SCIPAB
It is the first ninety seconds, not the whole presentation.
What is SCIPAB?
SCIPAB is six steps — Situation, Complication, Implication, Position, Action, Benefit — and the first thing to understand about it is scope. It is not the structure of a presentation. It is the structure of the opening: the ninety seconds before any slides, whose job is to earn the twenty minutes that follow.
Executive briefings fail at the start. The presenter opens with background, the room starts checking whether this needs them, and by slide four the decision is being made about whether to keep listening rather than about the thing you came to discuss. SCIPAB fixes the front end: agreement, then tension, then consequence, then your position, then the ask. The stage that earns its place is Implication, because it is the only one that answers "so what". Most briefings go straight from Complication to Position — here is the problem, here is my solution — and a board that has not been told what the problem actually costs has no reason to accept an expensive answer to it.
Where SCIPAB Came From
Mandel Communications
SCIPAB® is a communications framework from Mandel Communications, who describe it as a six-step method for starting any conversation or presentation. That framing is the useful part and the part that gets lost when the acronym is repeated second-hand: it is an opening structure, deliberately short, and the trademark belongs to them.
It shares two letters with Minto, and then diverges
Situation and Complication are the opening of SCQA, from Barbara Minto's Pyramid Principle. Where SCQA turns to a Question and then an Answer — a structure for a written argument — SCIPAB adds Implication and then goes on to Position, Action and Benefit. The difference is what each is for: SCQA frames a document, SCIPAB opens a meeting and asks for a decision in it.
Why six steps for ninety seconds
Because each does one job and none can be merged. Situation buys agreement. Complication introduces tension. Implication makes it matter. Position states your view. Action asks for something. Benefit says what they get. Drop any one and a specific thing breaks — most commonly Implication, and what breaks is the room's willingness to fund the answer.
The 6 Slots, One at a Time
Each slot is a decision. Leave it out and the model still makes it — just without you.
Not background — agreement. One or two sentences of current state that nobody in the room will dispute, ideally a number they already know. The purpose is to start with the audience on your side of the table, which is why a Situation that opens with anything contestable has already cost you the next stage.
The thing that has disturbed the situation, with evidence. Keep it factual: a complication delivered with adjectives invites the room to discount it, whereas four lost accounts and six named lost deals invites them to ask a question — which is what you want.
The stage that makes SCIPAB worth using, and the one people skip. Not the damage already done, the damage still coming. Four lost accounts is a Complication; what happens to renewal pricing across the whole remaining base once every procurement team knows a cheaper option exists is an Implication — and it is the difference between a report and a reason to act.
Say what you think should happen, in your own voice, before you ask for anything. A briefing that presents options without a position hands the room a decision they have less context to make than you do — and executives generally read the absence of a recommendation as an absence of conviction.
Specific and decidable in the meeting. "Approval to run this with twenty accounts before the next renewal window" can be voted on; "support for our strategy" cannot, and will be given warmly and mean nothing.
Frame it for the people in the room. To a board, "we protect the pricing of the remaining base" is frequently stronger than a revenue projection, because they have seen more revenue projections than they have seen honest risk statements.
One Task, Before and After
The task: The opening ninety seconds of a board briefing about a cheaper competitor. Both prompts below are scored by our free prompt checker — paste either in and you will get the same number, because the scoring is deterministic.
Write a board briefing about our competitor.
Seven words. You get two paragraphs of market background, a description of the competitor, the word "unprecedented", and no request the board can act on.
Write the opening of a board briefing about a competitive threat, using Situation, Complication, Implication, Position, Action, Benefit. This is the opening, not the whole briefing - the first ninety seconds, before any slides. It has to earn the next twenty minutes. Situation: we hold 31% of the UK mid-market, our largest share in any segment, and it has been stable for three years. Complication: a US competitor entered in March at roughly half our price. They have taken four of our accounts in two quarters and are named in six of our last nine lost deals. Implication: what this costs if it continues - not the four accounts, but what happens to renewal pricing across the remaining base once procurement teams know a cheaper option exists. This is the section most briefings skip. Position: our view is that we should not match on price and should instead move the mid-market offer to an annual commitment with a migration guarantee. Action: what we want from the board today - approval to run this with twenty accounts before the next renewal window. Benefit: what the board gets if they approve it, stated as the risk avoided rather than the revenue gained. Write 350 to 450 words as continuous spoken prose in six short paragraphs, one per letter, no headings and no bullets. Write for a board of six who will not have read anything in advance; two are commercially sharp and none knows the product in detail. Reason through the implication before you write - the second-order effect on renewal pricing is the whole argument, and a briefing that stops at the four lost accounts has understated the case. For example, the Situation should open in this register: ``` We hold 31% of the UK mid-market. That is our strongest position anywhere, and it has not moved in three years. ``` Ensure the Action is a specific decision the board can take in the room today. Do not include anything the board must take on trust without evidence, do not invent competitor revenue or funding, and do not use the word unprecedented.
