Corporate Planning

STRATEGIC ASSUMPTION SURFACING AND TESTING (SAST)


[Source: Flood, R. L. & Jackson, M. C. (1991). Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems Intervention, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. Chapter 6: Sections 6.4 and 6.5]
SAST METHODOLOGY

1.1 Stages

The methodology can be regarded as having four major stages: (a) group formation (b) assumption surfacing (c) dialectical debate and (d) synthesis.

1.2 Group Formation

The aim of this stage is to structure groups so that the productive operation of the later stages of the methodology is facilitated. As many individuals as possible who have a potential bearing on the definition of the “problem”, and its proposed solution, should be brought together. It is important that as many possible perceptions of the “problem” as can be found are included. These individuals are then divided into small groups on the basis of one or more of the following criteria:

· advocates of particular strategies
· vested interest
· personality type
· managers from different functional areas
· managers from different organisational levels
· time orientation (short-/long-term perspective), etc.

In choosing the criteria to be used, the aim should be to maximise similarity of perspective within groups (to get coherent group activity) and to maximise different perspectives between groups. Each group’s perspective should be clearly challenged by at least one other group.

1.3 Assumption Surfacing

Each group should develop a preferred strategy/solution. The aim of the assumption surfacing stage is then to help each group uncover and analyse the key assumptions upon which its preferred strategy/solution rests. Three techniques assume particular importance in assisting this process.

The first, stakeholder analysis, asks each group to identify the key individuals -- parties or groups on which the success or failure of their preferred strategy would depend were it adopted. These are the people who have a “stake” in the strategy. The process can be helped by asking questions like:

· “Who is affected by the strategy?”
· “Who has can interest in it?”
· “Who can affect its adoption, execution or implementation?”
· “Who cares about it?”

Thus the list of relevant stakeholders drawn up when this technique was being used in an evaluation exercise with a Council for Voluntary Service included:

· funding agencies
· local authorities
· local politicians
· existing voluntary organisations
· people in need
· other local people
· trade unions
· various statutory agencies
· Council for Voluntary Service staff
· volunteers
· The Executive Committee of the Council for Voluntary Service

The main criterion used for constructing this list was the extent to which the groups would be affected by the success or failure of the Council for Voluntary Service. Using the list to ask questions about how each of these groups would see success for the Council, it was possible to build up an extremely rich picture of the potential expectations held of it.

The second technique is assumption specification. For the stakeholders identified, each group then lists what assumptions it is making about each of them in believing that its preferred strategy will succeed. Each group should list all the assumptions derived from asking this question of all the stakeholders. These are the assumptions upon which the success of the groups preferred strategy/solution depends.

The third technique is assumption rating. This involves each group in ranking each of the assumptions it is making with respect to two criteria. For each of the listed assumptions each group asks of itself the following:

· “How important is this assumption in terms of its influence on the success or failure of the strategy?”
· “How certain are we that the assumption is justified?”

The results are recorded on a chart such as that shown in Figure 1. Because of their lack of importance, those assumptions falling on the extreme left of the figure are of little significance for effective planning or “problem solving”. Those falling in the top right (certain planning region) are important, but it is those in the lower right-hand quadrant (problematic planning region) which are the most critical. Because of their uncertainty they deserve close attention.

Dialectical debate proceeds best if only the most significant assumptions are considered. Each group should now, therefore, list the most significant assumptions on which its preferred strategy depends.


Figure 1: Assumption rating chart


1.4 Dialectical Debate

The groups are brought back together and each group makes the best possible case for its favoured strategy, while clearly identifying the most significant assumptions it is making. Questions of information only are allowed from other groups while these presentations are being made. It is important that each group comes to understand the key assumptions upon which the strategies of all other groups rest at this stage.

Open, dialectical debate is then permitted between the groups. Each group should have its list of key assumptions on display. The debate may be guided by asking questions such as:

· “How are the assumptions of the groups different?”
· “Which stakeholders feature most strongly in giving rise to the significant assumptions made by each group?”
· “Are different assumptions rated differently as to ‘least important’/ ‘most important’, ‘least certain’/ ‘most certain’ by the groups”

And especially:

· “What assumptions of the other groups does each group find the most troubling?”

