This is from the “Accounting Makes Cents” podcast episode #112 released on Monday, 4 May 2026.
Today, I want to talk about the SAF framework. It’s something that’s covered under E3 in the CIMA syllabus, but it’s not just limited to that level. In practice, it’s actually useful across all stages—because whenever you’re analysing business situations or thinking through decisions, it gives you a really solid way to structure your thinking.
Jump to show notes.
And really, it all comes back to a very simple situation that comes up all the time.
You know that moment when someone throws out an idea and then just… looks around the room and asks, “Should we do this?”
And there’s usually a pause. Not a long one, but just enough that you can tell no one really has a clear answer yet. Some people are already leaning toward yes because it sounds like a good opportunity. Others are a bit more hesitant, trying to figure out what the catch is. And most of the time, what follows isn’t really structured thinking—it’s just reactions.
Which is fine, to a point. That’s how conversations start. But if you actually want to make a good decision, you need something a bit more deliberate than instinct. You need a way to step back slightly and think it through properly.
And that’s where SAF comes in.
The SAF Framework
SAF stands for Suitability, Acceptability, and Feasibility. On paper, it looks like a simple three-part framework—but really, it’s just a decision-making tool. A way of slowing things down just enough so you don’t jump straight to an answer, and instead look at the decision from a few different angles.
So instead of reacting straight away, you’re asking yourself: does this make sense, are we comfortable with it, and can we actually make it happen?
And once you break it down like that, it becomes a lot more practical than it first looks.
Suitability
If you start with suitability, this is really about stepping back and asking whether the idea fits in the first place. Not whether it’s interesting or exciting, but whether it actually makes sense for the situation you’re in. Because a lot of ideas can look good on their own—or even work well for other businesses—but that doesn’t automatically mean they work for you.
You see this quite often when companies start following trends. Something is doing well in the market, and the instinct is to move in the same direction. But when you look a bit closer, it doesn’t always align with what the business is built around. A premium brand, for example, trying to compete on being the cheapest option—it might bring short-term gains, but it doesn’t really fit with how the business is positioned.
And part of that comes down to identity. Businesses, in a way, have identities of their own—and that shapes what fits and what doesn’t.
Sometimes the issue is more subtle than that. It’s not that the idea is completely off—it’s just slightly misaligned. Maybe the timing is wrong. Maybe the company isn’t ready for it yet. Maybe it solves a problem that isn’t actually the priority right now. Those are the kinds of things suitability helps you surface early, before too much time or energy goes into it.
It’s also useful to think about suitability in terms of direction. Where is the business trying to go? And does this move you closer to that, or pull you slightly off course? Because a strategy can work in isolation but still end up being a distraction in the bigger picture.
So suitability becomes that first filter. It’s where you ask whether you’re solving the right problem, in a way that actually makes sense.
Acceptability
Once something feels suitable, the thinking naturally shifts to acceptability. And this is where you start considering how the decision will actually be received, because strategies don’t exist in isolation—they affect people. Employees, customers, investors—everyone experiences the outcome in some way.
So at this point, the question isn’t just whether the numbers work, but whether the overall impact is something stakeholders are likely to accept. A strategy might improve profitability, for example, but if it comes with significant downsides—like reduced quality, increased pressure on staff, or reputational risk—then that starts to change how acceptable it feels.
There’s also a judgment element around risk built into this. Every strategy involves some level of uncertainty, and part of acceptability is deciding whether that level of risk feels reasonable. Not just in a technical sense, but in terms of how comfortable people are with the potential downside. Some organisations are naturally more risk-taking, others are more cautious, and that shapes what they’re willing to accept. And in a lot of ways, this links quite closely to broader ideas around risk management, which is something we could come back to in a future episode when we look at how organisations actually think about and manage risk in practice.
Now, layered on top of that, is timing. Because not every outcome shows up in the same way at the same time. Some strategies look unattractive in the short term but make sense when you take a longer view. Others do the opposite—they look good initially but create more issues further down the line. So acceptability is also about weighing those time-based trade-offs and deciding whether the balance still feels right.
So ultimately, acceptability isn’t just about whether a strategy works on paper. It’s about whether, when you consider risk, people, and timing together, it still feels like something the company can realistically stand behind.
Feasibility
And then you come to feasibility, which is where everything becomes a bit more grounded. Because even if something makes sense and people are broadly on board with it, you still need to ask whether it can actually be done.
This is where you look at resources and capability. Do we have the financial capacity? Do we have the right people and skills? Do we have the systems and time to deliver this properly?
And feasibility isn’t always a simple yes or no. Sometimes the answer is “yes, but not yet,” or “yes, but not at this scale.” Maybe you can do it, but only if you bring in new expertise, or invest in new systems, or roll it out more gradually.
This is often where the gap shows up between a good idea and a workable one. On paper, everything looks fine. But when you start thinking about execution in detail—who’s doing what, how long it takes, what could go wrong—that’s when the complexity becomes more visible.
And that’s actually the value of feasibility. It forces you to think through the reality of delivery.
All together now
When you put all three together, what SAF really gives you is balance. And it’s that combination that makes it useful. Because most decisions don’t fail for just one reason—they fail because something was overlooked. So the next time you’re faced with that question—“Should we do this?”—it’s worth taking a moment to run through those three perspectives. It won’t make the decision easy. But it will make it clearer.
Show notes simplified
In this episode, MJ the tutor explore the SAF framework as a simple but powerful way to evaluate business decisions before committing to them. Rather than jumping straight to “yes” or “no” when an idea is introduced, SAF encourages a more disciplined approach. This framework is particularly relevant for students studying CIMA E3, but also useful for anyone involved in business analysis or strategic thinking.
MJ THE TUTOR 