Exercise Add Specificity

In your own draft, and in Brad's, look for opportunities to add examples, numbers, or facts. Because your work on Brad's report is speculative in nature, feel free to make up likely numbers or statistics. The goal of this exercise isn't to belabor the details; rather, it is to ensure that you understand the importance of adding specificity and to be certain you know where and how to integrate examples and numbers.

How many specific references did you add to your own draft and to Brad's? Here's Brad's revision:

After careful comparison of the three site options, the bottom line is that the best choice for our new factory is Georgia. My analysis used proprietary stochastic simulation techniques, incorporating data collected from over one hundred sources, from the government and other public sources to interviews. To get a fresh view, one of my assistants met with a risk manager with no knowledge of the risks involved in doing business in either Florida or Georgia. Designing the model required creativity and diligence. All data is tested and proven by fact checkers verifying the information from additional sources. Objective too. Let me answer— anticipate—questions I think you're going to want to know the answers to.

Q: What data did you collect?

A: I collected over five hundred separate facts from all sorts of data sources.

Q: Why is Georgia a better choice than Florida or Illinois? A: It's lower risk overall and in key specific areas including weather, transport and available labor as well as a positive labor climate.

Q: What's the most compelling benefit of choosing Georgia? A: Diversification. We need to mitigate against the chance of a problem in weather or labor unrest or zoning or taxation in Florida. If these problems occur in Florida, and we have more than one factory in Florida, it is easy to no doubt see the problem. Both factories is effected, not just one factory. It's easy to understand why some of us lean toward selecting Florida but we should use objective, not subjective, criteria to make the decision. If we do that, we must conclude that the site with the highest profit potential at the lowest risk is Georgia.

Here's what Brad said about his revision. "I realized that I had already used examples; for instance, when I listed where Georgia is lower risk and in mentioning the potential problems in Florida. All I did was add a few numbers and rewrote some sentences to highlight the data."

Step-by-step, Brad's report is getting better. How about your draft? Can you see that it, too, is better?

0 0

Post a comment