(ANP-SWOT) to Formulate and Choose Strategic Alternatives for Development of Rural ...

13 Pages·2017·0.65 MB·English

by  Pishgam Rayaneh

J. Agr. Sci. Tech. (2017) Vol. 19: 757-769
A Hybrid Method (ANP-SWOT) to Formulate and Choose
Strategic Alternatives for Development of Rural
Cooperatives in Iran
A. A. Barati1*, K. Kalantari1, M. R. Nazari2, and A. Asadi1
ABSTRACT
Rural cooperatives, as a small member-owned organizations, are the potential to
facilitate socio-economic development in rural areas. Despite this fact, in Iran and many
other developing countries, they have not had remarkable successes in this regard.
Because strategy formulation and management is a plan to obtain far-reaching
development effects of any organization. This study aimed to present a hybrid method to
formulate and choose strategies for rural cooperatives development. It combined SWOT
analysis, TOWS matrix, and the Analytic Network Process (ANP). We applied
brainstorming technique to analyze the external and internal environment of rural
cooperatives using the contributions of an experts’ team comprising 10 individual CEOs
of rural cooperatives and senior employees of the Central Organization of Rural
Cooperatives. When this team identified key SWOT factors, TOWS matrix was
constructed to create good strategic alternatives. Finally, ANP was applied to prioritize
the strategies. According to results, 19 key strategic factors such as lack of management
knowledge (W4), and ability to improve value and supply chains (S4) were identified. In
addition, this team identified 11 strategic alternatives which among them Implement public
policy and provide technical and financial services (SO2), Facilitate procurement of inputs and
develop supply and value chains (SO1) and Involve rural cooperatives in policy planning (ST1), had
greater priority in Iran. The experts’ team believed that the presented combined
approach helps decision makers and managers to make and choose the best alternative
strategies and factors that affect rural cooperatives development.
Keywords: Analytical network process, Farmers’ cooperatives, Strategic development,
SWOT Analysis, TOWS matrix.
INTRODUCTION poverty, especially in rural areas (FAO,
2012; Getnet and Anullo, 2012; United
Nations, 2013).
A cooperative is a business or an
organization owned by and operated for the
benefit of those using its services. Profits Rural Cooperatives and Development
and earnings generated by the cooperatives
are distributed among the members or their
Cooperatives are relevant to the realization
user-owners. Cooperatives are organizations
of sustainable development goals. They help
with the potential to facilitate socio-
decrease poverty by providing employment,
economic development and to reduce
livelihoods, and services (Wanyama, 2014).
_____________________________________________________________________________
1Department of Agricultural Management and Development, Faculty of Agricultural Economics and
Development, University of Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran.
* Corresponding author; e-mail: [email protected]
2Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Economics, Environmental Sciences Research
Institute, Shahid Beheshti University, G.C., P. O. Box 19835-196, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran.

