asking what the pair suggests doing. The library framework names only the four cells and gives no step-by-step guidance. Weihrich's article (1982) is titled "The TOWS matrix: a tool for situational analysis" (Weihrich, 1982). The four cells follow the library framework:

> **Figure:** [TOWS matrix](https://staging.khoi.co.uk/en/framework/tows-matrix) The four cells of the TOWS matrix, following the framework in the library.

- SO: use strengths to seize opportunities. The framework calls this the cell with the highest potential, the growth direction.
- WO: use opportunities to patch weaknesses. The framework calls it a development strategy.
- ST: use strengths to reduce threats and protect competitive position.
- WT: reduce weaknesses and avoid threats. The framework describes it as defensive, sometimes necessary.

I took these descriptions from the library framework, which credits Weihrich (1982). I have not read the full article, so this post does not retell the author's own examples or detailed arguments.

## How do you build a SWOT that can be paired?

Keep each box to five items at most, following the library's note on TOWS, and in my view each item should be something you can point evidence at. The library's note on SWOT adds that strengths should be tested with [VRIO](https://staging.khoi.co.uk/en/framework/vrio) while threats should come from [PESTLE](https://staging.khoi.co.uk/en/framework/pestel) or the [five competitive forces](https://staging.khoi.co.uk/en/framework/porter-five-forces). The post on [VRIO as a stamp](https://staging.khoi.co.uk/en/blog/vrio-ket-qua-am-tinh-van-tot) shows how to test strengths, the post on [choosing one PESTLE factor](https://staging.khoi.co.uk/en/blog/pestle-chon-mot-yeu-to) shows how to filter external factors, and the post on [Porter for small businesses](https://staging.khoi.co.uk/en/blog/porter-cho-doanh-nghiep-nho) shows how to sweep an industry for threats.

A rule of mine, not of the sources: write each item as a sentence with a number or an event in it, such as "55% of revenue comes from one customer", not an adjective such as "dependent on customers".

## How would a hypothetical garment workshop do it?

Every fact below is invented by me for illustration. The workshop, which makes jackets under contract and employs 60 workers, does not exist.

| Strengths (S) | Weaknesses (W) |
|:--|:--|
| S1: 95% of orders delivered on time over 12 months | W1: 55% of revenue comes from one customer |
| S2: a skilled jacket line with a low defect rate | W2: nobody to make patterns and samples |
| S3: five-year relationships with two importers | W3: old machines that use a lot of power |
| S4: close to the port | W4: short of cutters |

| Opportunities (O) | Threats (T) |
|:--|:--|
| O1: buyers ask for small orders with fast changes of style | T1: workers' pay rises every year |
| O2: buyers want one more supplier in another country | T2: buyers press on price at renewal |
| O3: several workshops nearby are closing, so staff and machines are cheap | T3: buyers are starting to ask for fabric traceability |
| | T4: a well-funded new workshop opens nearby |

Cross them, one line per pair. The figure below shows the four cells with one option each.

> **Figure:** (matrix) Four options for the hypothetical garment workshop. All content is assumed, for illustration.

```json
{
  "type": "matrix",
  "x": { "label": "Internal factors", "low": "Weakness (W)", "high": "Strength (S)" },
  "y": { "label": "External factors", "low": "Threat (T)", "high": "Opportunity (O)" },
  "cells": [
    { "key": "WO", "title": "WO: hire a part-time pattern maker", "body": "W2 with O1: with someone to make samples, the workshop can take small orders with fast style changes.", "risk": "mid" },
    { "key": "SO", "title": "SO: sell 'small orders, delivered on time'", "body": "S1 with O1: pitch new buyers with the 95% on-time record.", "risk": "low" },
    { "key": "WT", "title": "WT: cap any one customer at 40% of revenue", "body": "W1 with T2: reduce dependence so that price pressure bites less.", "risk": "high" },
    { "key": "ST", "title": "ST: two-year contracts with a pay-linked price clause", "body": "S3 with T1: use the long relationship to build labour costs into the price.", "risk": "mid" }
  ]
}
```

The four options in the figure are A1 (SO), A2 (ST), A3 (WO) and A4 (WT). Fifteen items give many other possible pairs. Suppose the team adds two more candidate actions: A5 "ask buyers in advance about fabric traceability" (S3 with T3) and A6 "replace the old power-hungry machines" (W3 with T1).

