The Resourceful Reporter, Part 5: Inspection Reports

The fourth descriptive report in this series is the inspection report. While inspection reports are similar to investigation reports and incident reports in that they are based on verifiable evidence (pardon the necessary redundancy), they differ in two critical ways: their findings and their consequences. 

Findings. Inspection reports document inspectors' examinations of materials, equipment, grounds, or structures based on indisputable standards. For examples, an inspection report may state that 7% of 100,000 pairs of latex gloves in a shipment have perforations, or a compressor in an enclosed packaging facility runs at 125 dB, or refuse from two overturned trashcans were strewn across a lawn of a corporate park, or the foundation at the northwest corner of an office building has spalling running 2 meters long by 12 millimeters wide.

On the other hand, investigation reports and incident reports may cover human conduct that is subject to dispute by opposing parties. An investigation of sexual harassment may have only two witnesses to the allegation: the complainant and the accused, both of whom offer different accounts of what occurred. The same holds true for an incident report of a hallway fire, as two witnesses may claim it started at different times, resulted from different causes, and reached different levels of severity.  

Consequences. Inspection reports require responsible parties to correct noncompliant conditions and to maintain compliant conditions. The manufacturer of those perforated gloves may be contractually required to replace them, the engineering department may need to create a sound buffer for that noisy compressor, the grounds crew may need to secure those trashcans that spilled refuse, and the building owner may need to solve the spalling problem.

In contrast, investigation and incident reports are after-the-fact historical records of events that may or not require remediation. In the case of an investigation report on a physical assault resulting in permanent bodily injury, the assailant may be incarcerated and the victim may be financially compensated, but these actions will not reverse the physical damage done. Likewise, an incident report on a fire that destroyed a packaging facility may reach a root cause but not undo the devastation.  

Two Tips on Inspection Reports: Content and Structure

In terms of content, inspection reports should include the standard (e.g., any observed spalling requires remediation within 30 days of the report date), the source (e.g., Local Building Code 388.8), the finding (e.g., the foundation at the northwest corner of an office building has spalling running 2 meters long by 12 millimeters wide), and corrective action (e.g., repair spalling with Code-approved materials by December 1), and the follow-up (e.g., the inspector will reinspect for compliance within one month). 

As for structure, inspectors should get away from their traditional chronological approach to inspection reports in favor of a hierarchical approach. This practice will immediately focus the reader on the point.

Do not write this:

The December 13 inspection found three safety hazards:

• Flammable paint cans stored on the ground floor hallway.
• A missing doorknob on the third-floor rear emergency exit door.
• A skid of cartons blocking the west walkway.  

The building owner must correct these problems by December 17. 

Instead write this:

As a result of the December 13 inspection, the building owner must correct three safety hazards by December 17:

• Remove flammable paint cans stored on the ground floor hallway.
• Replace the missing doorknob on the third-floor rear emergency exit door.
• Remove the skid of cartons blocking the west walkway.  

The inspector will return on December 17 to ensure the premises are free of safety hazards.

The Resourceful Reporter, Part 4: Investigation Reports

I am grateful for the valuable help I received for this post from two friends: Joe Brooks, a former lieutenant for the New York City Police Department and retired special investigator for Lifespire, and Paul Cassone, former executive director of the Guild for Exceptional Children. 

The third descriptive report in this series is the investigation report. Some businesses see incident reports and investigation reports as synonymous, so I will distinguish between them for this discussion:

• An incident report covers an event that may be accidental (e.g., slip, trip, or fall) or intentional (e.g., physical assault), involving human, business, or property damage, which may or may not have disciplinary or legal consequences. An incident report can be written by a wide range of employees.
• An investigation report covers an event that may be accidental (e.g., train derailment caused by human error) or intentional (e.g., train derailment caused by terrorism), or it examines conduct that may be unethical (e.g., nepotism) or illegal (e.g., embezzlement), involving human, business, or property damage, which likely will have disciplinary or legal consequences. An investigation report should be written by a highly skilled investigator.

In-progress investigations may or may not be sufficiently grave to shut down an entire operation. A suicide on railroad tracks will automatically halt all train movement at the station. An explosion at a chemical facility will cease all production and require staff evacuation. An accusation of sexual harassment may cause the business to separate the accuser and the accused, but it is unlikely to suspend business activity. An allegation of fraud may lead to removing the accused from the workplace without interrupting business the flow.