757
________________________________________________________________________ Barati et al.
Rural cooperatives produce economic Nations (UN), International Labor
benefits as well as social development, Organization (ILO), and International
inclusion, and empowerment (Choobchian et Cooperative Alliance (ICA) have reported
al., 2015; IFAD, 2014; Sadighi and that cooperatives are the most suitable types
Darvishinia, 2010). In many countries, of organization for addressing all
agricultural cooperatives help overcome the dimensions of reducing poverty and
limitations of family farms to help them exclusion. The way in which cooperatives
compete with capital-intensive farming reduce poverty varies. They can identify
(Herbel et al., 2015) by increasing efficiency economic opportunities for their members
through increased productivity per unit of (Lorendahl, 1996), empower the
input and increased quality per unit of output disadvantaged to defend their interests,
(Altman, 2015). In China, farmer provide security to the poor by allowing
cooperatives connect technical, social, and them to convert individual risks into
economic dimensions of farming practice. collective risks, and mediate member access
They provide corresponding services to link to assets that they utilize to earn a living. In
farmers to relevant actors, include extension rural areas where private businesses hesitate
agencies, research institutes and to go and public authorities do not provide
supermarkets (Yang et al., 2014). basic services, cooperatives play a major
Cooperatives represent a means of self-help role. They give a stronger voice to
maintaining the independence of their rural groups and provide opportunities for
members. They enable small-scale producers productive employment as well as offering
to scale up their operations, expand their health care, education, potable water,
bargaining power, and take better advantage improved sanitation, roads, and market
of global market opportunities. These access (Franks and Mc Gloin, 2007; Henry
organizations empower farming families by and Schimmel, 2011).
providing access to inputs and services like Rural cooperatives are especially
credit, training, storage facilities, and important in the developing world because
technology to improve the profitability of more than half of humanity (3 billion of 5.5
smallholder farming. They help farmers billion people) live in rural areas and most
process, transport, and market their produce depend directly or indirectly on agriculture
(IFAD, 2014; Suh, 2015; Wanyama, 2014). for their livelihoods (World Bank, 2007,
In addition, cooperatives are a source of 2014).
stability. For example, in negotiations with The role of agricultural cooperatives is
the government over agricultural policy, instrumental in helping family farms
they have acted on behalf of their members’ overcome limitations and become
interests (Chase, 2003). International Fund competitive with capital-intensive farming
for Agricultural Development (IFAD) (Herbel et al., 2015). As a whole, strong
reports that, in Africa, cooperatives help cooperatives and other producer
young women and men gain access to organizations are able to overcome
opportunities that are often blocked by difficulties by offering their members
traditional age-related barriers (IFAD, services such as access to natural resources,
2014). information, communication, input and
output markets, technologies and training.
They facilitate participation in the decision-
Rural Cooperatives and Poverty
making process. Practices like group
purchasing and marketing help farmers gain
The role of poverty reduction of market power and get better prices on
cooperatives is well recognized. agricultural inputs and other necessities
International organizations such as Food and (FAO, 2012). With cooperation, rural
Agriculture Organization (FAO), United residents can have a voice in rural policy-
758
Development of Rural Cooperatives ____________________________________________
making and to exchange ideas across (Threats, Opportunities, Weaknesses and
borders. These organizations put people Strengths) strategic alternatives matrix and
before profit and help them to achieve ANP (Analytic Network Process) to achieve
shared social, cultural, and economic the best results.
aspirations. A cooperative is a social
enterprise that promotes peace and
SWOT Analysis
democracy.
SWOT analysis is a simple but useful
Rural Cooperatives in Iran
framework for analyzing organizational
strengths and weaknesses (internal
The Iranian rural community has a long environments) and opportunities and threats
history of informal cooperatives in (external environments). It focuses on
community-based organizations. Boneh, strengths, minimizes threats, and takes
Haraseh, and Wareh are examples of these advantage of opportunities (Wheelen and
cultural and traditional organizations. Hunger, 2012) to attain a systematic
Formal Iranian Rural Cooperatives (IRCs) approach and support for a decision. It
emerged in 1935, when the government involves systematic thinking and
established the first rural cooperative in comprehensive diagnosis of factors related
Davoodabad Village in Garmsar, but the to a new product, technology, management,
emergence of rural cooperatives accelerated or planning (Weihrich, 1982). The results
