51
4 Policy of tariff hike like fuel has increased operational costs. 1
5 Different interpretations on regional autonomy causes unfavorable
business climate. 2
Evaluation on internal and external factors is carried out in accordance with the factors identified by FGD. Upon the weighting and the rating for each
one of factors, the scores of “strength – weakness” and “opportunity – threat” are as follows.
strength score - weakness score = 4.5367 – 2.0000 = 2.5367 opportunity score - threat score = 4.4869 – 1.6815 = 2.8054
Table 19 Analysis of internal and external factors
1. Strength
Weighting Rating
Score 1 Cassava is easily available from cassava producer.
0.2156
4
0.8625 2 The basic skills are simple for processing cassava.
0.2896
4
1.1584 3 Facility and equipment are small in scale.
0.1628
4
0.6510 4 Manpower is abundant in the area.
0.1505
4
0.6019 5
Supports are available in the current policy and programs
0.1815
5
0.9077
2. Weakness
1 Simple and indigenous technique is still used. 0.2044
2
0.4088 2
Facility, equipment and technique are not well developed.
0.1741
2
0.3482 3 Efficiency and recovery are less or in low.
0.2229
2
0.4458 4 Quality of Aci varies without any standardization.
0.2159
2
0.4319 5 Information access to the market is still limited.
0.1826
2
0.3652
Strength Score - Weakness Score 4.5367 – 2.0000
2.5367
3. Opportunity
1 Aci is absorbed at local market. 0.3084
5
1.5419 2 There is a quite large domestic market segment.
0.2481
5
1.2405 3
Local government and institution urge TSSA higher in policy.
0.1656
4
0.6625 4
SSTA is identified as a foundation of rural macro economic.
0.1414
4
0.5657 5 Aci is a commodity for food products in local.
0.1365
4
0.5459
4. Threat
1 Product competitive ability of Aci is low. 0.3556
2
0.7112 2
Tighter competition either from domestic or imported products.
0.2143
2
0.4287 3
Business facilities for SSTA are less than other small industries.
0.1604
2
0.3208 4
The policy of tariff hike like fuel increases operational costs.
0.1420
1
0.1420 5
Interpretation on regional autonomy causes unfavorable climate.
0.1277
2
0.2553
Opportunity Score - Threat Score 4.4869 – 1.6815
2.8054
The position of SSTA is identified at 2.54 in X-axle Strength-Weakness and 2.81 in Y-axle Opportunity-Threat in SWOT matrix which is pinned in
52
-1 5
1 2
3 4
-3 -4
-5 1
-2 -1
5 4
3 2
-2 -3
-4 -5
2.54, 2.81
External Factor
Opportunity
External Factor
Threat
Internal Factor
Strength
Internal Factor
Weakness
Quadrant-I Quadrant-III
Quadrant-II Quadrant-IV
quadrant-I as shown Figure 14. Due to this positioning, the strategy must be aggressive for development because there are two factors are evaluated in higher
score in strength, i.e. 1 cassava is easily ava ilable and obtained from farmer and 2 the basic skills are very simple for processing cassava.
But a few of factors are evaluated in rather low score. These are 1 efficiency and recovery are less or in low, 2 quality of Aci varies without any
standardization, and 3 information access to the market is still limited. And also lower score factors are 1 local government and institution urge TSSA higher in
policy, 2 SSTA is identified as a foundation of rural macro economic, and 3 Aci is a commodity for food products in local.
Figure 15 Position of SSTA in SWOT matrix Basing on the position in quadrate-I of SWOT matrix, many strategies can
be developed. The strategy should be developed from aspects of processing technique, facility and equipment, HRD, and their environment including local
government and institutions concerned. An aggressive strategy should be developed because the position of the current SSTA is situated in the quadrant-I in
53 matrix. The common or core term between factors should be identified at each
quadrant in matrix prior to develop the necessary strategies for quality assurance.
2. Common Term
1 Common Term in SO Strength – Opportunity To maximize the factors of strength considering the factors of opportunity,
the common terms identified are 1 cassava production and productivity, 2 Aci production, productivity, and quality, 3 processing facility, device, and skill, and
4 market price and political support. 2 Common Term in ST Strength – Threat
To maximize the strength factors toward the given threat factors, the common terms identified are 1 high quality cassava variety, 2Aci quality and
productivity, and price, 3 processing skill, facility and device, 4 infrastructure, and 5 political support.
3 Common Term in WO Weakness – Opportunity To minimize the weakness factors considering the factors of opportunity,
the common terms identified are 1 Aci quality and price, productivity, and quality standard, 2 technical and financial support, 3 market access, and 4
political support. 4 Common Term in WT Weakness – Threat
To minimize the weakness toward the given threat factors, the common terms identified are 1 improvement of processing technique, facility and device,
2 technical and political support, 3 Aci quality standard, and 4 market access.
3. Strategy Core Item
