How do I turn disputed strategy assumptions into choices we can test?

A useful strategy process starts by identifying the central challenge and framing it as a question. That gives the team a shared problem to address rather than asking participants to defend pre-existing solutions. From there, generate possible answers, then identify the conditions that would need to be true for each option to succeed.

Those conditions make assumptions visible. Instead of treating a preferred direction as self-evidently workable, the team can decide which assumptions matter most and build tests around them. The resulting choice should be based on what the tests reveal, not simply on who argued most persuasively in the room. The process should also prepare the team to take action on the strategic choice, including the creative execution needed to bring a clearly defined offer to market.

Ambiguous challenges often need investigation before a team can choose a direction. Start by asking open questions about the context: whether the problem has been understood correctly, and which underlying issues, trends or forces may be shaping it. Then define the problem and design research that produces the data, information and knowledge needed for a decision.

Problem framing can change materially when participants have room to surface concerns and listen to each other. In work with Carbon Tanzania, a two-day workshop initially explored answers to one strategic question. During the process, the group recognised that it was trying to answer the wrong question and reframed the challenge around protecting Carbon Tanzania's equity and legacy while retaining the broader environmental objective. That reframing enabled a more fruitful discussion of the way forward.

A strategy discussion is more useful when people with different knowledge can identify both possibilities and constraints early. Developers, designers and writers can contribute different forms of problem-solving, particularly when technical requirements could affect what is feasible. Bringing technical contributors into the conversation from the start can help identify roadblocks before a direction is signed off.

Collaboration should not mean that every participant performs the same role. Different disciplines should challenge each other's assumptions and reveal what is possible within real constraints. For a team making a strategic choice, the practical aim is to include people who understand the challenge, can assess its implications and will help deliver the selected direction. This reduces the risk that an attractive idea advances without the strategic foundation or cross-team input needed to make it work.