after the 1979 revolution. The most recent categorize factors into internal (strengths,
report by the Central Organization of Rural weaknesses) and external (opportunities,
Cooperatives of Iran (CORC) on the threats) and enable decision makers to
network of rural cooperatives in Iran lists compare opportunities and threats with
2,941 cooperatives with more than strengths and weaknesses.
4,500,000 members. If SWOT analysis is done correctly, it can
Despite the immense benefits of be a good base for strategy formulation
cooperatives, the main question is why most (Babaesmailli et al., 2012), but it cannot
rural cooperatives in Iran, and even in other quantitatively measure the importance or the
developing countries, did not have much influence of each factor in decision-making
success? There may be many reasons, but or strategic decisions (Pesonen et al., 2001;
there is no doubt that rural cooperatives and Shrestha et al., 2004). SWOT has no means
other farming organizations have a far- of analytically determining the importance
reaching effect. Since strategy formulation of factors or of assessing the fit between
and management is a plan to obtain a SWOT factors and alternative decisions
sustainable competitive advantage for any (Babaesmailli et al., 2012).
firm (Spulber, 1994), enterprise and In recent years, researchers have tried to
organization (Fred and Forest, 2016). The improve this weakness by combining it with
main objective of the present study was techniques such as AHP (Eslamipoor and
developing a useful hybrid method to Sepehriar, 2014; Görener et al., 2012; Lee
improve strategy-making for rural and Walsh, 2011; Shrestha et al., 2004) and
cooperatives especially in Iran. ANP (Zarafshani et al., 2015). Although
SWOT approach in combination with AHP
can provide a quantitative measure of
MATERIALS AND METHODS
importance of each factor on decision-
making, it also assumes that all factors
This study used a hybrid method which should be independent and determines the
combined SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, priority of alternatives based on this
Opportunities and Threats) approach, TOWS assumption, which is not always true.
759
________________________________________________________________________ Barati et al.
Interdependency can exist among SWOT create a TOWS matrix to deploy strategies
factors and could change the final priority of (Aslan et al., 2012). The internal and
alternatives (Yüksel and Dagdeviren, 2007); external factors obtained through SWOT
therefore, it is important to consider analysis can be replaced in a TOWS matrix
dependency among the factors. The present (Table 1). The TOWS matrix helps to
study has used the ANP in place of AHP to systematically identify relationships between
determine the priority of strategies. ANP can threats, opportunities, weaknesses and
be adopted to accommodate the concern of strengths, and offers a structure for
interdependence among selection factors or generating strategies on the basis of these
clusters (Yüksel and Dagdeviren, 2007). relationships (Weihrich, 1982).
TOWS Matrix The Analytic Network Process (ANP)
The TOWS matrix is an essential The ANP is a multiple-attribute decision-
completion tool. It illustrates how external making method that is a generalization of
opportunities and threats facing an the AHP which considers dependence
organization or a cooperative can be between elements in the hierarchy. The AHP
matched with its internal strengths and hierarchy formation is a linear (top-down)
weaknesses to form four sets of possible structure, where ANP is a non-linear
strategic alternatives (SO, ST, WO and WT) structure that extends in all directions
(Wheelen and Hunger, 2012). SO (maxi- (Sevkli et al., 2012). This enables ANP to
maxi) strategies use strengths to maximize model complex problems in the real world.
opportunities. ST (maxi-mini) strategies use This method considers mutual and
strengths to minimize threats. WO (mini- interdependent relationships among criteria,
maxi) strategies minimize weaknesses by sub-criteria and alternatives by assessing
taking advantage of opportunities. WT their relationships (Saaty, 2004). It solves
(mini-mini) strategies minimize weaknesses decision-making problems in which
and avoid threats. interrelations and correlations between
This is a good way to take advantage of decision-making levels (goal, criteria, sub-
brainstorming to create alternative strategies criteria and alternatives) are considered.
that might not otherwise be considered. It The world requires decisions that involve
forces strategic managers to create various the interaction and dependence of higher-
kinds of growth and retrenchment strategies level elements in a hierarchy with lower-
(Weihrich, 1982). SWOT can be applied to level elements. This means they cannot be
Table1. TOWS matrix (Weihrich, 1982).
TOWS Matrix External Factors
Opportunities (O) Threats (T)
1. 2. 1. 2.
3. 4. 3. 4.
Strengths (S)
SO: Maxi-maxi strategies ST: Maxi-mini strategies
s 1.
r That use strengths to That use strengths to
otc 2. maximize opportunities minimize threats
aF 3.
la Weaknesses (W) WO: Mini-maxi strategies WT: Mini-mini strategies
n
re 1. That minimize weaknesses That minimize
tn 2. by taking advantage of weaknesses and avoid
I
3. opportunities threats

