Writing about the past

With regard to decision-making papers, I am often surprised at how much detail writers go into about what happened in the past. The writer may be recommending a solution to fix a problem, but they spend three quarters of the paper talking about the horrendous difficulties faced in the past and why nothing works. Then the solution is often discussed with the flimsiest of detail and so fails to be convincing.

Why do writers do this?

I’ve decided there are two reasons:

• The background is easier to write about because it is in the past and writers are very familiar with it.
• Writers are often frustrated by the things that didn’t work in the past and the impact that is having on the present. They just want to get it out of their system! What better way to vent than to write about it.

When executives and boards are making a decision they only want to know enough about the past to know that something has to change. It is the proposed change they will be most interested in and they want to be convinced that the writer’s solution is not just another bad decision in a series of bad ones.

Now I am not saying that writers should not include background to provide context and history. Because directors do not keep board papers, writers need to remind the board of previous papers it has received on the topic and the decisions it made. But such background should be kept brief.

The more important part of the paper is the discussion section. Writers will make a more coherent business case if they discuss the benefits of their recommendation for the business. They should not ignore risks, but often the main reason for making changes is to improve the business in alignment with the strategy.

For example, if a writer is proposing a new online customer model, they could briefly describe the current face-to-face model, and then describe the benefits of the online model. At this point, the writer needs to be specific and provide details rather than make sweeping statements, such as ‘more holistic’ or ‘a fresh approach’.

I was surprised recently to find that you cannot buy online from IKEA. I assume this is because IKEA does well enough without needing an online portal. If an IKEA executive wanted to convince the IKEA board to change this policy, they would not spend three quarters of the paper writing about the current system. Instead, they would need to present benefits and costs that would convince the board that a huge investment in an interactive website would be worth the expense.

Writers need to remember that the past is past and although it influences the present, decisions are made about the future. 

Mary Morel now blogs at www.writetogovern.com.au

Writing board papers for tablets

Many boards are moving towards reading their board papers on tablets and printing only the papers they want to scrutinise more closely. Within the next few years, most boards will be paperless and printing, binding and couriering board packs will be a thing of the past.

What will this mean for writing styles? Will writers merely PDF their Word or Excel documents without any changes?

Initially, yes, unless writers think about their audience and the experience of reading on a tablet. Reading on a tablet is similar to reading a website and when reading websites, we like our information chunked into bite-sized pieces with more subheadings than are used in print.

Good web writing is essentially more condensed than print writing and that is appropriate for board reporting where papers need to be concise, yet complete.

Shorter and more upfront
Writing succinctly is always a challenge for writers who are experts in their field. They often find it hard to stand back and untangle the detail from the higher-level concepts. But suffocating papers with detail can lead to directors not understanding the concepts and this can result in poor decision making.

Papers also need to be structured like a web page with the most important information upfront. This principle applies in print as well, but, once again, its importance is amplified when writing for tablets. I don’t think scrolling on a tablet is as easy as flicking through a pile of paper.

First words matter
Even though directors need to read all board papers thoroughly, we all tend to skim-read more on websites and tablets. When writing for skimmers, first sentences in paragraphs and first words in bulleted lists and sentences must grab attention and give the reader an idea of what is to follow.

Starting bullet points with filler phrases such as There is wastes space. For example, ‘There is an opportunity to save $ using X technology’ would be punchier as: ‘X technology would save $...’ Deleting one filler phrase will not make much difference, but when language is tightened throughout a document, the changes have a cumulative effect.

Clarity and readability
First impressions count and a board paper that is concise and well-structured will look accessible and easy to read. And if, in addition, the content is accurate and complete, and pitched at the right level for information or decision, the papers should be clear and easy to read.

Mary Morel now blogs at www.writetogovern.com.au

Beyond words for iPads

Why aren’t companies using the full capabilities of iPads?

Most companies I know who are using iPads in the boardroom are still sticking to text. They have taken the same board paper format as in the past, converted the documents into PDFs and loaded them into whatever board paper app they are using.

But iPads are capable of hosting much more than the written word. Companies could be using other formats, such as mp3s and videos, to cater for the different ways that people absorb information.

And such formats would help people who know their subject matter, but just don’t write well. (I deliberately chose ‘don’t’ rather than ‘can’t’ because I believe everyone can write well if they choose to learn how.)

For poor writers, an interview with a skilled interviewer may be less confronting than a blank page. Maybe an interview would not replace a board paper, but it could supplement it by clarifying and expanding on key points.

The interviewer would need to be well briefed about the topic, but not necessarily a subject-matter expert. Being an expert might be a disadvantage because they could make the same assumptions as the writer about the board’s prior knowledge.

Videos could be useful for companies, such as tourism or property, who want to show the board what places and buildings look like.

They could also be useful for presenting graphs, tables and charts that would benefit from explanations. Too often in written documents, writers insert graphs and charts and provide no commentary.

A video would be more powerful than a PowerPoint slide show because the commentator would explain the concepts and trends. PowerPoint slide shows tend to be written in bullet points and often don’t work well as standalone documents.

Mary Morel now blogs at www.writetogovern.com.au