Make your report writing magnetic! #3

I have just been revising my working guide on How to write a report that people read and leads to a "Yes". So, I thought it might be useful to share some of the content and encourage one or two of you to access this implementation guide.

Six quality assurance techniques to improve your reports

Using sound quality assurance techniques will mean you can turn up at meetings knowing that your document is internally consistent, reads well, and is concise.

1. Ban all late changes to the numbers in the report - Once the report is prepared, no adjustments to the numbers should be allowed unless they are very material. There is nothing worse for the finance team than to submit a finance report to the CEO that is inconsistent. This is frequently caused by a late change not being processed properly through the report. As night follows day, the CEO will be sure to find it. I am sure many readers have been guilty of this one. It is far better to hold back the adjustments. If the CEO says to you, “I thought the sales were higher, ” you can say, “ Pat, it is a pleasure working for such an astute CEO. You are right. The sales are understated by $30,000; however, there are adjustments totaling $27,000 going the opposite way, so I have not booked the adjustments as the net difference is immaterial. I am booking these through this month. However, if you like, I will adjust this month’s report. ” Most CEOs will feel pleased with themselves for spotting the shortfall and then move on to another issue.
2. Check numbers for internal consistency - Ask a colleague to carry out this exercise for your next report. Print the report and ask them to mark all pages with a number, e.g., for a five-page report, mark 1 of 5, 2 of 5, see Exhibit 1. For every number that appears elsewhere, either in a box, table, or graph, write the page reference where it appears again, by the page number, and initial to indicate that you have checked this number in the subsequent page, and it is right. This quality assurance document should be left around so the CEO sees it one day. When asked, ‘What are all these references and red ink?’ you say, ‘This is the quality assurance we do every time we issue a report to you.’ I assure you they will be impressed and want you on their important projects.
3. Have a two-person read-through - For all reports going to the C-suite or the Board, you should use a two-person read-through. I learned this technique when I was an auditor. The originator of a report gets another person to read aloud the report while they follow the words on another copy. By hearing the words, the writer can check the ‘dance of the words’, and their rhythm, correct spelling and grammatical errors. The result will be an easier read.
4. Text to voice facility - The quick access bar, see arrow on Exhibit 2, on Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and Outlook has a “speak selected text” option. Select “more commands”, and then select “all commands,” where you will find over 400 useful tools, including text-to-voice, see Exhibit 3. I use this facility on all emails and smaller documents. This facility does not replace the two-person read-through on those important reports, as you will miss out on some collective editing that occurs when two minds are working on one document.
5. Do a final check for the “two gremlins.” - The two-gremlin rule states that in every piece of work, there are always at least two gremlins that sneak through. If I find them and they are minor, I leave them and release the report. If you do not find them, look again, or someone else will spot them. I would always change typos in the first couple of pages or the recommendations, as these can undermine the report.
6. Separating content and format reviews - Never the twain shall meet. As a friend pointed out to me, a reviewer who is good at reviewing content often is not good at reviewing formatting. So, select two reviewers who undertake the two different tasks. The format review should be limited to 'Have you used the organization’s template?', have you got a logical flow with headings? and 'Are all headings using the prescribed headings template?' The content review should be checking 'Have you addressed the remit?', 'are the recommendations clearly set out and supported with logic?'.

The full implementation guide includes a 140-page PDF white paper plus E-templates.