HS2 Business Development: Strategic Assumption Surfacing & Testing

This report critically examines the application of the Strategic Assumption Surfacing and Testing (SAST) methodology to address inefficiencies within HS2. It details the process of group formation, assumption surfacing and rating, within-group and between-group dialectical debates, and final synthesis. The analysis involves identifying key stakeholders, listing assumptions, and prioritizing pivotal assumptions using importance/certainty matrices. The report highlights the methodology's effectiveness in clarifying assumptions and its role in modifying and updating strategies. Ultimately, the report concludes with recommendations for HS2, including prioritizing easier commutes for local residents, leveraging government investment, clarifying routes with the National Trust, and adhering to environmental regulations to enhance efficiency, profitability, and public image. Desklib provides access to similar solved assignments and resources for students.

Strategic Assumption Surfacing and Testing (SAST) Methodology 1
Application of Strategic Assumption Surfacing and Testing (SAST) Methodology at the HS2
Name of Student:
Name of Institution:

Strategic Assumption Surfacing and Testing (SAST) Methodology 2
Introduction
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.
The Strategic Assumption Surfacing and Testing (SAST) Methodology
a) Group Formation
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

Strategic Assumption Surfacing and Testing (SAST) Methodology 3
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.
b) Assumption Surfacing and Rating
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.
b. Within Group Dialect Debate
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

Strategic Assumption Surfacing and Testing (SAST) Methodology 4
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.

Strategic Assumption Surfacing and Testing (SAST) Methodology 5
c) Between-Group Dialect Debate
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.
e) Final Synthesis
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

Strategic Assumption Surfacing and Testing (SAST) Methodology 6
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.
A Critical Review of the Use of SAST Methodology
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

Strategic Assumption Surfacing and Testing (SAST) Methodology 7
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.

Strategic Assumption Surfacing and Testing (SAST) Methodology 8
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.