Communication 3: Prove it!

Engineers write in two formal modes – detailed instructions on how to do something, as in plans and specifications, and documenting what has been done, as in analysis and design memos and articles for publication. Engineers’ formal documents must be precise and correct and are best understood when they are also easily readable. Informal writing includes the emails, memos, and texts that are common to all professions.

Like speaking, writing well is the subject of many books and how-to articles and I commend them to you for the basics. Here are some additional tips:

·       Look to your organization’s or intended publication’s completed documents for format and style examples. Follow them unless there’s good reason not to do so.

·       Make a deliberate decision about the intended audience and write for that audience.

·       Remember the “so what?” admonition from the prior blog and make it clear near the front what the document is about and why the reader should care.

·       Separate facts from opinions.

·       Understand “significant figures” and don’t show inappropriate precision in your results.

·       Understand uncertainty and be sure that your document expresses the inherent uncertainty in your results clearly.

·       Be certain that your conclusions are supported by the data and analyses you present.

·       Ask someone who knows language well to proof your writing for grammar and spelling.

·       Ask a fellow engineer to look for errors of fact, logic, or omission in the completed document. Done properly, this step takes significant time and effort, so be prepared to reciprocate in some way.

Even if you dislike writing, do it anyway. Do it to protect your rear end, if nothing else. It may be the only way to prove a point. On multiple occasions my hide has been saved by producing nominal “progress reports” which documented events and decisions made by others. One example: An anonymous caller warned me that a certain Army General had boasted that he was going to have my head on a platter because I had delayed his pet project. When he arrived, I had a 3-year stack of progress reports to his office showing that every delay had been caused by them changing plans and delaying funding. For a tense 40 minutes the General read through the stack, stood and said, “I’m been misinformed. Thank you for your time.”