A SWOT table is a structured brainstorming tool used to identify and organise the factors that may help or hinder an intelligence subject.
SWOT stands for:
Strengths: Internal advantages or capabilities.
Weaknesses: Internal limitations or vulnerabilities.
Opportunities: External developments that could benefit the subject.
Threats: External developments that could harm the subject.
Creating a SWOT table at the beginning of an assessment can strengthen your analysis by encouraging you to examine the full spectrum of favourable and unfavourable factors, making it more rounded and reducing the risk of unconscious bias affecting your thought process.
They can also reveal intelligence gaps, challenge assumptions and provide a structure for further research. However, a SWOT table does not determine which factors matter most or produce a forecast by itself. Its findings must still be evaluated and converted into analytical judgements.
Define the Question
Begin by writing a clear intelligence question. It should identify the subject, the outcome being assessed and, where possible, a timeframe. For example:
“How capable is NATO of deterring a major Russian attack against its eastern members over the next five years?”
Keep in mind that the same factor may be a strength or a weakness depending on the objective being assessed. NATO’s large membership, for example, is a strength when considering its combined forces and resources, but may be a weakness when assessing its ability to reach political decisions quickly.
Create the Table
Draw a 2×2 grid and label the four sections Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. Under each heading, add a question connecting that category to the original intelligence question.
Internal and External Factors
The most common source of confusion with SWOT tables is the difference between strengths and opportunities, or between weaknesses and threats. The simplest distinction is whether the factor belongs mainly to the subject or its wider environment.
Strengths and weaknesses concern factors within the defined subject, including its resources, capabilities, relationships, decisions and vulnerabilities. Opportunities and threats are generated from other actors or the wider political, economic, military and technological environment.
The boundary will not always be exact. NATO, for example, cannot control every decision made by its individual members. Analysts should therefore define what they are treating as part of the subject and apply that definition consistently.
Contemporary Example
An initial SWOT table for this question might look like this:
Recent developments supporting these entries include Finland joining NATO in 2023, Sweden joining in 2024 and members agreeing in 2025 to increase defence and security-related investment. NATO has also warned that Russian hybrid activity includes sabotage, cyberattacks, electronic interference and disinformation. NATO membership and enlargement, The Hague Summit Declaration, NATO on hybrid threats.
Develop the Entries
Avoid filling the table with vague labels such as “strong military” or “political problems.” Each entry should explain the factor and its relevance to the question. Where possible, support it with evidence.
Analysts should also:
Avoid double-counting: Do not place the same factor in several boxes unless its different effects are clearly explained.
Separate facts from assumptions: Mark entries that depend on uncertain reporting or untested beliefs.
Consider interactions: A strength may offset a threat, while a weakness may make a threat more dangerous.
Assess importance: Identify which factors are most influential rather than treating every entry equally.
Consider change: Note whether each factor is strengthening, weakening or likely to remain stable.
Record intelligence gaps: Identify what information is needed to test important entries.
Next Steps: Turn the Table into Analysis
A completed SWOT table is not a final assessment. The analyst must next examine how the factors interact and decide which are likely to have the most significant influence on the outcome.
In the NATO example, combined military strength may make a deliberate large-scale attack unlikely. However, differences in readiness, over-dependence on the bloc’s more powerful members, and exposure to hybrid activity could create narrower vulnerabilities.
This suggests that the more useful follow-up questions concern where deterrence is weakest, how Russia might attempt to exploit those weaknesses and which developments would indicate that the risk is increasing.
Used in this way, SWOT is a great way of starting any intelligence assessment - it not only helps developing a comprehensive list of factors deserving further investigation but also significantly reduces the risk of unconscious bias creeping into your analysis.