Investigators may be concerned about the root cause of an event (e.g., an accidental train derailment or a fuel tank explosion), or they may have zero interest in cause (e.g., embezzlement or sexual harassment). I will look at root-cause reports later in this series.

All told, investigators have quite a challenging job. Needless to say, they need good writing skills, but the best of them possess these seven qualities: 

Perceptiveness. Investigators need to be experts in human behavior. They must know the right questions and the right amount of questions without coming up empty or overstepping their bounds. They have to know when an answer to their question is taking them down a dead end, whether purposefully or not. They also have to relentlessly pursue a path they believe will give them the answers they seek.

Patience. As good students of human nature, investigators must understand that interviewees possess contrasting communication abilities. Realizing miscommunication equals mischaracterization, investigators may need to restate questions to accommodate interviewees. Some interviewees may be naturally nervous under questioning. Some may be worried about repercussions of their truthful testimony. Some may be under extraordinary stress because of what they experienced. In any case, investigators must devote the needed time to allow the interviewee to express themselves as best they can. 

Restraint. Investigators walk a fine line in collecting facts that lead to the truth without necessarily asserting what is or what is not true. As Lieutenant Joe Brooks says, "Investigators are not the ones to drop the guillotine." This challenge is a critical one for investigators to meet; otherwise, the investigation will be perceived as biased. 

Objectivity. It would be a fatal mistake to enter an investigation with preconceived ideas about the subjects. This challenge amplifies when investigators have a relationship with a party to a case. "Assume nothing," says Lieutenant Brooks. "Don't even think about what you think." For this reason, investigators also need to know when to recuse themselves from an investigation. 

Fairness. "The more you dig in an investigation, the deeper it goes," says Paul Cassone. "It can go on for a long time." This is why investigators need to know when questions are still relevant or when they are going off course. For instance, if you were an investigator of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill of April 20, 2010, asking questions about the environmental conditions, equipment, materials, processes,  workers, management, and even regulators would be fair game. But asking questions about legislation regulating the oil industry may be too far from the root cause because all area oil wells were operating without a serious incident under the same regulations up until the date of the explosion.

Accuracy. The precision of the report language is essential. I am a strong believer in reporting verbatim, no matter how vulgar, abusive, or insensitive the statements are. The investigators are not the ones to judge whether language is appropriate for reporting purposes. Tell it like it was told.

Wisdom. A knowledge of policies and regulations alone won't do; investigators also must know what to do when a law is broken. As Lieutenant Brooks puts it, "If you're at a point when you believe a crime has been committed, you have to immediately refer the case to law enforcement authorities."

In my years of teaching investigation report writing, I have found numerous situations when investigative reports were unintentionally biased. Remember that words are nuanced, so edit carefully.  

The Resourceful Reporter, Part 3: Incident Reports

Incident reports are the second of nine descriptive reports appearing in this series. Employees write incident reports when a "reportable" event occurs. What is reportable depends on the industry and business, but the law greatly influences whether an incident report is necessary. For instance, issues of occupational health and safety (e.g., operator exposure to toxic fumes), environmental safety (e.g., a chemical fire outside the enclosed facility), and human misconduct (e.g., sexual harassment) are not only reportable but required by law. 

Incident reports can cover a wide range of issues, but they generally answer these questions:

• What happened?
• When did it end?
• Where did it happen?
• How did it happen?
• Who was involved?
• Was anyone injured?
• Was any equipment or property damaged? 
• What immediate actions were taken to end or mitigate the event?

The question of why the event happened may or may not be a reportable factor. For instance, it would make sense to describe why an electrical fire in the office pantry occurred to prevent its recurrence. On the other hand, if an employee punches another employee in the face during an argument, the why is unnecessary, because a physical assault is immediate grounds for termination, even for represented (union) employees, in many cases. 

Here are some pointers based on the most common questions I get about reporting: 

Rely on the conventions of your field. Incident reports vary by business. Police officers' arrest reports follow a different protocol from, say corporate investigators' case reports documenting employee misconduct, or healthcare counselors' incident reports describing accidents of service recipients. Do not reinvent the wheel; use the organizational incident report template.