760
Development of Rural Cooperatives ____________________________________________
structured hierarchically; thus, ANP is The present study implemented a network
represented by a network rather than a structure because the elements of SWOT are
hierarchy (Saaty and Vargas, 2013). This dependent. To this end, the following steps
network includes cycles connecting its were taken in the following order:
components of elements or levels with loops a). An expert team comprising 10
that connect a component to it. Because individuals (five CEOs of rural cooperatives
SWOT factors are not usually independent, who were more familiar with internal problem
it is necessary to determine the inner of cooperatives and five senior employees of
dependence of SWOT factors by analyzing Central Organization of Rural Cooperatives
the effect of each factor on the others. (CORC) who were more familiar with external
problems). All of them were male and over 45
years old, and each of them had more than 20
Proposed SWOT-TOWS-ANP Model
years of work experience and introduced by
and Its Application
CORC. They were selected purposively and
invited to meet and became familiar with the
The present study introduces a hybrid research methodology and its aim. Next, using
method to improve strategy-making for rural brainstorming technique (Osborn, 1963), we
cooperatives that combines the SWOT asked participants to write down their ideas.
approach and TOWS matrix with ANP. Figure Then and in turn, everybody presented their
1 compares a hierarchy and a network idea and the team elaborated it. Finally, the
structure for SWOT-TOWS. The hierarchy team selected a list of most associated SWOT
(Figure 1-A) comprises a goal, levels of sub-factors.
elements, and connections between the b). The TOWS matrix was constructed. The
elements. These connections are oriented only expert team was again employed for SWOT to
toward elements in lower levels, but a network fulfill the TOWS strategic alternatives matrix.
(Figure 1-B) has clusters of elements with the They constructed the TOWS matrix and the
elements in one cluster connected to the SO, ST, WO and WT strategies. To formulate
elements in another cluster or in the same each of these strategies, they were asked to
cluster. A hierarchy is a network with match in order the strengths with
connections going only in one direction opportunities, strengths with threats,
(Saaty, 2006). Figure 1 includes outer and weaknesses with opportunities, and
inner influences. The first compares the weaknesses with threats and to specify the
influence of the elements in a cluster on results in the relevant cells of TOWS matrix.
elements in another cluster with respect to a c). Defining the network structure of
control criterion, the latter compares the SWOT (Figure 1-B) to select the best
influence of elements in a group on each other. strategies for rural cooperative development

