What are the common challenges and pitfalls of using SWOT analysis for operational planning in education?

I disagree with this. The "ends" of strategy or planning must be based on analysis. Contextual analysis of the situation includes assessments of threats and opportunities, analysis of means, of available courses of action (feasible ways). If, like this paragraph suggests, an organization sets the ends before conducting a situational analysis, then those ends are likely wrong or at least unjustifiable. A SWOT analysis can be a useful tool, but only in a holistic strategy or planning process. In my experience, short cuts like SWOT or SMART, while not fundamentally wrong, often result in "pop" strategy/planning or checklist driven processes that do not produce holistic strategies/plans and do not, in the end, benefit the institution.

Primary focus of SWOT should be internally focused as all organizations are at different stages of growth and maturity. External comparisons come after organizational operations and expectations are aligned and clear.

Before you begin the SWOT process, a district needs to ensure that the aspect of your operation that has been identified is truly an influential issue. Feedback from a wide variety of your stakeholders is valuable data before you begin to analyze. What the central office may view as the core issue, may not be the highest priority for your faculty, students, parents, and community members. Just like with comprehensive planning, bringing the representation of those voices in on the analysis process elicits buy-in and adds value to voices. Once identified, the discussion can spotlight and drill down on which particular aspect(s) of this area of your operation needs addressed.

San Jon is going through a strategic planning right now with staff, students and our community. We are looking to improve our curriculum, facilities and reputation. Our main focus is meeting students need and their success.

While it is hard to argue with guidance that instructs the strategist or planner to use good data, it isn't that easy. Your multiple sources and methods are going to return conflicting results, confusing findings, and a whole lot of irrelevant information. That information will be interpreted through the lens of the strategist or planner who has their own world view and range of essentially baked in cognitive biases. To this is added the gaps information (unknown or unknowable) for which the strategist of planner must make assumptions. The result is an unavoidable fog of swirling misinterpretation, bias, false assumption, and good information from which the strategist and planner must develop viable strategies or plans.

Making sure you understand what the data is targeting will help in identifying proper actions and make process more efficient.

Getting representation from all stakeholders is vitally important. Reaching those voices through multiple modalities can ensure a fair representation. In rural communities such as mine, it may look like anything from Google Forms accessed through QR codes that are printed on sandwich boards outside of the car pickup lanes, email/SMS/website/social media postings, evening town halls, an informational table at athletic events, disseminating information to county agencies, and more.

San Jon Schools want to improve our curriculum, we are getting new facilities in 2026-27, and will plan with staff students, staff and community using data to be to be successful.

Agree with the essential sub-step to red team within this process - which is even better than asking “what could go wrong?” The difference is that a separate team charged with ‘defeating’ the strategy produces less biased insights. Also, need to ask “if it goes right, what then?”

The Clausewitzian fog through which the strategist or planner must attempt to peer means that no matter how much work is put into analyzing findings, some or all of them will be wrong. The strategist or planner must work to overcome as many information problems as possible through the use of tools like red teaming or applying Alexander's Question. Yet still recognize that no matter how much work is put into validating information, strategy and plans will be wrong. Assumptions will turn out to be incorrect, bias will have snuck in, or one of Nassim Taleb's black swans will make an appearance.

The lens that we like to use when it comes to data analysis is the "Notice and Wonder" approach from the Data Wise framework because it keeps the focus on inquiry rather than blame or assumptions. Rather than jumping straight to solutions, this approach encourages curiosity and allows us to truly investigate multiple aspects of the data. This often leads to a more nuanced understanding of performance and more effective action planning. By asking the right questions, we can identify areas for further investigation, helping to design more effective improvement strategies that create actionable solutions.

Agree. Another important consideration to any action is to reassess policies that would now be outdated, or worse, serve as barriers to change. Sometimes, the only action needed is a revised policy to incentivize new behaviors and culture.

This perspective creates a bias for action that can have significantly negative impacts. Not all problems require action...or at least immediate action. From a strategic perspective the common wisdom that doing something is better than doing nothing, is often wrong, for many reasons. For example, resources (including leadership focus) are finite. Thus, taking action in one area incurs opportunity costs as it almost certainly means not taking action in other areas. SWOT analysis, when described as it is in this article (essentially a stand-alone process) often does not make these larger strategic connections. Creating a bias for action which may not actually be in the long-term best interest of the organization.

I believe this step should prioritize actions, not label issues as positive or negative. Look at corrective actions or improve current actions should be a focus.

The balance between making SMART goals too easily attainable or too rigorous is real. Do you start small and re-evaluate with your team, or do you push your chips into the center of the table? What does progress monitoring look like? Who is responsible? Additionally, further discussions need to be held with the right stakeholders concerning resource allocation and management commitment to meet your organization's goal(s).

This paragraph hits pretty close to the mark. However, it misses the most significant cause for iteration; that no matter how much work is put into validating and analyzing information the strategist or planner WILL get it wrong, at least partially wrong. Furthermore, strategy and plans are frequently executed in a competitive environment, meaning against a thinking actor. Overall, the strategist and planner must recognize they will fail perfect information analysis, that the context will evolve in unexpected ways, and that competitors will act to foil the strategy or plan. Thus, every strategy / plan must be understood as an iterative process.

I would ask that across these final steps one should consider evaluation risks. There are several types of risk, and many cultures are inherently risk adverse.