Can you outline strategic assumption surfacing and testing for the framing phase
In the Framing phase, Strategic Assumption Surfacing and Testing (SAST) is used to interrogate the logic behind how a “system of interest” is defined and where its boundaries are drawn[1]. Because framing is not a natural fact but a subjective and ethical choice, SAST ensures that the scope of an investigation is not based on hidden biases that might lead to “solving the wrong problem precisely”[4].
Here is an outline for applying SAST specifically to the framing of a complex problem:
1. Identify the “Frame-Makers” and Stakeholders
Before questioning the boundary, you must identify who drew it and who is impacted by it.
• Identify the Designer: Explicitly ask, “Who is conceptualising this system and its boundaries?”[8].
• The Logistical Search: List not just the decision-makers, but the “Witnesses”—those affected by the system’s boundary but excluded from its design[7].
• Assumptions as Properties: Recognize that your current frame is built on “presumed properties of stakeholders”—for example, assuming a customer only cares about price, which allows you to exclude “service quality” from your model[14].
2. Surface Boundary Assumptions
Work backward from the current problem definition to identify the conditions that make this specific frame valid.
• Control vs. Environment: Ask what factors are being treated as “Internal” (controllable) and what are being treated as “Given” (the environment)[17].
• The “Sweeping In” Test: Identify variables currently excluded (e.g., ethics, long-term environmental impact, or employee morale) and ask, “If this were brought inside the system, how would the problem change?”[21].
• The Negation Test: If you were to assume a “fixed” environmental constraint (like a specific law or market trend) were actually flexible, would your entire strategy collapse?[25][26].
3. Plot the Framing Risks (Importance/Certainty Matrix)
Not all framing choices carry the same risk; some boundaries create “blind spots” that are more dangerous than others.
• Identify the “Danger Zone”: Plot your framing assumptions on a 2x2 grid. Focus on High Importance/Low Certainty assumptions—these are the “hidden scaffolding” of your project that have not been factually verified[27][28].
• The White Space Assessment: Using the “Italian Flag” model, determine if your current frame leaves too much “White Space” (uncertainty) or ignores “Red” (hard physical constraints)[29].
4. Engage in Dialectical Reframing
To test the robustness of your frame, you must deliberately construct its opposite.
• Propose a Counter-Frame: If your current frame is “Technical,” build a “Personal” or “Organizational” counter-frame that uses the same data but draws a different boundary[33].
• The “Point of View” Shift: Test if a different “station point” (e.g., viewing the project through the eyes of a competitor or a future generation) makes the current problem disappear or transform into a new opportunity[37].
• Identify “Killer Assumptions”: Explicitly hunt for beliefs that “complexity is in the system, not the mind,” which can lead to rigid framing and project failure[41][42].
5. Synthesis: Adjusting the Boundary
The goal is not just to have a better map, but to ensure the “map” is viable for the situation.
• Dissolving vs. Solving: Determine if the problem can be dissolved by expanding the system boundary to include environmental variables that were previously ignored[43][44].
• Conserve Identity: Ensure that while you expand the structure, you preserve the core “Organization” (the essential relations that define what the system is) so it does not disintegrate during the change[45][46].
Summary Checklist for Framing
| Framing Check | Key Question | Goal |
|---|---|---|
| Agency | ”Who is drawing this boundary and why?”[47][48] | Expose bias. |
| Exclusion | ”Who is the ‘Witness’ we are ignoring?”[13][49] | Ethical integrity. |
| Logic | ”What are we assuming is uncontrollable?”[9][18] | Identify leverage. |
| Risk | ”Is this frame stable enough to support action?”[27][50] | Avoid E3 error. |
Does your current project have any “fixed” constraints that you suspect might actually be negotiable if the boundary were shifted?
References
[1] 💬Nutshell (Process).md [4] 💬How To Guides.md [7] 💬People Dynamics.md [8] 💬Gists.md [9] 💬How To Guides.md [13] 💬How To Guides.md [14] 💬How To Guides.md [17] 💬Environment.md [18] 💬How To Guides.md [21] 💬Gists.md [25] 💬How To Guides.md [26] 💬How To Guides.md [27] 💬How To Guides.md [28] 💬People Dynamics.md [29] 💬Environment.md [33] 💬How To Guides.md [37] 💬Distinctions.md [41] 💬Gists.md [42] 💬Keywords + Jargon.md [43] 💬Environment.md [44] 💬What is Complexity.md [45] 💬How To Guides.md [46] 💬Nutshell (Process).md [47] 💬Environment.md [48] 💬Questions.md [49] 💬People Dynamics.md [50] 💬Perspectives.md