A. Linear hierarchy B. Network structure

Figure 1. (A) Linear hierarchy and (B) Network structure for SWOT-TOWS.

761
________________________________________________________________________ Barati et al.
as the Goal of the network (G). SWOT acceptable; otherwise, the comparisons must
factors identified as Criteria (C), SWOT be revised. Next, the priority of each TOWS
sub-factors as Sub-Criteria (SC), and the strategy was determined using ANP as follows
TOWS strategies as Alternatives (A) were (Babaesmailli et al., 2012; Shahabi et al.,
placed into the network structure (super 2014; Yüksel and Dagdeviren, 2007):
matrix Wn): 1. Pairwise comparisons of SWOT factors
G C SC A assuming no dependency among factors
G 0 0 0 0 were used to calculate the weight of the
C W W 0 0 main SWOT factors (criteria) according to
W 21 22
n SC 0 W W 0 the goal (W ). The weight (priority) of
32 33 21
A 0 0 W 1 each factor was calculated (Table 2):
43
2. Comparisons of SWOT factors based on
When using ANP to model a problem, a the assumption of dependency between
network structure should represent the SWOT factors (W ) (Table 3). The
22
problem and pairwise comparisons are weight (priority) of any factor was
required to establish relations within the calculated using Equation (1).
structure (Saaty and Vargas, 2013).
Questionnaires were designed to allow
pairwise comparison. Each expert completed
the pairwise comparison matrix between the

