Decision-making & prioritisation
Pyramid Principle (SCQA)
For writing a recommendation the reader can act on: the answer first, then the reasons, grouped so they hold up. Leave it alone when the thinking is not finished; answer-first dresses up a conclusion you do not have. Instead Issue Trees, to finish the thinking; answer-first comes after there is an answer.
Barbara Minto's method for structuring recommendations: open with the answer, hold the supporting ideas in a pyramid governed by vertical question-and-answer logic and horizontal grouping logic, and set up the whole with Situation, Complication, Question, Answer.
Also known as Minto Pyramid Principle, SCQA, Answer-first communication. First set out by Barbara Minto in 1987; the primary source is cited in full below.
Where this is contested
The dating is tangled rather than disputed: Minto developed the method teaching report writing at McKinsey from the late 1960s, circulated self-published editions from 1981, reached most readers through the 1987 trade edition, and regarded her own 1996 revision, The Minto Pyramid Principle, as the authoritative text.
- Format
- Structural model
- Level
- Business unit · Team
- Best for
- Structure the problem
- Decision stage
- Decide · Review
- Difficulty
- Intermediate
- Time to apply
- An hour to restructure a short document; half a day to rebuild a major paper from its pyramid.
Plate · The model
The components
Situation
An uncontested statement of context, anchored in time and place, that the reader already knows and accepts. Its job is to establish common ground, not to inform.
Signals of strength
The reader would nod rather than argue · Anchored in a specific time and place · Contains nothing the reader would find new
Complication
The change, problem or tension that has disturbed the situation and made the document necessary. It creates the pressure the answer will relieve.
Signals of strength
Creates genuine tension with the situation · Specific and evidenced rather than dramatic · Leads the reader naturally to ask a question
Question
The question the complication raises in the reader's mind. Usually implicit in the final document, but making it explicit while drafting keeps the answer honest.
Signals of strength
Follows inevitably from the complication · One question, precisely worded · The question the reader would actually ask, not the one the writer prefers
Answer
The governing thought at the apex of the pyramid: a direct answer to the question, stated up front and supported by everything beneath it.
Signals of strength
A claim someone could disagree with, not a topic · Answers the stated question directly · Fully supported by the groupings below it
When it earns its keep
- You are writing for senior readers with limited time, and the recommendation must survive being read only in part.
- A draft has grown long and shapeless and you need to find the governing thought and rebuild the document around it.
- You are converting finished analysis, an issue tree for instance, into a board paper or steering-group presentation that has to persuade.
- Several authors are contributing sections and you need one logical structure that stops the document reading like a committee.
And when it doesn't
- The thinking is not finished. Answer-first ordering presumes an answer exists; used prematurely it dresses up an unfinished conclusion as a settled one.
- The audience needs to be brought along inductively: principles-first readers, sceptical stakeholders, or workshops where the point is to build the answer together.
- The genre is exploratory or narrative. Research write-ups, discovery documents and post-mortems often need the reasoning shown before the verdict.
- The news is bad and the relationship is delicate. Leading with the answer can read as presumption when context and acknowledgement are what the moment requires.
How to run it
Before starting, gather the inputs the analysis depends on:
- A completed analysis with a genuine answer to state, plus the evidence behind it.
- A clear picture of the reader: what they already know and accept, what has changed, and the question now in their mind.
- The supporting points, sorted into groups of the same kind of idea and checked for gaps.
- The format constraints: length, medium and how far down the pyramid the audience will actually read.
- 1
Establish the question with SCQA
Open with a Situation the reader already accepts, introduce the Complication that has disturbed it, surface the Question this raises in the reader's mind, and give the Answer. The sequence earns the right to lead with the answer: if the reader would dispute your situation or shrug at your complication, the question is wrong and the document will not land.
- 2
Put the answer at the apex
The governing thought sits at the top of the pyramid and everything else exists to support it. It must be a claim, a sentence someone could disagree with, and it must answer the question the introduction raised. A topic ('Options for the northern site') is not an apex; a claim ('Allocate the northern site and drop the extension') is.
- 3
Group the support with horizontal logic
Beneath the apex, arrange supporting ideas in groups of three or so, where each group contains the same kind of idea, follows a deliberate order (deductive argument, time, structure or importance), and covers its subject without overlap. This is MECE applied to argument, and it is where flabby documents are found out.
- 4
Check the vertical logic
Every statement should raise a question in the reader's mind that the level below answers, and nothing below should answer a question nobody asked. Read the pyramid top to bottom asking 'why?' or 'how?' at each step; where the chain breaks, either evidence is missing or a point does not belong.
- 5
Write the document from the pyramid
Headings carry the argument, each one a claim taken from the pyramid, so that reading only the headings gives the whole case. Then test it the way your busiest reader will use it: read the first page and the headings alone, and check that the recommendation and its logic are fully present.
Reading the result
A document or presentation whose first page carries the recommendation and whose structure is the argument: an SCQA introduction, a governing thought, and claim-based headings under which each grouping answers the question the level above raises.
- Read top-down and stop anywhere: at every depth the reader should hold a complete, if less detailed, version of the case.
