Belief System Analysis · Updated on .
A position paper sets out what an organization is proposing, why it is proposing it, and what evidence it relies on. It specifies the interest represented and the consequences of the options. Its quality is measured by the possibility, for an interlocutor, of examining the reasoning even if he does not share the conclusion.
A note limited to the defense of an advantage specific to the company remains difficult to discuss in a collective framework. The work consists of linking this interest to a public decision problem, without pretending that the two always coincide. Tensions need to be exposed rather than erased.
Define the problem to be solved
The first part describes the situation, the people or activities concerned and the effects observed. It distinguishes facts from projections. It avoids immediately announcing a solution before having established why an intervention would be necessary.
The European Commission presents evaluation and consultation as components of its better regulation approach. A contribution therefore benefits from providing useful elements for examining options. For a particular process, the format and questions of the actual consultation must be respected. [1]
Compare credible options
The note may examine the continuation of the situation, the defended option and a serious alternative. For each, it describes the expected benefits, constraints and implementation conditions. The calculation or interpretation hypotheses must be accessible.
We must avoid presenting a single detailed option in the face of caricatured alternatives. A fair comparison strengthens the discussion, including when it reveals a limitation of the proposition. The decision maker must be able to understand what constitutes a value choice, a cost or a factual uncertainty.
Make evidence traceable
The figures indicate their source, period and scope. The examples are qualified. A projection describes its assumptions and is not presented as an observed result. Claims without sufficient evidence are removed or rephrased.
The OECD Integrity of Influence provides a benchmark on transparency of interests. The note must therefore identify the organization which carries it and any collective contributions. It must not give the appearance of independent expertise if it defends a sponsored position. [1]
Deal with objections before they block the exchange
Objections may concern effects on other actors, cost, feasibility or timing. A solid rating presents them at their best. She explains what the proposal solves, what it displaces and what remains to be worked on.
In a fictitious situation, a company requests a transition period. The memo should explain the necessary technical steps and the consequences of a shorter timetable, then consider the cost of the postponement to other parties. The argument becomes debatable on its merits, instead of relying solely on the assertion of an internal difficulty.
Check consistency with public speech
The institutional position must be compared to published commitments, speeches from managers and messages addressed to employees. A difference in level of detail is normal; a fundamental contradiction must be arbitrated. Joint work between public affairs and communications makes it possible to identify it before broadcast.
The note ends with a precise proposal and the conditions for its implementation. It provides for additional elements that may be provided. The objective is to contribute to a better informed decision, by clearly assuming the position and interests of the organization.