The problem with how most people do SWOT I watch people fill in SWOT grids like they're doing their taxes. Strengths: we're good at sales. Weaknesses: we need better systems. Opportunities: the market's growing. Threats: competition exists. Then they file it away and nothing changes. The issue isn't SWOT itself. It's that people treat it as a compliance task rather than a thinking tool. They list generic observations instead of using it to actually make a decision about where to move next. I've sat with go-getters who've spent an afternoon on a SWOT and walked away with no clearer sense of direction than when they started. SWOT only works if you use it to answer a specific question. Not "what's our situation?" but "should we go after this market segment?" or "is now the time to hire?" or "do we pivot the product?" That specificity changes everything. Why the specificity matters Look at what's happening in UK markets right now. Wheat prices are climbing on geopolitical uncertainty. Banks are preparing to deploy new AI tools. Spending decisions are getting tighter across government. These aren't abstract trends. They're signals that create both pressure and opportunity for different types of businesses. A food business faces a genuine cost headwind. A logistics company might see an edge if they can optimise operations faster than competitors. A tech consultancy looking at AI adoption curves sees a window that won't stay open forever. The specificity forces you to ask: how does this actually affect us? Not generally. Specifically. When you're deciding on a strategic move, you're really asking three things. First: can we do this better than we currently do something else? Second: will the market reward us for it? Third: will we still be able to do the things that currently work? SWOT, done properly, answers all three. How I actually use it Start by naming the move you're considering. Don't be vague. Not "expand" but "launch a service tier for enterprise clients" or "automate the fulfillment process" or "hire a second operations person." Make it concrete enough that someone could say yes or no to it. Now list your strengths, but only the ones that matter for this specific move. You might be brilliant at customer relationships. That's relevant if you're expanding upmarket. It's less relevant if you're automating a backend process. Be ruthless about relevance. I've seen people list generic strengths that don't actually apply to the decision in front of them, which just clouds the picture. Weaknesses next. Again, relative to this move. If you're considering hiring, your weaknesses might be that you've never managed anyone before, or your documentation is thin. If you're looking at a new market, your weakness might be that you have zero brand recognition there. Don't list everything that's broken in your business. List what could trip you up on this specific path. Opportunities should be external. Market gaps, regulatory changes, customer behaviour shifts, timing. The Iran-driven food insecurity concerns I mentioned earlier? That's an opportunity for anyone in supply chain optimisation or food production, but a threat for anyone dependent on commodity imports. Same external event, opposite implications depending on your position. Threats work the same way. Competitor moves. Market saturation. Skills shortages. Budget tightness. Regulatory uncertainty. But again, relative to your move, not just general doom. The part that actually matters Once you've mapped it out, you're looking for two things. First, where do your strengths address the opportunities? That's your green light territory. If you're good at operations and there's a genuine need for better supply chain management in your sector, that's a move worth taking. We worked with a client last year who realised their obsessive attention to process was exactly what a new client segment desperately needed. That wasn't obvious until they mapped it. They're now in a completely different market, making 40% more margin. Second, where are your weaknesses exposed by the threats? That's your amber light. Not a stop sign, but a reason to either fix the weakness first or hedge your risk. If you're considering a move that requires skills you don't have and your market is tightening, you might need to build that capability before you go. Or you might decide the risk isn't worth it. The worst outcomes I've seen are when people charge into a move that plays to their weaknesses while threats are circling. It's not the move itself that kills them. It's that they're moving in the wrong direction at the wrong time. If most of your strengths don't align with the opportunities, or if the move exposes you badly to the threats without clear benefit, that's your signal to either redesign the move or abandon it. The discipline part Do this on paper. Not in your head. On paper, or in a tool if you want to keep it organised, but something you can actually see. I use a simple grid, but the format matters less than the fact that you're being forced to think it through. Then do the hard bit: show it to someone who'll argue with you. Not to validate your thinking, but to poke holes in it. I've watched people realise their "strength" isn't actually a strength once someone questions it. Or they spot a threat they'd completely missed. Set a timer. This shouldn't take more than 90 minutes. If it's taking longer, you're overthinking it or the move isn't clear enough yet. What to do this week Write down the specific strategic move you're considering right now. One sentence. Not a vague direction, but the actual thing. Then spend 45 minutes filling in the SWOT grid relative to that move. Be specific. Strengths and weaknesses only count if they actually matter for this decision. Show it to someone you trust and let them tell you what you've missed. Pay attention to what they question.