Critical Analysis Of The Use Of Strategic Assumption Surfacing And Testing Methodology To Improve The Efficiency And Profitability Of H2S

Formation of Analysis Groups

In this report, we take a critical of the use of the Strategic Assumption Surfacing and Testing (SAST) Methodology in resolving the ineffective issues that H2S is currently facing. The H2S The report seeks to come up with a proposal on the strategies that H2S can adopt in order for the company to become more efficient and therefore, profitable so that it can manage to sustain its market share in the United Kingdom market. The recommendations discussed herein, are the end product of the exhaustive application of the methodology.

There were two groups drawn from the middle level and senior management was involved in the analysis if the HS2 case. The group consisted of seven members each, which is in line with Heijden (2010) proposal that the group formation for implementing the SAST methodology need to be between six and eight people. The two groups were divergent in terms of the way they handled the presenting issue in their deliberations. Reynolds & Holwell (2010) claims that these groups need to differ in terms of their problem perspective and particular knowledge so that they can reflect maximized differences. In this case, while Group I focused on how Northern Businesses could support HS2 in realized enhanced level of efficiency; on the other hand, Group II proposed the development of HS2 in such a manner that it optimizes the environmental opportunities.

Each of the group involved in the analysis of HS2 had its own distinct perspective or orientation from which they tackled the issues at hand. According to Barabba & Mitroff (2014), this is highly recommendable as it ensures that as many perspectives as possible are taken into account in the process of determining the resultant valid assumptions. For instance, Group I largely focused on the stakeholders such as the government, environmental groups, taxpayers, local authorities, train operators, commuters, airports, and northern businesses. Group II, on the other hand, focused on another set of stakeholders such as interest groups, schools, the media, farmers, wildlife trust and the government.

This second stage of the SAST methodology involved the meeting of the group members to deliberate on the issues at hand. Kegan & Lahey (2016) concurs that at this particular stage the groups need to meet separately and deliberate on the assumptions that are inherent in the issue that they are tackling; that one of the ways that this is done effectively is through identifying the stakeholders and listing down all the assumptions made. The groups involved, therefore, met and came up with the lists of the stakeholders and the assumption they made against each. According to McDonald, Bammer, & Deane (2010) it is imperative for each of the groups involved in the process to come up with as many assumptions as they can generate. Williams & Hummelbrunner (2010) further note that after the assumptions are generated they should be reduced to six or seven key ones. In this case, Group I pointed out a total of 12 stakeholders, with each having three assumptions, while Group II settled on seven stakeholders who were assigned a varied number of assumptions.

Identification of Stakeholders and Assumptions

This stage is also referred to as the assumption integration phase. Dewar (2008) notes that the groups seek to eliminate the irrelevant assumption through asking themselves whether the opposite of the assumptions that they had made was true and if it did have any significant effect on the issue at hand. Those assumptions that had opposites that were not true and had no impact on the issue were relegated. In this case, both Group I and II determined the assumptions with a strategic premise as those that could significantly affect the outcome of the strategy that they chose and, if it was self-evident. They then ranked the assumptions based on their importance and recorded their conclusions in the Importance/Certainty matrix.

Yurtseven & Buchanan (2015) suggests that at this point the assumptions that are both certain and important end up becoming the foundational assumptions for the policy. The assumptions that are an important but rather uncertain call for further research, whereas the assumptions in the remaining quadrants may as well be discarded. Group, I determined assumptions such as easier commutes for people living nearby, economic investment and growth for the government, unwelcomed farmers/landowners and positives for local suppliers in the construction sector as the most important and most certain assumptions. In the case of Group II, the most important and most certain assumptions included unclear plans by the National Trust regarding proposed routes; concerns by landowners regarding location of buildings, crops, animals and storage; viability of land after temporary use to facilitate HS2 and, concerns about the existing legislation in regards to habitats may not adhere. On the other hand, the most important but least certain assumption for Group I included risk of hidden cost for trained operators and, no benefit to off-route taxpayers. The Group II included the access to concerns to land and property if HS2 splits land or communities and, that the farmer that are affected by HS2 may have increased opportunities as compared to those who are not. Each of the group used the graph to debate the assumptions that they regarded as pivotal and came up with a list of those prioritized pivotal assumptions.

At this particular stage of the SAST methodology, the groups came together and one of their appointed members presented their importance/certainty graphs and their agreed pivotal assumptions. Zlatanovic (2016) this step involves engaging with group members to negotiate assumptions. Sucahyo, Suro, & Affandi (2013) argues that for there to be a dialectical synthesis, the assumptions need to be modified to the point where further proceeding with those assumptions would no longer support the strategy.  

