Campbell Chapter 8 - Did I Forget Anything?

I want to apologize for not posting this earlier. I guess I wasn’t paying attention yesterday, and I clicked ‘Save’ instead of ‘Publish.’ I think it’s quite fitting for the Did I Forget Anything? chapter. Oops.

Campbell begins this discussion by stating that the writer of a document is ultimately responsible for mistakes and errors. Therefore, a writer’s goal is to make both content and form as nearly perfect as possible.

To create a perfect document, it must go through a review process, which fine-tunes the document and double-checks for accuracy and spelling. Since this can’t be done at once, there are five different types of review, each dealing with a different aspect. These reviews include: verification, validation, editing, proofreading and approval. Campbell notes that these reviews can be combined, but it’s a much more demanding task and requires greater skill on the reviewer’s part. She suggests using multiple reviewers to speed the process, but the real key is to build adequate review time into the schedule up front.

Campbell then goes on to discuss verification. She notes that verification and validation are often skipped, but they shouldn’t be because they provide the foundation of the finished product and are the main concerns of both the reader and the organization. When you verify, you’re checking for accuracy. There are a number of different verification methods, which include: comparing the final draft to the original, checking it against source documents, confirming numerical and statistical data or assigning a content expert to do the review. Campbell writes that verification is especially important in procedures, where near perfection may note be good enough.

Next, Campbell discusses validation, which is checking for usability. She writes that you should read the policy completely through to see if it makes sense or if anything is missing. The best way to validate a policy is to have several people read through it and watch their reactions. Make notes of their reactions and ask them for honest feedback. Campbell also notes that validating procedures takes longer because you’re actually testing the steps and the sequence. There are numerous techniques for validating procedures, which include: walk-throughs, observation, focus groups, and surveys. Each of these methods require you to go through the basic steps of preparation, testing, debriefing, and documentation.

The next review process Campbell discusses is editing. She writes that it presents the unique challenge of improving the policy or procedure without changing the meaning. The main purpose of the review is to check for items such as format, wording, consistency, flow, cohesion, layout, and visual appeal. The number of edits you to through depends largely on the document and the project. Campbell notes that you should be careful not to confuse the function of editing with the functions of validation and verification. To edit, you must know what you want from your document. In the case of policies and procedures, it’s readability and usability. The mechanics of editing are largely a matter or organization and consistency. Campbell continues by writing that editing should be done with an eye to the important matters of mechanical correctness, because trivial ones will be caught in proofreading. When you edit, you should review the page layout, consider the design elements, and scrutinize everything for consistency and logic.

Campbell continues with the next review, which is proofreading. She writes that it is as important as the other reviews, but for a different reason, which is your audience assumes that if you let little things slip through, you’ve probably let some big things slip through too. She also writes that proofreading has a bad reputation because it is seen as boring, but it is actually a demanding, time-consuming step that requires discipline, concentration, and patience. Campbell notes that the secret to effective proofreading is decontextualizing, which means that you must reverse the learned habit of reading for meaning and concepts. There are a number of ways to proofread, which include reading backwards, reading aloud, reading into a tape recorder, reading to a partner or reading diagonally. When proofreading, you should look for every single imperfection, typographical errors, punctuation, spacing, spelling, agreement, page breaks, titles, misplaced words and phrases, alignment, names, numbers, typestyle, typesize and margins. Campbell also notes that you should be especially careful when proofing graphics, and to be aware of personal blind spots. When proofing your own work, Campbell emphasizes decontextualizing. If you are under time constraints, Campbell suggests having different people proof for different aspects simultaneously or using free-proofing.

The last review process Campbell discusses is approval. You should talk with your approvers throughout the process and not wait until the end. If you consult them periodically throughout the process, your writing won’t come as a shock to them. Your approval process should never be haphazard, casual or done at the last minute. Instead, your procedure should outline the approval cycle and time frames. It should also encourage approvers to solicit input and comments from within their own areas. Often, slow response from approvers causes a time problem. Campbell suggests using a well-designed form that’s fast and easy to fill out to help conquer these delays. According to Campbell, you shouldn’t be disturbed if your approvers don’t agree. This helps you identify differences of opinions before the policies and procedures are in force. Your job with differences of opinions is to coordinate and communicate. Campbell also writes that you should try to include unofficial approvers because they are influential people who give an unofficial thumbs-up or thumbs-down on the final product since they will use the product every day.

Campbell concludes this chapter by discussing who should perform these reviews. She emphasizes the importance of having other reviewers look at your work because they bring a fresh eye and a fresh perspective. They also bring their own marks and styles, so it is important to coordinate and communicate effectively with these reviewers. Campbell notes that at times another reviewer may not be available. In these cases, you’ll have to exercise twice your normal discipline since you’ll be the sole developer, researcher, writer and reviewer all at once.