Because I have left it pending for an entire week already, here you have it, an initial analysis of the project's standing. We will be able to improve upon it (beginning with compiling actual strategies
) once we are done fine tuning some things like the guidelines.
This [preliminary] entry functions as a compilation of the PEFE Project
's attributes and environment in an attempt to perform SWOT Analysis
of its organization. As it stands the analysis is not intended to be, and should NOT be taken as, Serious Business
— yet it should provide information good enough for the consolidation of the organization's future development strategies.
Think of this as a Boring Yet Practical
strategical analysis rundown For Science!
For the purposes of this page, the people working at the Pokédex Extended Fanon Edition Project, as well as the actual idea, are treated as an actual organization
doing its business
in order to pursue its objective
in its surrounding environment. For all the emphasized terms above you'll find adequate related statements in the project page and in the forum thread, which will be linked to eventually in the section above. Or you can just read the opening post (and the foreword).
Of note is our mission statement
: "Hopefully, creating or collecting the pieces of Fanon to fill in the gaps, making a more coherent and immersive world.
Each following section enumerates and justifies the elements that compose the SWOT tuple as present in the project's organization. Instances identified are tagged so that they can be referred to once the stage of cross-strategy compilation is reached.
For the purposes of the analysis, the project's members are considered "tropers", meaning attributes common to the TV Tropes
culture count towards strengths and weaknesses of the project itself*
. However, procedures
originated from TV Tropes
, such as technical adjustments or regulations, are still to be considered as opportunities or threats, as they stem from outside the Project's the sphere of influence.
"Strengths" are things present in the organization that help it against competitors. We're not really competing against someone else here so let's take it as "stand out in our environment".
The first identifiable strengths for the project is its openness to expansion. ([S1]
) By the project's very nature we can (theoretically) always find ways to improve existing entries and add new material, and in the greater terms no newcomer perspective is unwelcome. This is related to and supported by the "wiki culture", that is being open to contribution. In terms of internal organization and opportunity for new members to come in, there are few (if any) practical barriers of entry beyond what our current interaction medium exposes.
Associated to the above, but fundamentally different, is the wide assortment of the Canon
that can be made available by our members. ([S2]
) Be it the games, anime, mangae or the TCG, someone here knows about and is willing to discuss. Meaning, debate of key theories grows solid. The familiarity with different branches of the canon, as well as the ability to analyze the canon and both provide and discuss content for entries (such as what happens with Pokedex Researchers Have No Sense Of Scale
) grow as the variety in contributors does.
The first observable effect of both strengths above, attested by those who read many articles, is the ability to project "our-world" media into "their-world" instances, such as the Godzilla references, while maintaining intra and inter consistency.
The already existing internal organization is strong enough to keep the engines running, and "self-aware" enough to correct itself when problems occur. ([S3]
) Currently the project organization follows some basic, but tightly defined guidelines such as "post an entry in the thread first" and "a dangerous world isn't necessarily a hellhole". There is no such thing as a Head Honchkrow except for particular cases where editorial control is needed, and when needed the ability to establish or execute policy has been treated as a temporary de-facto power.
"Weaknesses" are stuff in the organization that harm the ability to compete, or as wehave it "stand out".
One current weakness originated from the Project's own history is the major lack of an institutional image, in particular in what regards promotion to the outside world. ([W1]
) As such, "workplace loyalty" and "brand loyalty" towards the project are absolutely not measurable. The current standing of the project, "something that's there Just for Fun
" in the TV Tropes
Wiki, does not help matters; we are still using wiki resources for a goal that lies beyond TV Tropes
's actual scope, meaning we can be asked to leave the place becoming temporarily a nebolous assembly of ideas without notable identity.
As a consequence of being currently hosted and logistically tied to TV Tropes
, the project's policing, both technical and behavioural, relies on the TV Tropes
one. Far worse, [accountable] membership is also tied to the TV Tropes
one ([W1b — pending]
) ever since The Google Incident
A weakness inherent to the project's doing and goal, in their simplified versions, is TV Tropes Will Ruin Your Life
, in particular the evolution of analyzed perspectives and entries that may tend to run towards a Darker and Edgier
). We explicitly try to avoid the standard human byproduct of "over-analyzing" media while providing the mantras described above. Care must be taken to ensure a consistent approach to deal with the tints of D&E that are already present in some entries.
A minor weakness, but a one that can bite hard if left unattended, is the presence of a fuzzy Bus Factor. A project's "Bus Factor" is colloquially defined in Software Development as how many people in the project can be Put on a Bus
or Thrown Under A Bus
before the project can not be adequately run anymore ([W3]
). All members can edit entries and work with the wiki markup; but that's different from designing or enforcing policy, running the communication channels and helping contributors synchronize (Grand Theories, for example) — tasks that require an assignment of responsibilities.
"Opportunities" are stuff in the environment that benefit us, ideally more than they benefit our competitors; in our schema, these are things that help us gain notability.