After the debate has proceeded for so long, each group should consider adjusting its assumptions. This process of “assumption modification” should continue for as long as progress is being made.

1.5 Synthesis

The aim of the synthesis stage is to achieve a compromise on assumptions from which a new higher level of strategy/solution can be derived. Assumptions continue to be negotiated and modifications to key assumptions made. A list of agreed assumptions should be drawn up. If this list is sufficiently long, then the implied strategy can be worked out. This new strategy should hopefully bridge the gap between the old strategies and go beyond them as well. The assumptions on which it is based can be evaluated as it is put into effect. If no synthesis can be achieved, points of disagreement are noted and the question of what research might be done to resolve those differences is discussed. Meanwhile, any strategy put into effect can be more fully evaluated.

Mason has detailed what he sees as the advantages of the “dialectical approach”, captured in the SAST methodology, over the alternative “expert” and “devil’s advocate” methods of planning. In the expert approach some planner or planning department simply produces an “objective” plan, based upon the “best” evidence, for managerial consumption. The planners’ assumptions remain hidden and the opportunity is lost to produce plans premised upon other points of view. In the devil’s advocate approach, managers and planners produce a planning document, which is then subject to criticism by top management. The criticism may uncover some assumptions. However, this approach often encourages top management to be hypercritical, with the added problem that, if they are too opposed, the suggested plan disintegrates with no alternative to replace it. In these circumstances planners may be tempted to produce “safe” plans to protect themselves from severe criticism. Again, with the devil’s advocate approach, the change is lost to develop alternative plans constructed on different worldviews. A dialectical approach, such as SAST, is seen as overcoming all the weaknesses of the other two methods.

SAST IN ACTION: THE EXAMPLE OF
WINTERTON CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

This concerns a project that was undertaken for a Co-operative Development Agency (CDA) the Winterton CDA, UK. CDAs serve particular regions and aim to foster, encourage, develop, and promote industrial and commercial activity through the formation of co-operative enterprises -- enterprises owned by the people who work in them and which are also, usually, managed collectively. The project was to look at the general operation of the CDA to see how it could more efficiently serve the county in which it operated, and how it might market its services in order to achieve its objectives. In thinking about the overall situation of Winterton CDA, a range of metaphors was appropriate and helpful. The “organism”, “brain” and “cultural” metaphors all brought some insight. It seemed apparent that the project needed to explore possible ways forward for the CDA at the same time as suggesting what institutional changes would be necessary to realise those ways forward. It needed to concern itself with both the norms and values in the CDA as well as with issues of organisational structure. For this reason a methodology based upon complex-pluralist assumptions was chosen as “dominant” to guide the study. This was Checkland’s “soft systems methodology”, and its use did indeed lead to useful suggestions for attitudinal, procedural and structural changes, some of which were implemented.

SAST appears in this case as a “dependent’ methodology, which became dominant for a short period of time, to tackle what became an exceptionally important area of disagreement in the CDA about the desirability and feasibility of one possible future strategy which emerged in the course of employing Checkland’s approach. [The distinction between ‘dependent’ and ‘dominant’ methodologies belong to the consulting methodology called Total Systems Intervention, TSI. Readers unfamiliar with TSI might ignore this distinction.] It was suggested that a useful way to consider Winterton CDA was as

“a system seeking to recruit individuals to form workers’ co-operatives in particular fields where business opportunities exist.”

The possible strategy floated here was flagrantly a “top-down” way of carrying out co-operative development work, as opposed to the more usual “bottom-up” approach. The top-down approach involved identifying business opportunities and then recruiting individuals into co-operatives to exploit those opportunities. It is usually viewed with great distrust in co-operative circles. The preferred approach is bottom-up, essentially encouraging and assisting groups already thinking about starting co-operatives in particular fields. Within Winterton CDA the idea of trying a top-down strategy had some support, although there was also vehement opposition from other development workers.