derived factors. The scale of values
3. Calculate the weights of relative
represented the intensity of opinion from 1
importance of SWOT groups (W ) by
(equal) to 9 (extreme importance). It was 2
multiplying W by W .
used to detect the priority and interdependency 21 22
W W W
21 22 2
0.000 0.672 0.500 0.323 0.427 0.351
0.570 0.000 0.250 0.089 × 0.110 0.275
W = W ×W =
2 21 22 0.333 0.265 0.000 0.588 0.427 = 0.258
0.097 0.063 0.250 0.000 0.037 0.116

of factors using the geometric mean of expert
4. Pairwise comparison of each SWOT sub-
opinion. Before calculating geometric mean,
factor (W ) (Table 4) and measurement of
Inconsistency Ratio (IR) for checking the 33
the weight of a sub-factor (W ) by
consistency of pairwise comparisons should 3
multiplying W by W . The priorities of
also be investigated. If the IR was less than 33 2
the sub-factors in each factor are
0.10, the comparisons’ consistency was
calculated using Equation (1).
5. Calculate the relative importance of any
Table 2. Pairwise comparison of SWOT
alternative strategy (SO, ST, WO, WT)
factors. i i i i
for the corresponding sub-factors. These
W S a W b O c T d Priorities weights are derived from the relative
21
S 1.00 5.00 1.00 9.00 0.427 pairwise comparison matrix (W ) using
43
W 0.20 1.00 0.20 5.00 0.110 Equation (1).
O 1.00 5.00 1.00 9.00 0.427 6. Form the super matrix (W) using the
n
T 0.11 0.20 0.11 1.00 0.037
matrices (W , W , W , W , and W ).
21 22 32 33 43
a Strengths, b Weaknesses, c Opportunities, d Because the weight of any alternative
Threats; IR= 0.035. strategy derives from the normalized
supper matrix, normalize the super matrix
762
Development of Rural Cooperatives ____________________________________________
Table 3.Inner dependency matrix of SWOT Table 4. Pairwise comparison of SWOT sub-factors (W ).
33
factors vs. other factor.
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 Priorities
Strength W O T Priorities S1 1.000 0.500 0.25 0.25 0.33 0.069
W 1.00 2.00 5.00 0.570 S2 2.000 1.000 0.33 0.33 0.50 0.111
OT 00..5200 10..0205 41..0000 00..303937 shtgn S3 4.000 3.003 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.247
e
IR= 0.024 rtS S4 4.000 3.003 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.326
Weakness S O T Priorities S5 3.003 2.000 2.00 0.50 1.00 0.247
S 1.00 3.00 9.00 0.672 IR= 0.052
O 0.33 1.00 5.00 0.265 W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 Priorities
T 0.11 0.20 1.00 0.063 W1 1.00 3.00 2.00 0.20 0.25 0.108
IR= 0.028 ses W2 0.33 1.00 0.50 0.14 0.17 0.046
s
Opportunity S W T Priorities en W3 0.50 2.00 1.00 0.17 0.20 0.070
S 1.00 2.00 2.00 0.500 kae W4 5.00 7.04 6.02 1.00 2.00 0.463
W 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.250 W
W5 4.00 6.02 5.00 0.50 1.00 0.313
T 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.250
IR= 0.027
IR= 0.000
O1 O2 O3 O4 O5 Priorities
Threat S W O Priorities
O1 1.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 2.00 0.323
S 1.00 4.00 0.50 0.323
WO 02..2050 16..0000 01..1070 00..058898 seitin OO23 10..0303 10..0303 31..0000 53..0000 20..0500 00..312134
u
IR= 0.009 tro O4 0.20 0.20 0.33 1.00 0.25 0.052
p
W S W O T p
22 O O5 0.50 0.50 2.00 4.00 1.00 0.188
S 0.000 0.672 0.500 0.323
IR= 0.010
W 0.570 0.000 0.250 0.089
O 0.333 0.265 0.000 0.588 Threats T1 T2 T3 T4 Priorities
T 0.097 0.063 0.250 0.000 T1 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.400
T2 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.200
a Strengths, b Weaknesses, c Opportunities,
T3 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.200
d Threats; Threats T4 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.200
IR= 0.000
to calculate the weight of any alternative
strategy. Dependent on overall priority scores
7. Calculate the ultimate weight of any (Table 6 and Figure 2), two most important
alternative strategy; this requires sub-factors are lack of knowledge
empowerment of the super matrix to a management in cooperatives (W4), and
steady state. The result of super matrix is ability to improve value and supply chains
called the limit matrix (Saaty, 2004, 2006; (S4). When we ranked these sub-factors
Saaty and Vargas, 2013). The limit matrix based on the conventional SWOT
that included the priorities of each TOWS methodology, the order of these sub-factors
strategy was developed using Super were W4 and then T1 (existence of parallel
Decision software (ver. 2.4). organizations), and the expert team believes
that the second order is closer to reality.
Then, the "lack of management knowledge"
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
is the most important sub-factor of IRCs
SWOT Factors and Sub-Factors of
The Main Identified Alternative
IRCs and Their Priorities
Strategies for IRCs
The result of applying brainstorming
Table7 indicates the experts formulated
technique was a list that included the most
eleven main strategies for development of
associated internal and external SWOT sub-
IRCs based on interactions between SWOT
factors (Table 5).
763
________________________________________________________________________ Barati et al.
Table 5. SWOT factors and sub-factors.
Internal factors
Strengths (S) Weaknesses (W)
S1. Ability to optimize provision of production W1. Managers of cooperatives do not have
inputs for members. complete authority.
S2. Facilitate implementation of government W2. Farm ownership is not separate from farm
policies. management.
S3. Ability to apply professional management. W3. Cooperatives have no specific statute.
S4. Ability to improve value and supply chains of W4. Lack of knowledge management in
products. cooperatives.
S5. Facilitate provision of technical and financial W5. Poor performance and economic potential
services. of cooperatives
External factors
Opportunities (O) Threats (T)
O1. Legal support of cooperatives. T1.Existence of parallel organizations.
O2. Existence of governmental facilities and T2. Imbalance of national funds for needs of
supports. cooperatives.
O3. Frequency of rural cooperatives and their T3. Lack of implementation of legal protection.
members T4. Instability of government policies and
O4. Existence of national and international programs.
successful samples.
O5. Existence of different levels of support
structures from local to international (such as
unions).