A good guess is we can start with the Obvious One
, that is: the continuation of the Pokémon
franchise itself. ([O1]
) So long as more generations, games and other media*
are being made, our project not only won't run out of material, but will also remain "relevant" as an Adaption Distillation
perspective to contributing eyes. Meaning the project won't fall back to obscurity, development-wise, due to something like becoming a Guilty Pleasure
The main objective of the project is to "fill in the gaps"; although this is not defined itself through a wider goal (which the project has but is different), one tangible opportunity in what regards to reaching the audience can be identified. Adequate promotion of the project added to a solid, nice growth in content quality may cause the project to effect other fanon. ([O2]
) As a side effect of such controlled growth, the content can be further solidified as more people play around with it. The ultimate realization of the stated goal would be, of course, Ascended Fanon
The ability of the contributors to use any and all technologies available to generate, catalogue and profile the documentation and articles would be at this point be a given, but nonetheless merits mention. ([O3]
) (to be expanded)
"Threats" are stuff around the organization that threatens it (duh). Essentially it is stuff that damages our ability to compete or stand out, or that right out threatens our existence.
In the same way Nintendo / Game Freak
provide us with our greatest opportunity, they also provide us with the greatest threat due their ownership of the franchise itself, namely the "Chrono Break Effect
). While highly unlikely
, it is possible that something may force N/GF to "Cease&Desist" us from the development of our project, or at least the publication of its contents. Due to the legality factors involved in such a decision, this might also force us to deal with N/GF via our real, legal personas.
such a decision would be taken by N/GF is a matter not in our reach to determine, making strategies to deal with the situation as unlikely to be constructed as unlikely the event itself is to occur. This threat is so nebulous that it may as well be considered nonexistent, but it is tough and primordial
enough to still merit being counted upon. Relevant chatroom URL: 
The second threat we are bound to face is technological dependency. The project currently lies logistically hung down the TV Tropes system tree
, with an added namespace for the entries and a forum thread ([T2]
). We can have something like Quotes.The Pokedex Extended Fanon Edition
, but it falls outside our purview as with any other namespaced page (meaning we can't have, for example, our own "Selection of Quotes" unless we use other paging system), adding with the external use of the name to the lack of hard institutional image. The existence of the thread and its integration to the wiki system is also not guaranteed, although pretty unlikely to change for the worse.
Being part of TV Tropes
also means our articles are redacted in the wikilanguage of their weird spawn engine, forked from pmwiki so long ago that it simply can't be brought back to sync
. This puts us in a form of Vendor Lock Out
in maintenance of the project's contents in an editable format, as it means that if we move somewhere else, all the articles will have to be reformatted. WikiWords
will likely among the first things to be substituted away, considering as well that from that point onwards the trope pages linked to also become content external
One easily identifiable threat that does not stem from TV Tropes
but becomes strengthened by the site's scope and audience, is the very thing we have been trying to defy from day one, that is: Darker and Edgier
). Note that is is different from the Weakness Darker and Edgier
; some individuals
might and will come from the outside
to impose a D&E perspective into our articles beyond what the normal analysis of the canon
would hint and regardless any other reason to edit an entry (think someone not agreeing with an article perspective on someone's [un]favourite Pokémon). While there are other perspectives that would be tried to let in, D&E merits some mention in that despite it forming part of our official standings and objectives, we haven't established a tight measurement of how much of it to let in.
threat that was recently brought to attention of the contributors is the position of our project as Fanon
). An attempt to bring a roleplay as part of the stories told in Pokémon entries stirred up the water as to what do we consider Canon
and what parts of the Fanon
can we use. The position that gained most consensus is that as deep down we are bound to Patchwork Fic
the [more glaring] problems of Canon
(like Magcargo's temperature), the entries should end up as an usable perspective origin for stories
, but not become stories themselves. As a corollary, we should avoid using already existing Fanon stories as basis for articles, as that can easily break our internal consistency among other issues because Fanon trends tend to strongly conflict with each other. A good example would be taking a [fan]work's perspective for location-based Eevee evolution, then finding it happens to clash with what we have established or corrected for other cases (such as Magnezone).
Pending (The two threats above should be theoretically lumped together)
Once all relevant elements that take part in the SWOT tuple have been identified, a set of strategies
can be designed to deal with them in a paired or chained way, for example using an opportunity to combat a weakness, or using an organizational strength's output to mitigate a threat until the environment changes in a more favorable way.
For the moment, this section will remain void of strategical output pending discussion on 1.- the Project Guidelines and 2.- the final list of SWOT elements. Even now some basic strategies can be designed nonetheless. For example:
- signing of articles in order to help new users who want to contribute to already existing entries* .
- agreeing on a tightly defined, no matter how basic, procedure of membership* .
- scheduled backup or articles (including their source markup)* .
Last Update — March 23, 2011