Ninety-two, for four hundred words of speech. The instruction carrying most of it is the one about the implication — without it the briefing reports four lost accounts and asks the board to fund a response to a problem worth four accounts.
Ninety-two, and no scorer knows this is meant to be ninety seconds
One check is out of reach, and the two things that decide whether an opening works are unmeasured:
No persona slot, and correctly so — you are the one standing up. A persona writes an opening in a register you cannot deliver, and a board that hears the seam stops listening to the content.
SCIPAB is an opening and nothing enforces that. A twelve-hundred-word "opening" scores as well as a four-hundred-word one and is not an opening. Read it aloud with a timer: past two minutes you have written the briefing, not the front of it.
The commonest silent failure. A restatement of the Complication in more worried language passes every check and does none of the work. The test: does it describe damage that has not happened yet?
The question worth carrying into any executive communication: "what does this cost us if we do nothing?" — answered with a second-order effect rather than a restatement. Boards fund answers in proportion to the size of the problem, and the Implication stage is where the problem gets its real size.
Copy-Paste Prompt Template
Replace the bracketed placeholders with your specific details.
[This is the OPENING — the first ninety seconds, before any slides] Situation: [something true the room will nod at — ideally a number they already know] Complication: [what has changed, as fact with evidence, not as alarm] Implication: [what it COSTS if nothing changes — the second-order effect, in the future tense. This is the stage everyone skips] Position: [your view, stated as a view, before you ask for anything] Action: [something this room can decide today] Benefit: [what they get — often the risk avoided rather than revenue gained] [Spoken prose, six short paragraphs, no headings. Read it aloud: past two minutes and you have written the briefing instead of its opening]
When SCIPAB Fits — and When It Does Not
- Board and executive briefings, which is what it was built for.
- Opening a meeting where you need a decision rather than a discussion.
- Escalations, where the second-order cost is the reason anybody should care.
- Sales conversations with a senior stakeholder who joined late.
- The first paragraph of a proposal or a memo, when it has to survive a skim.
- The whole presentation. This is the opening; the detail comes after it.
- Written documents that will be read at length — use SCQA, which is built for the page.
- Informational updates with no ask. Use PPP; SCIPAB is built around a decision.
- Audiences who already agree. Situation and Complication are wasted on them.
- Situations with no genuine second-order consequence, where Implication becomes padding.
10 Ready-Made SCIPAB Prompts
Every prompt below was produced by the Frompting generator with SCIPAB selected — not written by hand for this page. Each is scored by our prompt checker; the median is 87/100. Click one to open it, then copy.
Briefing the board on a market shift 79
You are a senior strategic consultant preparing a concise board briefing on a market shift. First, describe the current state of the market, including any relevant size, growth trends, and competitive landscape. Next, identify the emerging change that is disrupting this market and explain why it matters now. Then, outline the potential consequences for the company if the shift is not addressed, focusing on financial, operational, and strategic risks. After that, articulate a clear stance on how the company should respond, highlighting the core strategic direction you recommend. Provide a concrete set of next steps the board should approve, specifying any required resources, timelines, or decision points. Finally, summarize the upside the company will capture by acting, quantifying expected benefits where possible. Deliver the briefing as a structured memo of **300–350 words**, using short paragraphs and bullet points where they enhance clarity. Quality criteria: - Fact‑based and data‑driven, with any assumptions explicitly noted. - Directly relevant to the board’s decision‑making, avoiding unnecessary technical detail. - Actionable recommendations with clear responsibility and timeline. Exclude any speculative forecasts beyond the next 12 months and refrain from using industry‑specific jargon without brief explanation. [MARKET: specify the industry or market segment] [EMERGING CHANGE: describe the specific market shift] [BOARD AUDIENCE: list the board members or roles the brief is addressed to]
A strategic pivot for the executive team 83
You are a senior strategy consultant preparing a concise, high-impact briefing for a C-level executive team. The briefing must open by clearly describing the current state of the business, including key performance indicators and market position. Then introduce the emerging challenge that threatens the status quo, followed by the downstream consequences if the challenge is not addressed. Next, articulate a clear strategic stance that positions the company to respond effectively. Outline the concrete steps the leadership should take to execute this stance, and finish with the tangible advantages the company will gain by following the plan. The output should be a slide-deck outline suitable for a 10-minute presentation, formatted as a markdown list of slide titles with brief bullet points (under 495 words total). Quality criteria: 1. Each slide flows logically to the next, building a persuasive narrative. 2. Arguments are supported by concise data points or logical reasoning. 3. Language is executive-level, direct, and free of jargon unless defined. [INDUSTRY: specify the sector the company operates in] [CURRENT METRICS: provide the most recent revenue, growth rate, or market share figures] [KEY CHALLENGE: describe the specific market or internal issue prompting the pivot] [PROPOSED POSITION: define the strategic direction or new focus area] Assume any missing details are typical for a mid-size firm in a competitive market, and ask up to three clarifying questions if needed before finalizing the outline. Before writing the final answer, work through the problem step by step and weigh the main trade-offs; present only the reasoned conclusion, not your working notes.
