STRATEGIC ASSUMPTION SURFACING AND TESTING (SAST) IN ACTION

Good examples of the use of SAST can be found in Mason and Mitro¡

(1981), Ellis (2002), Flood (1995) and Jackson (2000). This case study is taken from an intervention I was involved in with the Humberside Co-operative Development Agency (CDA) (see also Flood and Jackson, 1991).

The CDA was established to serve its region by fostering, encouraging, developing and promoting industrial and commercial activity through the formation of co-operative enterprises ^ enterprises owned by the people who work in them and usually also managed by those same people. The particular focus of the SAST exercise was a disagreement in the CDA over the relative merits of ‘top-down’ as opposed to ‘bottom-up’ co-operative development work. The top-down approach, which involves identifying business opportunities and then recruiting individuals to form workers’ co-operatives in these ¢elds, 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 areas of work. The description of this exercise follows the four stages of the SAST methodology.

Within the CDA the idea of trying a top-down strategy had some support, although there was also vehement opposition from other development workers. The development workers were therefore divided into two groups, one consisting of those with some sympathy for the top-down approach and the other 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 then went through the assumption surfacing phase, using the stakeholder analysis, assumption speci¢cation and Strategic assumption surfacing and testing (SAST) in action 147

assumption rating techniques. The groups came up with widely di¡erent lists of stakeholders, obviously in£uenced by initial perceptions about which individuals or groups might or might not support the case for the top-down strategy. The stakeholders listed by each group are shown in Table 8.1.

The lists of stakeholders were combined and each group was asked, following the logic of assumption speci¢cation, what it was assuming about each stakeholder in believing that its arguments for or against the top-down strategy were correct. This facilitated the emergence of numerous assumptions supporting/against the top-down strategy. These were ranked as to their importance and certainty by each group and the results recorded on assumption rating charts. Table 8.2 contains lists of those assumptions rated most signi¢cant by the two groups (i.e., those appearing in the right-hand quadrants of Figure 8.1). The particular stakeholder generating each assumption is noted in parentheses.

The groups were then brought back together to engage in dialectical debate. During the presentations it became clear that the groups were empha-sizing assumptions derived from consideration of di¡erent stakeholders as the main props for their arguments. Group 1 (for top-down) drew heavily on the stakeholders ‘funding bodies’ (increase in credibility, ensures con-tinuous support, carries out expectations) and ‘unemployed’ (provides em-ployment, gives unemployed a solution in a package). Group 2 (against top-down) concentrated on assumptions generated by the stakeholders

Table 8.1 Stakeholders listed in the study for the Humberside Co-operative Development Agency.

Group 1 (for top-down) Group 2 (against top-down) The development workers The development workers

The unemployed Potential clients

Local authorities The ideologically motivated

Business improvement schemes Local authorities

Existing co-operatives Department of Trade and Industry

Funding bodies Existing co-operatives

Other CDAs People already in work

Marketing agencies Trade unions General public Other businesses

Table 8.2 Significant assumptions concerning the stakeholders listed in Table 8.1.

Group 1 (for top-down) Group 2 (against top-down) Another way to set up workers’ Mixed feelings of the development co-operatives (potential clients) workers toward the strategy

(development workers)

Increases the CDA’s credibility in job Lack of group cohesion among the creation (funding bodies) cooperators (potential clients)

Ensures continuous support to the Lack of willingness to co-operate among CDA (funding bodies) the co-operators (potential clients) Carries out the expectations of the Getting people who are not motivated funding bodies (funding bodies) (the unemployed)

Strengthens the co-operative sector Less development workers’ time on (existing co-operatives) helping existing co-operatives (existing

co-operatives)

Provides employment (the unemployed) Lack of knowledge of business opportunities hinders ‘top-down’

(development workers)

Provides the unemployed with a Lack of experience of the development solution in a package (the unemployed) workers in this area of activity

(development workers)

A more e¡ective way of starting worker’s Lack of commitment to business idea co-operatives (development workers) among the new co-operators (potential

clients)

Establishes a successful precedent (other Against principle of self-determination

CDAs) (ideologically motivated)

Increases numbers working in Could be criticized as a waste of co-operatives (existing co-operatives) development workers’ time (funding

bodies)

Increase in industrial democracy (trade Very dangerous if failed (funding bodies) unions)

Suspicions of other co-operatives, fear of hierarchy and getting co-operatives a bad name (existing 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-operators (potential clients)

Strategic assumption surfacing and testing (SAST) in action 149

‘development workers’ (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, etc.) and ‘existing co-operatives’ (less development workers’

time for them, suspicion). This analysis helped clarify for the participants the nature and basis of the arguments for and against top-down and contrib-uted to a very productive debate.

As debate continued, other interesting results emerged. The two groups interpreted the reaction of the stakeholder ‘funding bodies’ from entirely di¡erent perspectives. Group 1 insisted that top-down would assist the CDA’s credibility in job creation and ful¢l the expectations of funders, so ensuring continued support. Group 2 believed that top-down might be seen as a waste of development workers’ time on risky ventures 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 e¡ect; Group 2 argued that the very idea of top-down took choice away from the individuals concerned; and Group 1 argued back again that many of these were unemployed and had few choices anyway, so work in a co-operative could only increase their options.

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-top-down) worried that, if no top-top-down work took place, a genuine opportunity to set up more co-operatives would be wasted and chances to improve the lot of the unemployed and to gain credibility with funders would be missed.

Following the dialectical debate attempts were made at assumption nego-tiation and modi¢cation, but it proved impossible to arrive at any overall synthesis. 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 elsewhere and to carry out some experiments with a modi¢ed top-down approach.

The intervention using SAST in the Humberside CDA was useful in assisting creativity, in helping to clarify where di¡erences of opinion lay and in generating a very full and rich discussion. Overall synthesis proved impossible to achieve, but agreement around speci¢c issues was obtained and this brought bene¢ts. The inclusion of the items mentioned above in an action plan would not have been possible without the changes in percep-tion and culture brought about through the use of SAST.

8.4 CRITIQUE OF STRATEGIC ASSUMPTION SURFACING