Why written communication skills are vital to engineers Monday, 06 February 2017

UAE Chapter President, Mr Harry Roberts, explains why being an effective communicator is important to engineers.

For goodness sake guys!

I read this, a few weeks ago, in a report:

“ The chanllagens of maintenance are the venitalltion fans  and motors replacement as the size and weight of these components require specialized equipment ot support the removal and replacement as well as additional time for setup of this equipment.”

He said what?

It has been said to me that engineers do not need to be effective communicators so long as the drawings are accurate. Well, I’ve got some news for folks who really believe that:

We are, whether we like it or not, in the business of communicating our ideas, concepts, plans, designs, costs, intents, responses and schedules to a wide range of stakeholders. If we don’t do this effectively the outcomes range from minor to catastrophic. The trouble is that, generally speaking, we can’t tell beforehand where along that spectrum the outcome will lie.

To start us off gently on this ramble, with due credit to Lynne Truss, consider this:

The panda is an animal that eats shoots and leaves.

The panda is an animal that eats, shoots and leaves.

The first panda is benign and cuddly. The second one is potentially lethal. This example, of course, is a trivial one and, owing to the ability of most of us to spot something ridiculous, we smile and move on knowing the second sentence conveys the wrong meaning.

But, when it comes to writing specifications, contracts, tender documents, and anything upon which safety or money depends, we can’t afford to be so cavalier. Particularly when we need to take account of the possibility of readers whose English comprehension skills might range from excellent to dodgy – and who have paid-up lawyers in tow.  If we miscommunicate, the best that might happen could be mediation, arbitration and the settlement of a claim. The worst that could happen is someone dies and you end up in jail.

Take the following three texts, which I have adjusted to protect the innocent, but which otherwise remain in their original form:

“Please justify the areas of refugee is suitable for accommodating a large amount of passenger under emergency condition without inducing secondary hazards, e.g. pushing, stepping, or forming a bottle neck for passenger in tunnel going into the shaft, etc.”

The statement is unanswerable, on several counts, but the real kicker is there is no definition of the “large amount of passenger”. But, for sure, the issue at hand better be accurately and thoroughly addressed as it apparently involves evacuating passengers from a tunnel.

“The objective has been to design a highly efficient, simple and well-designed facility that at frequent intervals has to deal with a segregated and flow and contra-flow of 240 workers on and off a train with the added complexity of having account for, to distribute to workers and have returned items of field equipment, all within a relatively short time frame.”

This one is pretty impenetrable; except perhaps for the bit about 240 workers on and off a train.

“While pedestrian access to the precinct will be priority considerations in the precinct layouts, such as the mid-block access planned between Smith and Jones Streets, expansive stair layouts and pedestrian promenades, consideration of deck structure supports will need to be given to potential extension of sublevel carparks and vehicle links under Williams Avenue.”

I dare say. But what, exactly, is required?

The lattermost example was extracted from a scope of services description.

In 2008 the Australian Constructors Association (ACA) published a report entitled “Scope for Improvement”. The report analysed the causes and effects of writing poor project scoping documents. Some of the causes of poor scoping were:

  • Poor definition of project objectives                                        32% of documents
  • Poorly coordinated contractual document suites                               30% of documents
  • Errors in the scope documents                                                   21% of documents

These three items all represent, one way or another, poor communications. The ACA attempted to put a value on the scoping problems they had identified. They concluded that 26% of projects, each worth more than $1 billion, overran by $200 million per project because of poor scoping. Poor communications contributed to the extent noted above.

Like the man said; a million here and a million there and suddenly we’re talking real money.

So, for goodness sake guys, let’s communicate effectively before the offensively scented, brown-coloured, semi-solid, biological waste material impacts with the blades of the rotating machinery.

If you get my meaning.

 

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THIS ARTICLE ARE THE AUTHOR’S AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF MR ROBERTS’S EMPLOYER OR OF ENGINEERS AUSTRALIA