Briefing leadership on a competitive threat 80
You are a senior strategic consultant preparing a concise executive briefing for senior leadership on an emerging competitive threat. The briefing must be clear, data‑driven, and persuasive, suitable for presentation to the board and C‑level executives. Your task is to produce a briefing of approximately **[WORD COUNT]: 300–400 words** that follows a logical flow: start by describing the current market context and the organization’s position, then introduce the specific competitive development that creates a challenge, explain the strategic implications of this development, articulate a recommended stance for the company, outline concrete next steps, and finish with the expected benefits of taking those steps. Structure the output as a short narrative with brief paragraph breaks; avoid headings or bullet points. Ensure each part naturally leads to the next, uses precise business terminology, and includes a brief example or data point to illustrate the point where appropriate. Quality criteria: 1. The argument must be coherent and compelling, with a clear cause‑and‑effect chain. 2. Recommendations should be actionable, realistic, and aligned with typical board‑level decision making. 3. Language should be professional, concise, and free of unnecessary jargon; any technical term must be briefly defined. Assume any missing details are unknown and either state your assumption explicitly or ask up to three clarifying questions before finalizing the briefing. [COMPETITIVE THREAT DESCRIPTION]: brief description of the competitor’s new product, market move, or strategy. [INDUSTRY SECTOR]: the industry or market segment the organization operates in. [COMPANY NAME]: the name of the organization receiving the briefing. [KEY METRICS OR DATA]: any specific performance metrics, market share figures, or financial data relevant to the threat.
The case for a major investment 81
You are a senior strategy consultant preparing a persuasive executive brief for a C-level audience and board members. Your task is to craft a concise, data-driven presentation that makes a compelling case for a major investment. Follow the logical flow below, embedding the required analysis where appropriate, and produce the final brief in markdown with a total length of approximately 1030-1360 words. 1. Begin by describing the current business environment, market dynamics, and the organization’s position. 2. Identify the key challenge or opportunity that creates urgency for the investment. 3. Explain the strategic implications of not addressing this challenge, quantifying potential revenue loss, market share erosion, or cost inefficiencies. 4. State your recommended investment stance, referencing the most relevant financial analysis methods (e.g., SaaS unit economics, cohort analysis, three-statement model, market sizing, valuation, scenario modeling). 5. Outline a clear, step-by-step action plan for deploying the capital, including milestones, responsible functions, and governance. 6. Conclude with the expected benefits, expressed in concrete financial terms (e.g., projected IRR, NPV, LTV:CAC improvement, ARR growth) and strategic outcomes (e.g., market leadership, competitive moat). **Required placeholders** (replace with actual data when available): - [INVESTMENT_AMOUNT]: specify the total capital to be raised. - [TARGET_SECTOR]: define the industry or market segment under consideration. - [TIMEFRAME]: indicate the planning horizon for the investment (e.g., 3-year, 5-year). - [KEY_METRICS]: list the most critical performance indicators (e.g., current churn rate, CAC, LTV, ARR). - [COMPETITIVE_BENCHMARK]: provide a comparable public or private company for valuation reference. If any of the above details are unknown, state the assumption you are making and proceed, or ask up to three clarifying questions before finalizing the brief. **Quality criteria**: - All quantitative claims must be grounded in established methodologies and clearly labeled as assumptions where exact data are missing. - The narrative should be concise, logically rigorous, and tailored to a senior executive audience, avoiding jargon unless defined. - The final markdown must include a brief executive summary (≤150 words), followed by the structured sections described above, and a table summarizing the financial impact and sensitivity analysis.
