Point One: We’ve all done it: read a document and thought, “This document is too difficult to read” or “This document is too verbose” or “This document is too long or doesn’t meet my needs.” Whatever it is, we all do this because that’s what readers do: they make judgments about the document and its readability and about the writer and the writer’s organization. Personally, I’ve opted not to do business
with a firm that couldn’t produce a well-written, thoughtful piece that focused on my needs. And I’m sure I’m not alone. The take-away is that readers are judging your company and deciding whether to do business with you based on the documents your teams produce; therefore, ensuring that these documents reflect the professionalism and intelligence of your staff is crucial.
Point Two: Since, as we’ve established in Point One, the document is the deliverable, wouldn’t it make sense for organizations to understand how well their documents are doing the intended job? Organizations spend money and resources on all types of research and data to ensure that the firm is making money, spending money wisely, and delivering quality products and service to customers, but they often don’t take the time to assess the effectiveness of their documents or if their employees have the tools they need to plan, write, and revise effectively and efficiently.
Point Three: While grammar is important in a well-written document, it’s not of primary importance because it’s the easiest aspect document to remedy. Instead, nonwriters should focus instead on content of the document, rather than on grammar (or wordsmithing, an equally time-wasting activity), especially in the early stages of writing. Content, and how that content is conveyed, is king.
Point Four: In many organizations, since editing is often left up to project managers and supervisors who have had no real training as editors, personal style/preferences often become an issue. For instance, we’ve had project managers tell us that they don’t allow their personnel to use the gerund form (“ing”) of a verb or to use “that” in any of their written documents. This reliance on antiquated and often senseless rules can result in three issues: 1) supervisors and managers spending far too much time editing; 2) an editing process that doesn’t result in better writing because the recipients either don’t understand the changes being suggested or feel that the meaning has been changed; 3) an acrimonious process that leaves both the editors and the writers frustrated. The take-away is that while editing is important, businesses need to create an established process with ground rules based on readability studies, so that less time is wasted, the editing process is embraced, and both parties have a good understanding of what’s expected and what the outcome will be.
Explanation:
Hope this helps, If it did, then I would really appreciate it if you gave me Brainliest, I only need one more to rank up and it has taken forever to get to where I am currently. Thanks.
