Strategic Assumptions Surfacing and Testing
SAST is a process which reveals the underlying assumptions
of a policy or plan and helps create a map for exploring them.
SAST incorporates the following principles:
- Adversarial - based on the premise that the best way
to test an assumption is to oppose it.
- Participative - based on the premise that the knowledge
and resources necessary to solve and implement the solution to
a complex problem is distributed among a group of individuals.
- Integrative - based on the premise that a unified
set of assumptions and action plan are needed to guide decision
making, and that what comes out of the adversarial and participative
elements can be unified.
- Managerial mind supporting - based on the premise
that exposure to assumption deepens the manager's insight into
an organisation and its policy, planning, and strategic problems.
The Five Phases of SAST
The above principles are employed throughout the five phases
of the SAST process, which are:
1. Group formation.
Key individuals from across company functions are formed into
small (6 - 8 person) groups. Each group should consist of individuals
who get on well with one another (minimise conflict). Each group
should differ in its particular knowledge and problem perspectives
(maximise differences). Each group should have a different orientation,
perspective or policy option from which to tackle the issue.
2. Assumption surfacing and rating.
Each group meets separately and begins to identify the assumptions
inherent in the issue (from their viewpoint). A way in may be
to identify as many stakeholders as possible. List all the assumptions
generated.
3. Within group dialectic debate.
Firstly, each group now eliminates irrelevant assumptions
by asking themselves "If the opposite of this assumptions
is true, does it have any significant bearing on the issue?"
If the answer is "No", then the assumption is not very
relevant to the problem. Any assumption accepted as a strategic
premise must meet two criteria:
(a). It should have a significant bearing on the outcome of
the strategy chosen and implemented. (Importance)
(b). It should be as "self evident" and "certain
to be true" as possible. (Certainty)
The assumptions are now ranked for importance by the group
and entered in an Importance / Certainty matrix. If a more precise
scaling is required here, the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
is used to carry out pairwise comparison (each individual group
member) and to calculate normalised weightings from the combined
data. The individual data should also be open for discussion
at this stage.
The resulting data is now plotted on a graph or 2 x 2 matrix
whose scales are (relatively important / unimportant) & (relatively
certain / uncertain).
Assumptions that are both important and certain become the
pivotal or "bedrock" assumptions for the policy. Assumptions
that are important but uncertain may require research. assumptions
in the other two quadrants may well be dropped. using the graph
as an aid, each group should debate "which are the pivotal
assumptions?" and come up with a prioritised list of pivotal
assumptions.
4. Between groups dialectic debate.
The groups are brought together and a spokesperson for each
group presents their importance / certainty graph and pivotal
assumptions. Only clarifying questions are permitted at this
stage. When all the groups have presented, all the assumptions
are combined on one slide and thrown open for evaluation, debate
and discussion. Agreed assumptions are extracted as premises
from which to proceed, while contentious assumptions are debated
further and may be modified to achieve agreement.
5. Final synthesis.
All participants are asked to propose assumptions to resolve
outstanding controversies. If no agreement is reached on an assumption
it becomes an issue requiring further investigation. Each issue
and key assumption is subjected to further analysis to adduce
the data and warrants (what beliefs the assumption is based on)
that underlie its claim. Where data is inadequate, business intelligence
and management information systems activities are undertaken
to acquire the specific data necessary to resolve the strategic
issue. A planning book is produced that contains -
(a) A prioritised list of the most critical issues management
faces as revealed by SAST.
(b) An assessment of the current state of knowledge with respect
to the solution of these issues.
(c) A list of current and planned information-producing activities
designed to improve the state of knowledge relevant to the critical
issues.
When the policy decision must be made, the results of the
information producing activities are collected and related to
the issues for which they were undertaken. A final debate is
held and a judgement is made on the best set of assumptions from
which to proceed. Finally, an appropriate policy is chosen, based
on the new information and the synthesis that emerged.
SAST was developed in the US by Richard Mason, Ian Mitroff,
and Jim Emshoff.
Reference
- Mason RO, Mitroff II, 1981, Challenging Strategic Planning
Assumptions: theory, cases and techniques, New York, Wiley.
|