Briefing the board on a regulatory change 80
You are a senior strategic consultant preparing a concise board briefing on a recent regulatory change. The briefing must quickly convey the current context, highlight the emerging challenges, explain the potential impact on the organization, present a clear stance, outline recommended next steps, and illustrate the value of taking action. Create a briefing aimed at the board of directors of a [COMPANY TYPE: e.g., publicly‑listed manufacturing firm] that will be read in a 5‑minute presentation (approximately 300–350 words). Structure the content as a flowing narrative that: 1. Sets the scene by describing the relevant background and why the regulation matters now. 2. Introduces the new regulatory development and why it creates a complication for the business. 3. Details the implications for key operational, financial, and compliance areas. 4. States your position on how the organization should respond, grounded in strategic priorities. 5. Lists concrete actions the board should endorse, with brief implementation steps. 6. Concludes with the benefit of acting promptly, quantifying (or approximating) the upside or risk mitigation. Quality criteria: - Clear, executive‑level language with no jargon that board members may not know. - Each section flows naturally into the next, avoiding abrupt jumps. - Use bullet points only for the action list; keep the rest in prose. Assume no prior detailed knowledge of the specific regulation; state any assumptions you make. Before finalizing, ask up to three clarifying questions about: the regulation’s scope, the industry sector, and any time‑sensitive constraints. Do not include any disclaimer, citation, or external reference.
A restructuring proposal 88
You are a senior strategy consultant preparing a concise, high‑impact restructuring proposal for a C‑level audience. Your task is to craft a presentation‑style brief that: 1. Opens with a clear description of the current organizational context and key performance indicators. 2. Highlights the emerging challenge that threatens the status quo, referencing any recent market or internal shifts. 3. Explains the downstream consequences of the challenge if left unaddressed, focusing on financial, operational, and talent impacts. 4. Articulates your recommended strategic stance, outlining the core restructuring concept and its alignment with the company’s long‑term vision. 5. Details the concrete steps required to implement the restructuring, including major milestones, governance mechanisms, and resource allocations. 6. Concludes with the expected benefits, quantifying (where possible) improvements in profitability, agility, and stakeholder value. Produce the output as a structured executive brief of **≈ 350 words**, using short paragraphs and bullet points where appropriate. Ensure the language is direct, data‑driven, and tailored to senior decision‑makers; avoid jargon unless it is essential, and define any technical terms on first use. **Quality criteria**: - Clarity of the problem statement and its relevance to the audience. - Logical flow that builds a compelling case for the proposed action. - Specific, measurable outcomes that demonstrate the value of the restructuring. **Boundary**: Do not include detailed implementation schedules beyond high‑level milestones, nor embed any confidential proprietary data that has not been provided. If any critical details are missing, state your assumptions explicitly and ask up to three clarifying questions (e.g., company size, industry dynamics, target timeline, key stakeholder concerns) before finalizing the proposal. Before writing the final answer, work through the problem step by step and weigh the main trade-offs; present only the reasoned conclusion, not your working notes.
A failed initiative, and what happens next 89
You are a senior strategic communications consultant tasked with crafting a concise executive briefing for senior leadership about a recent initiative that did not achieve its objectives and outlining the next steps. The briefing should be clear, persuasive, and suitable for presentation to the board and C‑level executives. It must be structured to first set the context, then highlight the challenge, explain the consequences, present your perspective, recommend concrete next actions, and finally articulate the value those actions will deliver. Provide the briefing in **approximately 300 words**, using short paragraphs and bullet points where appropriate. Ensure the tone is professional yet decisive, and avoid jargon that is not essential to the audience’s understanding. - Begin with a brief description of the initiative, its purpose, and the current status. - Identify the specific issue that caused the initiative to fall short - Explain the implications of this shortfall for the organization’s strategic goals - State your position on how the organization should respond - List 2‑3 actionable recommendations for the next phase, including responsible parties and timelines - Conclude with the expected benefits of following these recommendations **Quality criteria:** 1. Clarity – each section should be understandable without additional context. 2. Persuasiveness – the argument should logically lead the reader to accept the recommended actions. 3. Brevity – stay within the word limit while covering all required points. **Boundary:** Do not include detailed financial forecasts or technical implementation plans; focus on strategic direction and high‑level actions only. If any essential details (e.g., initiative name, key stakeholders, desired timeline) are unknown, indicate them as placeholders in the format **[PLACEHOLDER: brief description of needed information]** and proceed with the rest of the briefing. If any bracketed detail above is left unfilled, choose a sensible value from the context, state that assumption in one line before you begin, and continue — do not ask for it and stop.
