What Makes a Good Defining Statement?

General
Defining Statements extend the Project Statement to a more-detailed discussion of aspects of the project necessary to know about before a specific analysis can begin. Because they are issue based, they bring focus to considerations that may take a project in quite different directions. Issues need to be addressed very early in the project because they involve fundamental strategy and the intent of client and planning team. Written well, Defining Statements actually begin the design process by establishing what will and what will not be attempted and what qualities the solution will have.

At a general level, a good Defining Statement will be a full, coherent, thoughtful document-a "white paper"-that explores an issue of concern to the project. Some topics will be obvious; some will be special and closely associated with the characteristics of the project. Each will be illuminated in a good Defining Statement by a probing, thoughtful look at the consequences of alternative ways of approaching the issue. The value of the Position as project strategy should be clear and defendable after the Background and Arguments are read.

Originator, Contributors and Dates
Names and dates must accurately reflect the development of the Defining Statement's content, and the last date should agree with the version date at the bottom of the form. The Date of First Version at the bottom of the form should be the date when the form was originated.

Question at Issue
When generated or discussed, issues are usually labeled with nouns or noun phrases, but that form is rarely sufficient for adequate understanding. Almost anyone asked will automatically reform or amplify a "topic" form with a more informative phrase or question that "raises the issue" in a way that gets directly to the problem inherent in the topic. A good Question at Issue will frame the issue in an enlightening way, revealing the crux of a problem suggesting multiple answers.

Position and Alternative Positions
Good positions and their alternatives are highly plausible ways to proceed in answer to the Question at Issue. These are strategies that might easily be advocated and defended in debate, and the one chosen as the Position may not be the obvious choice until the Background and Arguments make their case. Stating an Alternative Position as simply a negation of the chosen Position is almost never a good idea. It may be plausible, but it is not likely to be very thoughtful, and probably will not be a choice easily advocated.

Both the Position and Alternative Positions should be phrased to use the words must, should or ought to. These words are defined to be the expressions of constraint, objective or directive in Structured Planning. They directly express the force accorded to the position, and immediately convey how strongly the position should be regarded in steering the project.

Source/s
Not all Defining Statements have to have Sources, but the best ones usually will. Relevant literature should be used wherever possible to back up arguments, but authority can come from a variety of sources including experts consulted in interview and those empowered to make decisions on the project and frame directions for its prosecution.

A coherent referencing system is essential, and needs to be uniform across the project, employed by all writing Defining Statements and other documents requiring source information. The Chicago Manual of Style from the University of Chicago Press is an excellent choice as a style guide for bibliographic entries in the Source/s section and the way to reference sources in the text of Background and Arguments. For the latter, the endnotes model is a good choice.

Background and Arguments
This is the backbone of the Defining Statement. A good Background and Arguments section (1) discusses the problem or problems raising the Issue, (2) introduces, argues and defeats the Alternative Positions, (3) presents the argument/s justifying the Position, and (4) urges the Position in summary. The order of presentation is usually 1 - 4, but 2 and 3 may be switched as the flow of presentation best suggests. Arguments should be limited to the space provided on the form (a reasonable load for the reader), but should use all or almost all of the space provided to do a good job of developing the case.