DYNAMIC PAGE -- HIGHEST POSSIBLE CLASSIFICATION IS
TOP SECRET // SI / TK // REL TO USA AUS CAN GBR NZL
(U) Team Writing Projects: Too Many Cooks Spoil the Soup?
FROM:
the SIDtoday editor
Run Date: 06/27/2008
(U) Here's another in an intermittent series of articles on general
writing subjects (i.e. NOT specifically about the writing of SIGINT
reports)... This one offers somesuggestions on how to tackle group
writing assignments:
(U) Bottom line: SIGINT may be a "team sport," but editing is not!
(U) There has been much talk in recent years about the
advantages of collaboration, and most agree that tapping into
expertise -- wherever it may reside -- is usually a good thing. But
while the concept is good, the execution also needs to be sound in
order to get good results. What am I getting at? Just this:
(U) Even a collaborative effort requires that someone play
the role of leader. Would the Sistine Chapel have turned out
better if 10 art critics had been enlisted to "help out" old
Michelangelo? Would an orchestra make harmonious music with 5
co-conductors up on stage at the same time all waving batons? I
think you see the point: every endeavor needs a directing hand, a
unified vision... call it what you will.
(U) Writing is no exception. One person needs to take the lead.
If a group of people-- especially people representing different
organizations -- all try to help draft a text, you wind up with a
chaotic mishmash of competing priorities and writing styles... And
to compound the problem, when people try to take a "consensus"
approach to writing, oftentimes the observations and opinions-which can be the most interesting bits!-- get taken out, because
the group may not all share exactly the same view. The
"compromise" wording that's left is watered down, bland, and
potentially confusing.
(U) This observation is not new... there's a reason why the term
"written by committee" (usually accompanied by a grimace!) has
entered the popular lexicon. But that prompts the question: why do
people keep doing it? How does this keep happening?
(U) Here's one way:
Someone (we'll call her Mona) is asked to write up a paper
about a topic, but the topic is complex and involves work
done by several different offices.
Mona asks representatives from all of the various offices to
collaborate. In an attempt to be "corporate," Mona suggests
that they all contribute equally to drafting the paper.
Mona offers to get the ball rolling, draws up a draft, and
shares it with the entire group. The representatives all make
their own edits over the course of days and weeks.*
Finally, Mona is left to try to satisfy everyone by combining
SERIES:
The Pointy End of the
Pen
1. Did He 'Go' Into the
Courthouse, or
'Sneak' Into It?
2. Writing for the Mass
Audience: All's Well
that Begins Well?
3. Team Writing
Projects: Too Many
Cooks Spoil the
Soup?
4. The Humble
Footnote: Every Dog
Has His Day
5. It's OK to Have a
Personality... Most of
the Time!
6. The Chisel and the
Vision
the (potentially contradictory) edits and hoping it all makes
sense when it comes out the other side.
(U) Mona may have had good intentions, but the above project is
clearly in trouble! So, how can this scenario be avoided? Here's
what I suggest as a better process:
Right up front, the team has to settle upon a single person
to serve as writer and editor.
The writer/editor (let's call her Felicity) draws up an outline
for how the paper will be organized, what the content
should be, etc., and determines what details are needed to
flesh out the text.
Felicity asks team members to provide input as necessary-just the facts .
Using the facts provided, Felicity weaves them all together
into a coherent text that is consistent in style.
Felicity sends out the draft for comment only. Team
members should not do any wordsmithing or editing in
general; they should simply state their suggestions and
concerns to Felicity.
Felicity then reviews the comments, and makes any factual
corrections needed. If there are no disagreements as to the
conclusions reached, the paper is done!
If however, the various team members do not agree on the
conclusions reached, or on other opinions expressed, it is
Felicity's duty to objectively document in the text who
believes what, such as: "The entire team accepts that XYZ
is true; however, ORG1 advocates taking such-and-such
steps, while ORG2 believes that such-and-such is the better
course of action."
(U) In a nutshell, the paper needs to be drafted by one person
using input from the group -- not drafted by the group
collectively. I believe this approach not only saves everyone time
and energy in the long run, but leads to a better end product.
Anyone reading the resulting paper will know: 1) what everyone
agrees to be true, and 2) what people disagree on, and why. This is
much more useful information than a whitewashed attempt at
consensus.
(U) There are occasions, however, when the intent is to come up
with the "official NSA (or IC, or whatever) stance" on a subject,
meaning that we are expected to speak with one voice. Here,
again, the above process gives the desired result: the appropriate
managers can review the paper, weigh the pros and cons of the
various arguments, and make the call. By allowing the managers to
see the rival arguments (instead of papering them over), you are
helping them make well-informed, well-considered decisions.
(U) Notes:
* (U) In terms of the mechanics of how the draft is edited,
sometimes the text is sent around via email, which poses the
danger of everyone making their own edits in parallel and multiple
versions being generated. That can get very complicated very
quickly! Another common approach is for everyone to make
incremental changes to a single document, such as by posting the
text on a wiki. While that is a more orderly process, it may still
result in a "mishmash of competing priorities and writing styles" in
the absence of a single editor.
"(U//FOUO) SIDtoday articles may not be republished or reposted outside NSANet
without the consent of S0121 (DL sid_comms)."
DYNAMIC PAGE -- HIGHEST POSSIBLE CLASSIFICATION IS
TOP SECRET // SI / TK // REL TO USA AUS CAN GBR NZL
DERIVED FROM: NSA/CSSM 1-52, DATED 08 JAN 2007 DECLASSIFY ON: 20320108