The dominant metaphors for understanding this situation seemed to be those of “culture” and “coalition”; in the latter case because the CDA could be seen as consisting of two groups pulling in different directions. It was important to address this issue as quickly as possible because it was clearly of such significance for future planning in the CDA. A quick run through of the SAST methodology was suggested. This approach is clearly designed to address “pluralism”, while its lack of concern about complexity was a positive advantage in the circumstances. The need was for a rapid resolution of the disagreement, not a study on the detailed structural arrangements whereby the top-down approach could be institutionalised. SAST, thereof, assumed for a time the role of dominant methodology. The description of its use, which follows, is in terms of the four stages of the methodology.

Group formation was easily accomplished. The development workers naturally fell into two groups, one consisting of those with some sympathy for the top-down approach and the other consisting of those opposed. The opposed group was asked to make the best case it could against top-down. It was felt that this, rather than asking them directly to make the case for bottom-up, would lead to the most fruitful debate.

The separated groups were then asked to go through the assumption surfacing phase, by using the stakeholder analysis, assumption specification, and assumption rating techniques. The groups came up with different lists of stakeholders, obviously influenced by initial perceptions about which individuals or groups might/might not support a case for the top-down strategy.

Stakeholders listed are shown in Table 1

Table 1: Stakeholders listed in a study for a Co-operative Development Agency

Group 1 (for top-down)Group 2 (against top-down)
the development workers
the unemployed
local authorities
business improvement schemes
established co-operatives
funding bodies
other CDAs
marketing agencies
trade unions
general public
other businesses		the development workers
potential clients
the ideologically motivated
local authorities
Department of Trade and Industry
existing co-operatives
people already in work


The combined, long list of stakeholders facilitated the emergence of numerous assumptions supporting/against the top-down strategy as each group, during assumption specification, asked of itself what it was assuming about each stakeholder in believing its arguments to be correct. These were rated on their importance and certainty by the groups. Table 2 and 3 contain lists of those assumptions rated most significant by the two groups, (i.e., those appearing in the right-hand quadrants of Figure 1). The particular stakeholder generating each assumption is noted in brackets.

Table 2: The top five assumptions concerning the stakeholders recorded in Table 1

Group 1 (for top-down)Group 2 (against top-down)
another way to set up workers’ co-operatives (potential clients)

increased the CDA’s credibility in job creation (funding bodies)

ensures continuous support to the CDA (funding bodies)

carries out the expectations of the funding bodies (funding bodies)

strengthens the co-operative sector(established co-operatives)		mixed feelings of the development workers towards the strategy (development workers)

lack of group cohesion among the co-operators (potential clients)

lack of willingness to co-operate among the co-operators (potential clients)

getting people who are not motivated (the unemployed)

less development workers’ time on helping existing co-operatives (established co-operatives)


The groups were then brought back together to engage in dialectical debate. During the presentations it became clear that the groups were emphasising assumptions derived from consideration of different stakeholders as the main props for their arguments. Group 1 (for top-down) drew heavily on the stakeholders’ “funding bodies” (increase in credibility, ensures continuous support, carries out expectations) and “unemployed” (provides employment, gives unemployed a solution in a package). Group 2 (against top-down) concentrated on assumptions generated by the stakeholders “the development workers themselves” (mixed feelings, lack of knowledge about business opportunities, lack of experience in the area), “potential clients” (lack of group cohesion, lack of willingness to co-operate, lack of commitment to business idea), and “established co-operatives” (less development worker time for them, suspicion). This analysis helped clarify for the participants the nature and the basis of the arguments for and against top-down, and contributed to a highly effective and productive debate.

When argument was centred on particular issues, other interesting results emerged. The two groups interpreted the reaction of the stakeholders “funding bodies” from entirely different perspectives. Group 1 insisted that the top-down approach would assist the CDA’s credibility in job creation, fulfil the expectations of the funders, and so ensure continued support. Group 2 believed that top-down might be seen as a waste of development workers’ time on a risky venture, and this dangerous experiment could lose the CDA credibility with the funders if it failed. On the issue of whether top-down promoted industrial democracy, Group 1 argued that more people in workers’ co-operatives would inevitably bring this effect; Group 2 argued that the very idea of top-down took choice away from the individuals concerned; and Group 1, back again, argued that many of these were unemployed and had few choices anyway, so work in a co-operative could only increase these.

