5 ms·

Leaving aside the fact that the subject includes 'Potential Failure Criticality', the key impact line "The result would be a catastrophe of the highest order -

by dtparr 11y ago

Leaving aside the fact that the subject includes 'Potential Failure Criticality', the key impact line "The result would be a catastrophe of the highest order - loss of human life" occurs less than 150 words into this. It's the 5th sentence (though they're admittedly long sentences). Are you having serious engineering-related discussions with your management where they can't read 150 words before getting to the hook? (serious question, not snark) Is everyone communicating via twitter or something? (sorry, that was a bit of snark)

frandroid 11y ago
They're really "thick" sentences. By the time you get there, your brain has had to process so much that you go "huh".
- dtparr 11y ago
  Interesting. I'm curious, do you find the technical content to be the 'thickening agent' or the style? I work in a related field, and am vaguely familiar with both the general makeup of this type of rocket and this accident in general. I also tend to write longer, more complex sentences. I did not find it to be particularly 'thick', and I'm curious whether it's because I'm more familiar with the technical details and so avoided the glossy-eyed stare from that aspect or from the fact that a few dozen words in a sentence doesn't faze me. The former would mean this shouldn't bother anyone practiced in the arts of spaceflight (such as the VP of engineering), but the latter would have been a problem. Edit: stupid homophones.
  - frandroid 11y ago
    Both. But the problem is not the thickness per se, it's that the lede is buried beneath the technical specifications. The "thickness" compounds the problem. "we stand in jeopardy of losing a flight along with all the launch pad facilities" should be in the first sentence of the whole letter, not the final one.
- hcrisp 11y ago
  There's a great book that attacks dense writing and how to fix it [1]. It is a quick read. For example the author takes this sentence: Pelicans may also be vulnerable to direct oiling, but the lack of mortality data despite numerous spills in areas frequented by the species suggests that it practices avoidance. ... and turns it into this: Pelicans seem to avoid oil spills by avoiding the oil. [1] "Revising Prose", Richard Lanham. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0321441699/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_3?pf_rd_p=1944687642&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0205309445&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0SAYZW7GHTB2B1N5FJ3X http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0321441699/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_d...
  - unethical_ban 11y ago
    Not stated in the second sentence is the statement of data supporting the observation, or the fact that pelicans are affected by oil. It's easy to trim sentences when you take away data.
    - DarkLinkXXXX 11y ago
      Maybe a footnote or inline citations would be a good compromise?
  - tobltobs 11y ago
    This sentence is shorter, but it also contains less information. I would say the 75% reduction in sentence length comes with a 66% reduction in contained information.
    - hcrisp 11y ago
      Ha, spoken like a true engineer. However, if the point of writing the sentence is not data storage but communication, then a long, convoluted sentence can be less successful than a shorter, more readable one. Maybe I picked a bad example. Here is another one: Before: Perception is the process of extracting information from stimulation emanating from objects, places, and events in the world around us. After: Perception extracts information from the outside world. Yes, the first is more specific and more detailed, but the "outside world" includes things like objects and places and doesn't add much to the gist. The second one is certainly more readable.
kentt 11y ago
If I was writing that to most bosses I've had, the first line would include the words 'death', 'critical', 'failure', 'negligent', etc. I would assume it would be skimmed otherwise. Even still, I would guess that a lot of the stuff in the middle would be skimmed and I'd have to reiterate my point in the last sentence. Ya it's a bad situation.
mjevans 11y ago
Many people don't have sufficient time to do a good job. You need to optimize the layout of data so that the critical message is clearly delivered first. An ultra-executive summary is what your memo/email subject and first line should be. Then expand out with more and more detail as necessary.
thrownaway2424 11y ago
I disagree. This is a fairly poorly-written persuasive letter, and we have ample evidence for its lack of persuasive powers. The letter opens with useless content "This letter is written ..." which is self-evident. Then it proceeds to the grammatical error of "insure" which almost made me stop reading. If I was writing a letter like this, and I wanted it to have some effect, this would be the first sentence: The total loss of a future shuttle mission and the death of its crew is a near certainty with our current booster o-ring design. Then I would omit everything else in the original letter except the request for staffing.
- kohanz 11y ago
  > Then it proceeds to the grammatical error of "insure" which almost made me stop reading Let's hope the management reading the letter wasn't so fickle. Oh wait, hmmmmmm. > The total loss of a future shuttle mission and the death of its crew is a near certainty with our current booster o-ring design. From the point of view of the engineer, that would be a misrepresentation of the facts. An exaggeration. You're basically outlining the difference between engineers and marketers. I don't mean that as a sleight - perhaps the situation called for a bit of "marketing".
- dtparr 11y ago
  So, I certainly wasn't trying to claim that the letter was a well-written persuasive one. However, I was more shocked with the implication that engineering management can't be expected to read past the first line of a memo if it doesn't hook them. In most organizations I've worked in (generally large ones), the rank-and-file engineers/scientists are below-average communicators (a stereotype, I know, but it's been true). They choose the wrong level of technical detail for their audience (or send it to such a large cross-section of people that there is no appropriate level for everyone). They certainly make grammatical mistakes. It's up to engineering management (who are generally better communicators) to pull the salient bits out of the communication and then pass that up the chain in a more clear manner. I certainly can't imagine a manager going "well, Darren's letter that warned me of a likely loss of human life used 'insure' instead of 'ensure', so I'm just going to assume that the rest of it is drivel and go on about my day". Your way would certainly have been better. Related note, one of the best writing classes I ever took with regard to its effect on my current work was actually a journalism class. The notion not to bury the lede has been key as attention spans wane (apparently more than I'd realized).

