Strategise method guide
TOWS Strategies
TOWS combines SWOT factors to generate strength-opportunity, weakness-opportunity, strength-threat and weakness-threat strategies.
Beginner-friendly guide · 4 min read
What TOWS Strategies does
TOWS combines SWOT factors to generate strength-opportunity, weakness-opportunity, strength-threat and weakness-threat strategies.
TOWS turns selected SWOT factors into strategic options. It deliberately combines internal strengths and weaknesses with external opportunities and threats to ask what the organisation could do.
The aim is not to generate every possible combination. Use the most material factors and write candidate strategies as clear actions with an intended outcome and rationale.
Weihrich introduced TOWS as a structured way to match external threats and opportunities with internal weaknesses and strengths. Cambridge roadmapping work connects that option-generating step to a time-based process, and the IHI SWOT-RM case demonstrates the move from traceable options to topic and portfolio roadmaps.[1][2][3][4]
From analysis to a living plan
How this connects to roadmapping
Cambridge roadmapping material describes this structured confrontation of internal and external factors as TOWS rather than a simple four-box SWOT. Prioritisation and linking grids help teams identify strategic posture, options and actions before deciding what belongs on a roadmap.[2][3]
The SWOT-RM case reported by Hirose, Phaal and colleagues shows how traceable strategic options can feed topic roadmaps and then a unified portfolio roadmap. Roadmapping makes the window of an opportunity or threat explicit, sequences capability-building and response actions, and keeps the source SWOT factors connected to the programme chosen in response.[2][3]
Each quadrant asks a different strategic question and produces candidate actions.
Strength to weakness
Opportunity to threat
InnovationFlow explanatory schematic, synthesised from the method sources[1][2][3][4].
Understand the method
The parts in plain language
Threat responses
Use strengths to reduce exposure to a threat, or contain a combination of weakness and threat that creates vulnerability.[1][2][3][4]
Illustrative example
Use trusted field relationships to defend against faster software entrants, while fixing fragmented data that limits response speed.
When to use it
- When a SWOT diagnosis exists but has not produced choices.
- When a team needs a structured bridge from factors to strategy options.
A practical workflow
- 1
Select the most material, evidenced SWOT factors and note their likely timing.
- 2
Combine factors across each TOWS pairing.
- 3
Write candidate moves as actions with an intended outcome and source-factor rationale.
- 4
Prioritise and test the options, then sequence selected moves into topic roadmaps and the portfolio roadmap.
Fictional worked example
Example: entering a service market
This example is illustrative rather than a reported case. A manufacturer uses four material factors from its SWOT.
Observation:Trusted service access meets demand for efficiency support.
Implication:Pilot the offer through existing service contracts.
Observation:Weak analytics capability blocks the same opportunity.
Implication:Partner for the pilot and define a learning plan.
Observation:New entrants move quickly but lack field access.
Implication:Bundle physical implementation and verified results.
From analysis to decision
How to interpret the result
- 1Use only prioritised, evidenced SWOT factors.
- 2Write actions rather than repeating the paired factors.
- 3Test and prioritise candidates before adding them to strategic aims or the roadmap.
The interpretation guidance is an InnovationFlow synthesis of[1][2][3][4].
What a useful output looks like
Common pitfalls
- Do not mechanically combine every possible pair.
- The result should be an action, not a restatement of the factors.
References and method basis
- [1]Weihrich, H. (1982). The TOWS Matrix: A tool for situational analysis. Long Range Planning, 15(2), 54-66. Source ↗Peer-reviewed research
- [2]Hirose, Y., Phaal, R., Ilevbare, I., Nakazawa, R., Mather, A. and Nishio, T. (2025). How Implementing SWOT-RM at IHI Corporation Improved Strategy Development While Addressing Uncertainties. Research-Technology Management, 68(4), 30-41. Source ↗Peer-reviewed research
- [3]Phaal, R. and collaborators (n.d.). Cambridge Roadmapping templates. Cambridge Roadmapping. Source ↗Originating institution
- [4]Helms, M.M. and Nixon, J. (2010). Exploring SWOT analysis: where are we now?. Journal of Strategy and Management, 3(3), 215-251. Source ↗Peer-reviewed research
This guide synthesises the named sources into practical questions for strategy and innovation work. It does not claim that using a tool by itself produces a successful decision.