Table 6.Final priority of each SWOT sub-factor.
Criteria and priority Sub-criteria factor Sub-criteria overall
Environment Sub-rank
scores (W ) priority scores (W ) priority scores (W )
2 33 3
Strengths (S) 4
S1 0.069 0.024
0.351
S2 0.111 0.039 3
S3 0.247 0.087 2

S4 0.326 0.114 1
Internal S5 0.247 0.087 2
W1 0.108 0.030 3
W2 0.046 0.013 5
Weaknesses (W)
W3 0.070 0.019 4
0.275
W4 0.463 0.127 1
W5 0.313 0.086 2
Opportunities (O) 1
O1 0.323 0.083
0.258
O2 0.323 0.083 1
O3 0.114 0.029 3

O4 0.052 0.013 4
External
O5 0.188 0.048 2
T1 0.400 0.046 1
Threats (T) T2 0.200 0.023 2
0.116 T3 0.200 0.023 2
T4 0.200 0.023 2

764
Development of Rural Cooperatives ____________________________________________

Figure 2. Graphical interpretation of pairwise comparisons of SWOT sub-factors.
Table 7. TOWS matrix for rural cooperatives development in Iran.
External factors
TOWS
Opportunities (O) Threats (T)
matrix
O1, O2, O3, O4, and O5 T1, T2, T3, and T4
SO Maxi-Maxi strategy ST Maxi-Mini strategy
SO1. Facilitate procurement of production ST1. Increase competitiveness and reduce
inputs and develop supply and value chains dependency of rural cooperative on
of rural cooperatives inputs and products to financial, legal, and governmental support
benefit from opportunities such as legal through provision of production inputs and
)S S1 supports and facilities. optimization and improving supply and
( s S2 SO2. Implement public policy and provide value chains.
h
tg S3 technical and financial services using rural ST2. Involve rural cooperatives in policy
n S4 cooperatives to benefit from support planning and implementation and provide
e
rtS S5 structures and existing successful examples. financial and technical services.
SO3. Specialization of management of rural ST3. Increase competitiveness and reduce
cooperatives to benefit from opportunities. dependency of rural cooperative on
s financial, legal, and governmental supports
r
o by developing and promoting professional
tc
a management of rural cooperatives.
F
la
nr WO Mini-Maxi Strategy WT Mini-Mini Strategy
e
tn WO1. Enhance authority and knowledge of WT1. Improve competitiveness and reduce
I
current management and educate threats emanating from lack of credit and
professional managers for rural government support and political and
W1
) cooperatives to benefit more from available programmatic instability through
W W2
( ses W3 oWpOpo2r.t uAnuitthieosr.i ze specific statute for rural dcoeovepleorpamtiveenst mofa knnagoewmleedngt.e in rural
se W cooperatives for multiplicity and existence WT2. Policymaking and planning to
n
k 4 of successful examples and their support improve performance and economy of rural
a
eW W structures. cooperatives to enhance competitiveness
5 WO3. Develop programs to improve and reduce threats of instability of policies,
performance and economy of rural programs, lack of funding and government
cooperatives for maximum benefit of supports.
opportunities such as financial support and
facilities.

765
________________________________________________________________________ Barati et al.
sub-factors. They identified three SO, ST strategies are the least powerful (Figure 4).
and WO, and two WT strategies based on The final priorities of the alternative
previously identified sub-factors. These strategies are shown in Figure 5 and Table 8.
strategies are varied from some policy based They indicate that SO2 (0.134 or 1.000),
to social, economic and legal based SO1 (0.131 or 0.980), and ST2 (0.111 or
strategies. 0.830) are, in order, the three best TOWS
strategies and WO2 (0.005 or 0.033) is the
weakest TOWS strategy for RIC
Internal and External Space Analysis of
development. Given the (a) rural multiplicity
Rural Cooperatives
and dispersion, (b) inefficiency and
fragmentary nature of agricultural crops
Table 6 and Figure 3 show that in the value chains, and (c) top-down agricultural
internal space, the strengths (0.351) of rural planning system in Iran and with respect to
cooperatives were greater than the the capacity of rural cooperatives, it seems
weaknesses (0.275). In the external space, that adopting these strategies can play an
the opportunities (0.258) were greater than important role in development of rural
the threats (0.116). Figure 4 shows that the cooperatives and societies. When we
internal challenges of the IRCs (S+W= employed conventional SWOT
0.626) are greater than its external methodology, the three most important
challenges (O+T= 0.374) and the positive strategies were SO1, SO3 and WO1, while
aspects of the IRCs (S+O= 0.609) are the expert team believed that the results of
greater than its negative aspects (W+T= ANP-SWOT were closer to the reality of
0.301). Iran’s cooperatives.
This study presented a combined approach
to help managers choose the best alternative
Proposed TOWS Strategies for IRCs
strategies considering both internal and
Development
environmental factors. Because these factors
and sub-factors that affect decision- and
The inner and outer dependency of the
strategy-making are generally dependent,
SWOT factors and sub-factors indicates that
application of ANP in combination with
SO strategies are the most powerful TOWS
SWOT analysis and TOWS strategic
strategies for RICs development and WT
alternatives matrix comprised a useful and

Figure 3. Internal and external environment
space of RICs (SWOT factors). Figure 4. TOWS strategy spaces for RICs.

766