It is all too easy to treat the routines or rules which we use in certain types of situation as inevitable and ordained. The aim of this tool is to bring to the surface and make more visible the assumptions underlying our choices and actions.

Make a list of some of the 'rules' by which you make decisions: for example, who you consult, where you would look for best practice, how you go about getting approval, etc.

Ask yourself why you feel it is the best choice and on what critical assumptions your customary behaviour depends.

List the assumptions, and beside each formulate a counter-assumption - not necessarily its negation, but rather the opposite pole of the construct (issue) it represents. Write these down alongside the corresponding assumptions.

Now consider what would happen if the counter-assumption was in fact the case. Would it make any difference to your behaviour? If not, the pair of items can be ignored as irrelevant to your actions.

Work down the list and delete ineffective assumption/counter-assumption pairs i.e. where it would make little difference to your choice whether the assumption or the counter-assumption was actually the case.

Assess each of the remaining assumptions in terms of high or low importance (how critical is its truth justifying your pattern of behaviour?) and high or low strength of conviction (how confident are you that it is, the case).

Example. You may always consult colleagues about decisions.

One assumption might be that you do this because it is a good way to get agreement and 'buy-in' to your plans. The counter assumption is that consultation is not important to getting 'buy-in'. If the counter assumption were true then you wouldn't consult colleagues so this would be an important assumption for you and you can assess how critical an assumption it is to your style of management and your strength of conviction.

A second assumption might be that your colleagues want to be consulted. The counter assumption is that they don't want to be consulted. Even if the counter assumption was true you might go ahead and consult because you believe it will increase co-operation and acceptance. Hence this is not a critical assumption (even though it may be true).

Plot the assumptions on a 2x2 matrix: high/low impact on one axis, high/low plausibility on the other.

Look carefully at those assumptions which lie to the top on the matrix. These justify your actions. What could change them? What benefits would there be in this and for whom?

Look at the assumptions which lie in the top-left quadrant. These could be crucial to your behaviour but you are unsure as to their validity. Can you check them out in some way? If they turn out to be false, what impact would this have on the way in which you operate?

The assumptions in the low impact cells seem less important but it might just be worth checking they aren't being underestimated.

To test your interpretation as well as surfacing the assumptions you can do this exercise in groups. This exercise is often known as SAST (Strategic Assumptions Surfacing and Testing - after Mason, R.O. Mitroff, I.I. (1981) Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions: theory, cases and techniques, New York, Wiley) and is based on the following principles:

Adversarial

based on the premise that the best way to test an assumption is to oppose it.

Participative

based on the premise that the knowledge and resources necessary to solve and implement the solution to a complex problem is distributed among a group of individuals.

Integrative

based on the premise that a unified set of assumptions and action plan are needed to guide decision making, and that what comes out of the adversarial and participative elements can be unified.

Managerial mind supporting

based on the premise that exposure to assumptions deepens the manager's insight into an organisation and its policy, planning, and strategic problems.

'During the early stages of the VLE implementation...there was a naïve assumption that, following awareness and training sessions, teaching staff would be able to autonomously generate their own material and repurpose existing material for use on the VLE. In the light of experience it is obvious to the project team that this would not have worked but there is evidence of other schools and colleges who embarked on a VLE implementation with the same unsafe assumption.' - ILT Co-ordinator, FE College