Situation, Complication, Question, Answer (SCQA)
The Situation, Complication, Question, Answer (SCQA) structure was introduced and explained on a couple of pages of Minto’s classic book on corporate communication The Pyramid Principle. Minto provides SCQA as a way to structure an introduction to a longer proposal. It turns out to be very useful standing on its own.
Let’s examine each element in detail.
Situation is a state which can be observed to be true by all stakeholders. There must no contention about this. For example, “the web site is slow” lends itself to argument, What does “slow” even mean?. Compare with “The 95% response time for web site is over 500 milliseconds as reported by New Relic” is not contentious. It’s a fact, anyone should be able to look it up.
Complication represents a problem or challenge preventing improvement of the situation as given above, inducing a need for action. Example: “Long running, customer-activated reports are degrading database performance.”
Question follows from the complication, and can be given implicitly or stated explicitly. Should be framed to introduce the answer which follows. Example: “How best to preserve customer-initiated reports without impacting database performance?”
Answer provides a clear statement of what is to be done to resolve the problem. It could be a single action, a list of necessary steps, or any other explicitly specified activity resulting in an outcome. An answer following the examples above is left to the reader.
An SCQA document sells a course of action, it does not support a thesis.
It’s important to understand that the SCQA structure, and the Pyramid Priniciple in general, is not written as a classic argument. Only a single side is presented, the side which calls for and supports a call to action for achieving a business outcome. This does not preclude due diligence! Have the constraints, challenges, pitfalls, alternatives, and counter-arguments in mind and be prepared to discuss or defend the SCQA or pyramid proposal.