## From six actions to three jobs

The library's note on TOWS names one mistake as stopping at brainstorming without ranking by impact and ease. A simple way to score: give each action two marks from 1 to 5, one for impact and one for ease, then multiply. The 1-to-5 scale and the multiplication are my choice for brevity, not taken from any source in this post.

| Action | Cell | Impact | Ease | Score |
|:--|:--|--:|--:|--:|
| A1: sell "small orders, delivered on time" to new buyers | SO | 4 | 4 | 16 |
| A3: hire a part-time pattern maker | WO | 3 | 4 | 12 |
| A4: cap any one customer at 40% of revenue | WT | 5 | 2 | 10 |
| A5: ask buyers in advance about fabric traceability | ST | 3 | 3 | 9 |
| A2: two-year contracts with pay-linked prices | ST | 4 | 2 | 8 |
| A6: replace the old machines | WT | 3 | 1 | 3 |

The top three are A1, A3 and A4. Each needs an owner, a deadline and one measure. For A1: the sales manager, 90 days, three small orders from new buyers. For A3: the workshop manager, 60 days, a part-time pattern maker in place, and the measure is the number of new samples made each month. For A4: the director, with a 90-day milestone of a written 40% cap communicated to the main customers, and a year-end target of the largest customer's share of revenue down from 55% to 45%, then gradually to 40%.

When scoring, have two people score separately and then compare, since impact is a subjective judgement and the biggest disagreements often mark an assumption nobody has stated. Record the scores in a journal as the [post on decision journals](https://staging.khoi.co.uk/en/blog/nhat-ky-quyet-dinh-tam-bay) describes, so that later you can see whether you scored well.

## When does TOWS fit, and when not?

It fits when you already have a tested SWOT and need to turn it into a list of jobs. In my view it suits setting direction for a year or two, and does not suit choosing between large, hard-to-reverse investments, because the matrix itself has no numbers (the scoring above is my addition). For those decisions, try [scenario planning](https://staging.khoi.co.uk/en/blog/lap-kich-ban-cho-chu-doanh-nghiep) before signing.

Three limits. First, the output is only as good as the input chart: if strength S1 is just the director's feeling, every pair containing S1 is built on sand. Second, the matrix does not choose between cells, and the impact marks in the example are ones I assigned. Third, I have no source showing that firms using TOWS decide better than firms using SWOT alone. Treat it as a way to give a strategy meeting an output, then measure it by whether the 90-day milestones of the three actions were actually met.

## Going deeper: Weihrich (1982) and what I have not read

Weihrich's article (1982) appeared in *Long Range Planning*, volume 15, issue 2, pages 54 to 66. I could not open the full text: the DOI page returns metadata with no abstract, and the copies I tried were blocked. The description of the four cells above therefore rests on the library framework, which credits this article. I do not know whether the original adds conditions of use or examples, and I cannot compare the pairing used here with the author's.

Most of the practical value in this post lies in the steps around the matrix, not in the matrix itself. Capping the number of items, testing inputs with VRIO and PESTLE, ranking, and naming an owner come from the library's notes and from this post's own proposal, not from any measured research result. The pairing of every factor, the garment example and the scoring are also mine.

## Frequently asked questions

### How does TOWS differ from SWOT?

SWOT lists strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. TOWS takes those same four lists and links each internal factor to an external one to produce options for action; pairing every factor this way is this post's proposal. The library framework describes TOWS for exactly the situation where a SWOT exists but nobody knows what to do next (Weihrich, 1982).

### How many items should each SWOT box hold?

No more than five. The library's note on TOWS names the common mistake of listing more than five items per box, which thins out the matrix. In my view, a long list feels thorough, but afterwards it is hard to pair and hard to rank.

### Must every cell have a strategy?

No. In the library framework the WT cell is defensive and sometimes necessary. In my view that also means there is not always something worth doing in that cell, and writing "none yet" is better than forcing a line into each of four cells.

### Can TOWS replace VRIO or PESTLE?

No, they come earlier. The library's note on SWOT advises testing strengths with VRIO and drawing threats from PESTLE or the five competitive forces, so the order is VRIO and PESTLE, then SWOT, then TOWS. TOWS only uses the output of those steps.

## References

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

---

Canonical HTML version: https://staging.khoi.co.uk/en/blog/tows-tu-swot-den-lua-chon