Table 3: Other significant assumptions concerning each stakeholder recorded in Table 1

Group 1 (for top-down)Group 2 (against top-down)
provides employment (unemployed)

provides the unemployed with a solution in a package (unemployed)

a more effective way of starting workers’ co-operatives (development workers)

establishes a successful precedent (others CDAs)

increases numbers working in co-operatives (established co-operatives)

increase in industrial democracy (trade unions)		lack of knowledge of business opportunities hinders “top-down” (development workers)

lack of experience of the development workers in this area of activity (development workers)

lack of commitment to business idea among the new co-operators (potential clients)

against principle of self-determination (ideologically motivated)

could be criticised as a waste of development workers’ time (funding bodies)

very dangerous if failed (funding bodies)

suspicions of other co-operatives, fear of hierarchy and getting co-operatives a bad name (established co-operatives)

too risky a venture for them (funding bodies)

no previous association of co-operative members (potential clients)

may have nothing in common with other co-operatives (potential clients)


The most troubling assumptions of the other side for Group 1 (for top-down) were the divisions among the development workers themselves and the possible lack of commitment from those brought together in a top-down scheme. Group 2 (against top-down) worried that if no top-down work took place, a genuine opportunity to set up more co-operatives might be foregone and changes to improve the lot of the unemployed, and to gain credibility with funders, would be missed.

Despite attempts at assumption negotiation and modification, it proved impossible to arrive at any overall synthesis during the final stage of the methodological process. Consensus was, however, reached on particular matters such as the need to seek out sources of information about business opportunities, to research other top-down experiences, and on the desirability of some experiments with a modified top-down approach (which were, indeed, carried out).

The intervention in Winterton CDA was, therefore, most useful in assisting creativity, in generating a very rich and full discussion, and in helping to clarify where differences of opinion lay. Although overall synthesis proved impossible to achieve, the chance of genuine consensus around specific issues was improved and this brought benefits. The inclusion of the items mentioned above in an action plan would not have been possible without the changes in perception brought about through the use of SAST.

Further Reading

The main text to consult for strategic assumption surfacing and testing is:
Mason, R. O. and Mitroff, I. I. (1981). Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions, Wiley, New York.

For the advantages of SAST over other planning approaches:
Mason, R. O. (1969). A Dialectical Approach to Strategic Planning, Management Science, 15, B403-14.

For the critique of SAST:
Cosier, R. A. (1981). Dialectical Inquiry in Strategic Planning: A Case of Premature Acceptance? Academy of Management Review, 6, 643-8.
Cosier, R. A., Ruble, T. L., and Alpin, J. C. (1978). An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Dialectical Inquiring Systems, Management Science, 24, 1483-90.
Mitroff, I. I. and Mason, R. O. (1981). The Metaphysics of Policy and Planning: A Reply to Cosier, Academy of Management Review, 6, 643-8.
Jackson, M. C. (1989). Assumptional Analysis: An Elucidation and Appraisal for Systems Practitioners, Systems Practice, 2, 11-28.

We noted the importance of C. West Churchman’s work as an inspiration to Mason and Mitroff and also to Ackoff, Checkland, and Ulrich. Churchman’s main volumes are:
Churchman, C. W. (1968). Challenge to Reason, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Churchman, C. W. (1968). The Systems Approach, Dell, New York.
Churchman, C. W. (1971). The Design of Inquiring Systems, Basic Concepts of Systems and Organisation, Basic Books, New York.
Churchman, C. W. (1979). The Systems Approach and Its Enemies, Basic Books, New York.
Churchman, C. W. (1981). Thought and Wisdom, Intersystems, Seaside, California.

A special Festschrift issue of the learned journal Systems Practice, Vol. 1, No. 4, devoted to C. West Churchman, provides further insights into his life’s work.

DP's Home