An acquisition opportunity 87
You are a senior strategy consultant preparing a concise board presentation on a potential acquisition. Your audience is the company’s board of directors, who need a clear, data-driven case that fits within a 5-minute verbal briefing and a one-page slide deck (maximum 300 words). Begin by outlining the current strategic context of **[COMPANY_NAME]**, including its core market position and recent performance highlights. Then describe the emerging challenge or market shift that creates urgency, followed by the specific risks or missed opportunities if the status quo continues. Present a compelling rationale for targeting **[TARGET_COMPANY]**, summarizing its strategic fit, key assets, and how it addresses the identified challenge. Recommend a concrete acquisition approach, specifying the proposed deal structure, estimated transaction value of **[DEAL_VALUE]**, and any critical financing or regulatory considerations. Conclude with the expected upside for **[COMPANY_NAME]**, quantifying projected revenue synergies, cost savings, and strategic benefits such as market expansion or technology acquisition. **Output requirements**: - One slide-style outline in plain text, using short headings and bullet points (no more than 6 bullets total). - Total length ≤ 300 words. - Ensure logical flow, data-backed assertions, and a persuasive tone appropriate for C-level decision-makers. **Quality criteria**: 1. Clarity of the strategic narrative and logical progression. 2. Accuracy and relevance of any quantitative estimates (use “approx.” where needed). 3. Persuasiveness of the benefit statement, directly tied to board priorities. **Boundary**: Exclude detailed financial models, legal language, or operational integration plans; focus solely on the high-level strategic case. If any of the placeholders above are unknown, state your assumption and proceed, or ask up to three clarifying questions before finalizing the brief. Note on length: this supersedes any word count given above. Covering the 3 sections needs roughly 375–495 words in total. Use that range rather than compressing any section to fit a smaller one.
A security incident and the response 87
You are an executive communications specialist. Your task is to craft a concise briefing for senior executives and board members about a recent security incident and the organization’s response. The briefing should be written in a professional, direct tone appropriate for C‑level and board audiences, limited to **300 words**. It must clearly convey the current situation, the emerging complication, the implications for the business, the organization’s position, the recommended actions, and the benefits of those actions. Deliver the briefing as a single, flowing narrative without headings or labels. Ensure the content is factual, avoids speculation, and highlights only verified information. **Quality criteria** 1. Accuracy – all statements must be based on confirmed details. 2. Clarity – each idea should be expressed in a single sentence where possible, using plain language while retaining necessary technical terms. 3. Persuasiveness – the narrative should motivate executives to approve the proposed actions. **Boundary** – Do not include technical implementation details or internal procedural steps that are not relevant to executive decision‑making. If any essential detail is missing, state your assumption explicitly and ask up to three clarifying questions before finalizing the briefing. **Required inputs** (replace the placeholders with the actual information): - [INCIDENT_DESCRIPTION]: brief description of the security incident (e.g., ransomware attack, data breach). - [IMPACT_SCOPE]: scope of impact (systems affected, data compromised, operational disruption). - [IMPLICATIONS]: potential business consequences (financial loss, regulatory risk, reputational damage). - [ORG_POSITION]: organization’s current stance or assessment of the incident. - [RECOMMENDED_ACTIONS]: concise list of actions the executives need to approve. - [BENEFITS]: expected benefits of taking the recommended actions. - [EXECUTIVE_AUDIENCE]: titles of the intended recipients (e.g., CEO, CFO, Board Chair).