In this case, the two groups were provided with a forum in which the members of the other group were allowed to ask questions. All the assumptions were then combined after the groups had made their presentation; this was followed by a debate, evaluation, and discussion. The groups then agreed on the assumptions that were drawn from the premises and conducted a further debate on the controversial assumption with the intent of reaching consensus on how to modify them. The groups agreed on assumptions such as easier commutes for people living nearby; economic investment and growth for the government; unclear plans by the National Trust regarding proposed routes and concerns about the existing legislation in regards to habitats may not adhere. They debated on the controversial assumption such as an included risk of hidden cost for trained operators and the access to concerns to land and property if HS2 splits land or communities.

Assumption Integration Phase

At this stage, the members from both groups were requested to propose their assumptions in the quest to resolve the outstanding contentious assumptions. The members determined that the hidden cost of the trained operator was not worth further consideration as it was unsubstantiated; while the splitting of communities by HS2 due to further development could actually negatively affect the company. According to Sucahyo, Suro and Affandi (2013) in case, there is no agreement that was reached, it was generally agreed that the issue required to be subjected to further research. Furthermore, each of the key assumptions that the groups agreed upon was further analysed with the objective of providing the evidence upon which the claims were based. In the case where there was inadequate data, management information systems and business intelligence were undertaken to generate the data that was necessary for resolving the strategic issue. This did not apply in this case as the groups reached consensus on the contentious issues.

The deliberations on this closing stage need to result in a planning book. According to Porter (2009) the planning book needs to contain a prioritized list of the issues that were regarded as critical to the management of the organization as attested by SAST.  Williams and Hof (2016 ) notes that planning book also needs to explicitly elaborate on the present state of knowledge regarding the solution to the presenting issues and, list the current and planned activities for information production, which are designed to enhance the state of the knowledge that is relevant for the critical issues.

The deliberation of assumptions using the SAST methodology helps to clarify assumptions that people make in a manner that is systematic; the methodology is also quite effective in modifying, updating and replacing assumption whenever there is a need. Córdoba-Pachón (2010) affirms this arguing that most of the things that people do individual or in an organizational context are based on the validity or robustness of the assumptions that they develop about themselves or others around them. In this case,

The assumption can be quite misleading, particularly when they are based on faulty mistranslations and misunderstandings. Vlek & Cvetkovich (2012) notes that the use of the SAST methodology is effective in clarifying the effectiveness of an assumption. The methodology provides for the testing of assumptions through brainstorming in groups and verification through data analysis. This provides the basis for validating an assumption as a possible and workable solution to a problem that a particular business organization is facing.

Conclusion:

Using the SAST methodology we, therefore, conclude that some of the valid concerns that HS2 need to take into account in order to ensure the efficiency of their service delivery includes enabling the easier commute of the people who live nearby who are their immediate customers. The growth of the economy and investment as provided for by the government is also another critical factor as it is bound to attract more tourists into the countryside. The National Trust also need to clarify their routes for the train to avoid inconveniencing the customers and the need to adhere to the existing laws regarding habitat to improve the image of the company as being eco-friendly. All these measures will go a long way towards ensuring that HS2 is both efficient and profitable.

References:

Barabba, V., & Mitroff, I. (2014). Business Strategies for a Messy World: Tools for Systemic Problem-Solving. New York: Palgrave.

Córdoba-Pachón, J.-R. (2010). Systems Practice in the Information Society. New York : Routledge.

Dewar, J. A. (2008). Assumption-Based Planning: A Tool for Reducing Avoidable Surprises. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Heijden, K. v. (2010). Scenarios : the art of strategic conversation. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.

Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2016). An Everyone Culture: Becoming a Deliberately Developmental Organization. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business Review Press.

McDonald, D., Bammer, G., & Deane, P. (2010). Research Integration Using Dialogue Methods. Acton, A.C.T. : ANU E Press.

Porter, M. E. (2009). Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. Simon&Schuster .

Reynolds, M., & Holwell, S. (2010). Systems Approaches to Managing Change: A Practical Guide. New York : Springer .

Sucahyo, R., Suro, I. A., & Affandi, o. (2013). Knowledge Management Strategy To Increase The Innovation Of The Telecommunication Company. International Journal of Information Technology and Business Management, 12(1), 78 – 89.

Vlek, C., & Cvetkovich, G. (2012). Social Decision Methodology for Technological Projects. Dordrecht : Springer Netherlands.

Williams, B., & Hof, S. v. (2016 ). Wicked Solutions : A Systems Approach to Complex Problems. New York : Routledge .

Williams, B., & Hummelbrunner, R. (2010). Systems Concepts in Action: A Practitioner’s Toolkit. Palo Alto : Stanford University Press.

Yurtseven, M. K., & Buchanan, W. W. (2015). Decision Making Via Systems Thinking In Management: Educational Issues. Journal of Transdisciplinary Studies, 8(2), 83 – 94.

Zlatanovic, D. (2016). Combining the methodologies of strategic assumptions surfacing and testing and organizational cybernetics in managing problem situations in enterprises. Economic Horizon, 18(1), 17 – 33.