by dtparr 11y ago

frandroid 11y ago

They're really "thick" sentences. By the time you get there, your brain has had to process so much that you go "huh".

dtparr 11y ago
Interesting. I'm curious, do you find the technical content to be the 'thickening agent' or the style? I work in a related field, and am vaguely familiar with both the general makeup of this type of rocket and this accident in general. I also tend to write longer, more complex sentences. I did not find it to be particularly 'thick', and I'm curious whether it's because I'm more familiar with the technical details and so avoided the glossy-eyed stare from that aspect or from the fact that a few dozen words in a sentence doesn't faze me. The former would mean this shouldn't bother anyone practiced in the arts of spaceflight (such as the VP of engineering), but the latter would have been a problem. Edit: stupid homophones.
- frandroid 11y ago
  Both. But the problem is not the thickness per se, it's that the lede is buried beneath the technical specifications. The "thickness" compounds the problem. "we stand in jeopardy of losing a flight along with all the launch pad facilities" should be in the first sentence of the whole letter, not the final one.
hcrisp 11y ago
There's a great book that attacks dense writing and how to fix it [1]. It is a quick read. For example the author takes this sentence: Pelicans may also be vulnerable to direct oiling, but the lack of mortality data despite numerous spills in areas frequented by the species suggests that it practices avoidance. ... and turns it into this: Pelicans seem to avoid oil spills by avoiding the oil. [1] "Revising Prose", Richard Lanham. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0321441699/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_3?pf_rd_p=1944687642&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0205309445&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0SAYZW7GHTB2B1N5FJ3X http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0321441699/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_d...
- unethical_ban 11y ago
  Not stated in the second sentence is the statement of data supporting the observation, or the fact that pelicans are affected by oil. It's easy to trim sentences when you take away data.
  - DarkLinkXXXX 11y ago
    Maybe a footnote or inline citations would be a good compromise?
- tobltobs 11y ago
  This sentence is shorter, but it also contains less information. I would say the 75% reduction in sentence length comes with a 66% reduction in contained information.
  - hcrisp 11y ago
    Ha, spoken like a true engineer. However, if the point of writing the sentence is not data storage but communication, then a long, convoluted sentence can be less successful than a shorter, more readable one. Maybe I picked a bad example. Here is another one: Before: Perception is the process of extracting information from stimulation emanating from objects, places, and events in the world around us. After: Perception extracts information from the outside world. Yes, the first is more specific and more detailed, but the "outside world" includes things like objects and places and doesn't add much to the gist. The second one is certainly more readable.

kentt 11y ago

If I was writing that to most bosses I've had, the first line would include the words 'death', 'critical', 'failure', 'negligent', etc. I would assume it would be skimmed otherwise. Even still, I would guess that a lot of the stuff in the middle would be skimmed and I'd have to reiterate my point in the last sentence. Ya it's a bad situation.

mjevans 11y ago

Many people don't have sufficient time to do a good job. You need to optimize the layout of data so that the critical message is clearly delivered first. An ultra-executive summary is what your memo/email subject and first line should be. Then expand out with more and more detail as necessary.

thrownaway2424 11y ago

I disagree. This is a fairly poorly-written persuasive letter, and we have ample evidence for its lack of persuasive powers. The letter opens with useless content "This letter is written ..." which is self-evident. Then it proceeds to the grammatical error of "insure" which almost made me stop reading. If I was writing a letter like this, and I wanted it to have some effect, this would be the first sentence: The total loss of a future shuttle mission and the death of its crew is a near certainty with our current booster o-ring design. Then I would omit everything else in the original letter except the request for staffing.

kohanz 11y ago
> Then it proceeds to the grammatical error of "insure" which almost made me stop reading Let's hope the management reading the letter wasn't so fickle. Oh wait, hmmmmmm. > The total loss of a future shuttle mission and the death of its crew is a near certainty with our current booster o-ring design. From the point of view of the engineer, that would be a misrepresentation of the facts. An exaggeration. You're basically outlining the difference between engineers and marketers. I don't mean that as a sleight - perhaps the situation called for a bit of "marketing".
dtparr 11y ago
So, I certainly wasn't trying to claim that the letter was a well-written persuasive one. However, I was more shocked with the implication that engineering management can't be expected to read past the first line of a memo if it doesn't hook them. In most organizations I've worked in (generally large ones), the rank-and-file engineers/scientists are below-average communicators (a stereotype, I know, but it's been true). They choose the wrong level of technical detail for their audience (or send it to such a large cross-section of people that there is no appropriate level for everyone). They certainly make grammatical mistakes. It's up to engineering management (who are generally better communicators) to pull the salient bits out of the communication and then pass that up the chain in a more clear manner. I certainly can't imagine a manager going "well, Darren's letter that warned me of a likely loss of human life used 'insure' instead of 'ensure', so I'm just going to assume that the rest of it is drivel and go on about my day". Your way would certainly have been better. Related note, one of the best writing classes I ever took with regard to its effect on my current work was actually a journalism class. The notion not to bury the lede has been key as attention spans wane (apparently more than I'd realized).