I think that there is an equivalent of the good/quick/cheap job triangle, but for written communication. It’s the precise/succinct/simple triangle. Perhaps (in most cases) you can only have two of these at any time – it’s a trade off we make when choosing how to communicate. But perhaps there is a way to work around it. Here’s the idea…
There’s this thing – it probably has an official name that I don’t know – that says that services or trades can be any two of cheap, quick and good, but never all three. A cheap, quick job won’t be good; a quick, good job won’t be cheap; and a good, cheap job won’t be quick.
I’ve been thinking about written communication – I have some documentation in progress for a side project! – and I’ve realised that perhaps something similar can be said about writing.
I came up with a precise/succinct/simple triangle:
- Precise, succinct communication won’t be simple – it needs to use jargon or terminology that perhaps assumes specific knowledge from the reader.
- Precise, simple communication won’t be succinct – because instead of using jargon, you are explaining as you go.
- And succinct, simple communication won’t be precise – you can’e cover the details because you have neither the terminology or word count to explain properly.
I’m sure that some people achieve all three, perhaps some of the time? Perhaps all of the time? I don’t know. But it’s certainly a trade off that I find myself having to make, and that I see being made in the communication of others.
One workaround for this trade-off is to write twice in order to cover all bases:
- A “summary” that is succinct, but misses out details, either using simple words and not explaining everything; or using jargon and assumed knowledge to keep it short.
- A not-succinct “details” section that expands the summary (or that is summarised by the summary) so that people can opt to dig in if they need to.
This is more work. But there are benefits to the little extra work:
- People don’t have to read the details if they don’t want or need them. The summary is for those that have the assumed knowledge.
- The details exist for those that don’t understand the terminology, don’t have the assumed knowledge or context, or want to know the “why” or “how” of what is being said.
- The writing can help you understand what you are saying as much as it helps others. The writing is the thinking. I write in detail by default, so writing the summary helps me hone my message and clarify my main points. Others are perhaps succinct by default, and expanding the details helps them refine what they need to say.
Having both a summary and the details make documentation more complete for future reference (this is super helpful when searching for previous discussions or documentation) and prevents the reader having to ask questions or make clarifications. This latter point is particularly helpful when people work across timezones and may not be there to quickly take the questions and give the answers!
Maybe I’m wrong and this is nothing, but it’s just an idea for you. What sort of writer are you by default? How do you ensure your message isn’t lost in vagueness, waffle or jargon?