A three-year plan for the board 88
You are a senior strategic consultant preparing a concise, board‑level three‑year plan. Begin by describing the current context of the organization, including its market position, recent performance trends, and any relevant internal capabilities. Next, identify the primary challenge or change driver that threatens to impede continued success, such as competitive pressure, regulatory shifts, or operational bottlenecks. Explain the downstream consequences of this challenge for the organization’s financial health, market share, and strategic objectives if left unaddressed. State the recommended strategic stance the board should adopt to confront the challenge, aligning it with the organization’s vision and core strengths. Outline a concrete, phased roadmap covering Year 1, Year 2, and Year 3, specifying key initiatives, milestones, responsible functions, and high‑level resource estimates. Conclude with the expected upside of executing the plan, quantifying (where possible) improvements in revenue, profitability, market position, or risk mitigation. Deliver the plan in a structured memo of 800–1,000 words, using clear headings for each section, bullet points for initiatives, and a brief table summarizing the three‑year timeline. Quality criteria: (1) logical flow that builds a compelling case, (2) actionable initiatives with measurable targets, (3) language appropriate for C‑level and board audiences. If any essential details are missing, state your assumptions explicitly and ask up to three clarifying questions before finalizing the plan. [COMPANY_NAME]: the organization’s name [INDUSTRY]: the sector in which the organization operates [KEY_GOALS]: the top strategic objectives the board expects to achieve over the next three years [CURRENT_PERFORMANCE]: recent financial or operational metrics that define the baseline situation [RESOURCE_CONSTRAINTS]: any known limits on budget, talent, or technology that must be considered. Write this for [AUDIENCE: who will read the output, and how much they already know]. Match the depth, vocabulary and examples to that reader. Before writing the final answer, work through the problem step by step and weigh the main trade-offs; present only the reasoned conclusion, not your working notes.
Scores range from 79 to 89. They are shown as generated rather than cherry-picked — a library where every entry scores in the nineties tells you it was curated, not measured.
SCIPAB vs the Alternatives
The written sibling, from Minto. Same opening two moves, then SCQA poses a question and answers it on the page while SCIPAB names a consequence and asks a room to decide.
For recurring updates rather than one-off briefings. PPP reports against commitments; SCIPAB opens an argument for a change.
The much shorter spoken structure. PREP answers a question in ninety seconds; SCIPAB opens a meeting in ninety seconds. Different jobs, similar budget.
The data-first cousin. PEP leads with evidence and is stronger when the numbers are the argument; SCIPAB leads with agreement and is stronger when the room needs bringing along.
The sales-facing relative, six stages again, with Evidence at the end rather than assumed. SCIPAB briefs your own board; SCRIBE pitches someone else's.
Five Ways People Get SCIPAB Wrong
The defining SCIPAB failure. Complication to Position directly — here is the problem, here is my answer — leaves the room unable to judge whether the answer is proportionate. The Implication is what sizes the problem.
The subtler version of the same failure. If your Implication describes damage that has already happened, it is a Complication with adjectives. Implications are about what comes next.
The opening exists to get agreement. Start with something the room might argue with and you have spent the first thirty seconds defending a premise instead of building on one.
Presenting balanced options without a recommendation reads as an absence of conviction, and hands the decision to people with less context than you.
"Your support and guidance" will be granted warmly and change nothing. Ask for something decidable in the room, today.
SCIPAB is the front ninety seconds. If your six paragraphs run past two minutes read aloud, you have written the briefing and mislabelled it.
SCIPAB Questions
What does SCIPAB stand for?
Situation, Complication, Implication, Position, Action, Benefit — a six-step structure for opening an executive conversation or presentation.
Where does SCIPAB come from?
It is a framework from Mandel Communications, who describe it as a six-step method for starting any conversation or presentation. SCIPAB® is their trademark.
Is SCIPAB the whole presentation?
No, and this is the most common misuse. It is the opening — roughly ninety seconds, before the detail. Its job is to earn the rest of the meeting.
What is the difference between Complication and Implication?
Tense, essentially. The Complication is what has happened; the Implication is what it will cost if nothing changes. If your Implication is in the past tense, it is a second Complication.
How is it different from SCQA?
They share the first two moves and then diverge. SCQA (Minto) poses a Question and answers it — a structure for a written argument. SCIPAB adds the consequence and then asks a room for a decision.
How long should each stage be?
One short paragraph, spoken. Six paragraphs, three to four hundred words, under two minutes aloud. If it is longer than that it is no longer an opening.
Generate a SCIPAB Prompt Instantly
Skip the manual template — Frompting applies SCIPAB to your topic in one click.
Try it FreeFramework Details
| Name | SCIPAB |
| Stands for | Situation-Complication-Implication-Position-Action-Benefit |
| Domain | Strategy & Planning |
| Steps | 6 |
| Access | Pro |