- Check headings. If they are topics rather than claims, the pyramid was never really built.
- Interrogate the vertical logic: ask 'why?' of each claim and confirm the level below answers it with evidence, not repetition.
- Distrust an answer whose complication feels manufactured; a weak complication usually means the document did not need writing.
A worked example
A town-planning consultancy rebuilds its advice to a district council
A town-planning consultancy has drafted a 60-page options report for a district council that must allocate land for 3,800 homes in its emerging local plan. The recommendation first appears on page 47, cabinet members have complained they cannot find the advice, and the plan must reach examination within nine months. The partner rebuilds the report as a pyramid before the cabinet briefing.
- Situation
- 'The council must allocate land for 3,800 homes in the local plan and has consulted on two strategic options: a single urban extension south of the market town, or dispersal across six villages.' Every member accepts this; it is their own consultation. No analysis, no advocacy, just shared ground.
- Complication
- 'New flood modelling and viability work show the urban extension cannot fund its relief road, and three of the six village sites face deliverability objections, with examination due in nine months.' Specific, evidenced, and genuinely disturbing to both consulted options. The original draft had buried these findings in technical appendices.
- Question
- 'Which allocation strategy should the council take to examination?' Drafting this explicitly exposed that the old report was answering a different, easier question: 'what are the characteristics of each option?', which is why it read as a survey rather than advice.
- Answer
- 'Take a hybrid strategy to examination: allocate the three deliverable village sites plus the northern quarter of the extension, which meets the housing number, is viable without the relief road, and is defensible at examination.' Beneath it, three claim headings: it meets the number, it is viable and deliverable, it is sound. Building the vertical logic exposed a gap: deliverability evidence for one village site was thin, and a landowner statement was commissioned before cabinet.
The read. The rebuilt paper ran to 14 pages with the appendices carrying the technical weight. Cabinet reached a decision in one session, largely because the answer arrived on page one with its logic visible in the headings. The honest reading is that the pyramid changed the communication, and only once did it change the substance: the missing deliverability evidence it exposed. For the subsequent public consultation the consultancy deliberately loosened the answer-first structure, because residents facing new allocations wanted the reasoning before the verdict.
Pitfalls
- Writing answer-first before the analysis is finished. The pyramid rewards completed thinking; it cannot substitute for it.
- Headings as topics ('Viability') rather than claims ('The hybrid option is viable without grant funding'). Topic headings hide the argument the structure exists to show.
- Groupings that fail the horizontal test: mixed kinds of idea at one level, or a summary point that does not actually cover its group.
- Applying SCQA so mechanically that every document opens with the same rhythm. Readers notice the template, and the complication starts to feel manufactured.
- Confusing the pyramid with the work plan. The order of the argument is almost never the order in which the analysis was done, and forcing them to match produces travelogue writing.
What the critics say
Answer-first assumes an applications-first audience. Meyer's work on persuasion across cultures shows that principles-first audiences, common in much of continental Europe and elsewhere, experience conclusion-led argument as unsupported or presumptuous and expect the reasoning to be built before the answer is given.
Meyer, E. (2014) The Culture Map: Breaking Through the Invisible Boundaries of Global Business. New York: PublicAffairs.
The method optimises advocacy over inquiry. Stating the answer first commits writer and audience early, and research on decision processes shows advocacy-led framing entrenches positions and narrows the evaluation of alternatives, which matters when the document's purpose should be deliberation rather than persuasion.
Garvin, D. A. and Roberto, M. A. (2001) 'What You Don't Know About Making Decisions', Harvard Business Review, 79(8), September 2001.
Minto grounds the pyramid in claims about how the mind naturally groups ideas, citing Miller's 'magical number seven', but the book offers little direct evidence that pyramid-structured documents outperform alternatives, and the cognitive claims are asserted rather than tested.
Work it through
A worksheet for this framework: the steps as boxes, with what you need first and what comes out.
0 of 5 steps filled · 0 of 4 inputs in hand
What comes out, and how to read it
A document or presentation whose first page carries the recommendation and whose structure is the argument: an SCQA introduction, a governing thought, and claim-based headings under which each grouping answers the question the level above raises.
- Read top-down and stop anywhere: at every depth the reader should hold a complete, if less detailed, version of the case.
- Check headings. If they are topics rather than claims, the pyramid was never really built.
- Interrogate the vertical logic: ask 'why?' of each claim and confirm the level below answers it with evidence, not repetition.
- Distrust an answer whose complication feels manufactured; a weak complication usually means the document did not need writing.
Your work stays in this browser until you save it. The file is yours; load it here on any machine.
Sources and further reading
- Minto, B. (1987) The Pyramid Principle: Logic in Writing and Thinking. London: Pitman.
- Minto, B. (1996) The Minto Pyramid Principle: Logic in Writing, Thinking and Problem Solving. London: Minto International. ↗
- Minto, B. (2009) The Pyramid Principle: Logic in Writing and Thinking. 3rd edn. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
- McKinsey & Company (2019) 'Barbara Minto: MECE: I invented it, so I get to say how to pronounce it', McKinsey Alumni News. ↗