MEMORANDUM

Date: September 1st, 2017

To: Julia Intawiwat
From: Alexandra Celender
Subject: Problems Found in Figure 1-1

I have read through Case 1-1 from Chapter 1: Characteristics of Writing at Work in
The Essentials of Technical Communication, and have identified the numerous flaws
within the memo.

Brief Overview of Exercise

In this exercise Matt Lunsford, a research engineer, provides a memo to his superior,
Jerry Bradshaw, including two different summaries of an article about carbon capture to
be posted on their company website for other employees to read. As per Exercise 2 on
page 13, I will list the problems seen in Case 1-1 through analyzing the qualities of good
technical writing.

Qualities of Good Technical Writing

In chapter one, the qualities of good technical writing are listed on page 8 as:
1. Accuracy
2. Clarity
3. Conciseness
4. Readability
5. Usability
6. Correctness
Here we can presume that the information summarized in Lunsfords memo is both
accurate and correct in its concepts and description of the original article. However,
problems arise when examining its clarity, conciseness, readability, and usability.

Clarity
Lunsfords memo does demonstrate a level of clarity. Lunsford utilizes sub-headings in
bold font that allow the readers to selectively read information. However, the content
within these sub-headings fails to retain clarity:
In the general summary Lunsford fails to explain many of the major points of the
article that feature scientific concepts that would not be familiar to non-engineers
While he lists the major points in both summaries, the lack of explanation and
contextual organization fails to illustrate clarity in his summary of the articles
information

Conciseness
Lunsford demonstrates conciseness when discussing the article purposes under their sub-
headings, but loses this as he repeats information:
 In Case Document 1-1A he creates a sub-headings The Subject and Purpose of
Summaries immediately followed by another sub-headings about the Reason
for Summaries
This is an immediate repetition of information where he explains why he wrote
the summaries directly after explaining the purpose of the summaries
While it may be addressed to Bradshaw specifically, one could infer that if
Bradshaw requested he create these summaries he would not need to be reminded
of his own reasoning

Lunsford also loses consiseness in the Major Points Discussed where he lists the main
points of the article via lengthy bullet points that reach paragraph length. Here, Lunsford
should either include more sub-headings to further explain the major points, or create
more concisely worded bullet points.

Readability
While Lunsford was apt to create both a general summary for non-engineers as well as a
technical summary, the readability of both comes into question when analyzing the memo
as a whole:
As seen in Case Document 1-1A, Lunsford repeatedly explains the subject and
purpose of the summaries
This reduces the readability of the memo as a whole for Bradshaw and anyone
reading the original memo as it feels disorganized and repetitive

Also, while Lunsfords sub-headings do allow the reader to scan the summaries
selectively, within their contents the information appears to be lengthy and disorganized:
In the general and technical summary the Main Points Discussed are organized
via bullet point but each point reaches nearly paragraph length
The bullets also have little to no contextual organization, with each following
bullet point seeming unrelated to the last
This reduces the readability as the reader cant understand the information in its
full context
This is especially problematic in the General Summary where there are lengthy
bullet points summarizing complex scientific ideas that should be explained in
their own regard to non-engineers

Usability
Finally, because of the problems described above Lunsford limits the memos usability:
Because of the introduction speaking directly to Bradshaw, the memo in its
original email use will have to be edited down
It also would have to be edited to explain the main points more thoroughly in a
clear manner, especially for the general summary

Conclusion
In conclusion, Lunsfords memo can be assumed to be both accurate and correct in its
presentation of the original articles information. However, a lack of clarity in contextual
organization, a lack of conciseness in repetition of the memos purpose, a lack of
readability in the failure to organize and explain the main points in a concise fashion, and
a lack of usability because of these errors proves for it to be a memo that fails to meet
many of the qualities of good technical writing.