SWOT Analysis

A: 0.25 and 0.15 are the trap. Strengths contribute (4×0.25 + 3×0.15)=1.45. Weaknesses subtract (2×0.20 + 1×0.10)=0.50. Opportunities add (5×0.20)=1.0. Threats subtract (2×0.10)=0.20. Net is 1.45 − 0.50 + 1.0 − 0.20 = 1.75? No. Check again: strengths 1.45, opportunities 1.0 gives 2.45. Subtract 0.70 total negatives gives 1.75? That’s the common slip. Threats and weaknesses together are 0.70, yes, but the question states net SWOT score often reported as positives minus negatives plus baseline 0.9 offset used in the referenced method? No. Stop. Use pure weighted sum with sign: (1.45 + 1.0) − (0.50 + 0.20) = 2.65. Engineers usually miss one category or flip only weaknesses.

A: ISO 26262 pushes traceability. The hard boundary is linking strategy to risk metrics already in use. Severity and occurrence exist; ignoring them is a miss. A plain narrative feels safe but collapses under audit because it doesn’t connect to safety work products.

A: The line is external versus internal. Regulation sits outside your control. Treating it as a weakness muddies ownership and leads teams to chase training instead of mitigation plans tied to schedule and cost buffers.

A: The hinge is pairing. SWOT lists. TOWS forces S–O, W–T type combinations. Teams that stop at listing never close actions, which shows up later as unmanaged risk.