Advocate for improvements. Just because your company template is standard throughout the organization does not mean it is etched in stone. If you see an opportunity for improvement, think it over. Once you are convinced you have a useful improvement, recommend it to management. Examples include something as small as allow more space on the form to describe the event, or more weighty items, such as separate contributing causes from the root cause or include a recommendation to management section. 

Maintain objectivity. Do not offer your opinion. If the accident was horrible, do not say so; just describe it precisely. Examples include a 5 mm-wide X 20 mm-long cut, not an awful gash; the operator walked away from the area, not the operator was grossly negligent; he gave contradictory statements and describe them, not he lied one way or another). Remember: this is a descriptive report, not an analytical one.

The Resourceful Reporter, Part 2: Meeting Reports

Descriptive reports are a good starting point for reviewing reports, because they are the foundation for the more complex and challenging analytical and persuasive reports. The first of nine descriptive reports for review is the meeting summary, also known as meeting minutes, so dreaded because junior associates are usually responsible for writing about what transpired at a meeting dominated by senior staff. How do they write about a difference of opinion between two executives on a critical project? How should they know what to include and what to delete in a report of a seemingly interminable meeting?

More than five years ago, I included a meeting review template on this blog. It basically includes these points:

• Opening – date, time, site, attendees, manager, and purpose of meeting
• Discussion – for each agenda item: issue discussed, action item, owner, timeline
• Closing – date, site, site, attendees, manager, and purpose of next meeting, invitation to amend meeting review

One more point: use active voice. Instead of writing It was agreed to suspend the program, write Casey and Hunter agreed to suspend the program; instead of Phase 3 of the project was presented, write Charlie presented Phase 3 of the project. After all, meeting reviews are about transparency, as are all reports. 

The Resourceful Reporter, Part 1: The Territory

This post begins a 25-part series on business and technical report writing. Whether for government or nongovernment organizations, nonprofit or for-profit businesses—in fact, for any work-related activity—reports fall into three general types: descriptive, analytical, and persuasive.

Descriptive Reports –  Answers questions like:

• What does it look/sound/smell/taste/feel like?
• How does it work?
• How is it done?
• What happened?
• What did you do about it?
• What is the current condition?

Analytical Reports – Besides answering questions of descriptive reports, it also answers questions like:

• How did you determine the cause and solution?
• Why did it happen?
• How can it be changed/perpetuated/terminated?
• What can we do to prevent/induce its recurrence?
• What resources will be necessary?

Persuasive Reports – Besides answering questions of descriptive and analytical reports, it also answers questions like:

• What are the available options?
• Which is the best option?
• Why is it the best option?
• What are the benefits of pursuing the recommendation?
• What can go wrong in pursuing the recommendation?
• How will we mitigate/prevent problems during implementation?

Some of these questions may overlap, and most reports demand answers to more than these questions, but they are a good start. Throughout the series, I'll be looking at several reports of each type to examine their unique issues. 

BOOK BRIEF: On Self-educating

The Well-Educated Mind: A Guide to the Classical Education You Never Had by Susan Wise Bauer. W. W. Norton, 2003. 432 pages. 

Of course, there are many ways to self-educate. And I am well aware of the widespread academic and political aversion to all things classical. Yet I cannot pick up the writing of Maya Angelou without seeing influences of Walt Whitman, or of James Baldwin without Henry James, or of Toni Morrison without William Faulkner, or of Cornel West without Plato, or of August Wilson without William Shakespeare. Incidentally, I believe that Angelou, Baldwin, Morrison, West, and Wilson too deserve a prominent and secure place in classic literature. Yet I hold this conviction about the value literary ancestry in the same way I remain convinced that rock and roll has its roots in jazz. Reading almost any book is a good thing, but the act itself evolves into a great thing when understanding the relevant works preceding it and the authors who inspired the writer. 

You would agree with this mindset if you read to your benefit Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Doren's classic How to Read a Book, which I reviewed on this blog nine years ago. As a refresher to this, well, classic, you might also want to read Susan Wise Bauer's The Well-Educated Mind. Bauer affirms Adler's premises about active reading as an indispensable means of self-education, and she extends his assertions by encouraging journaling about your reading experience to uncover authors' ideas and intentions and to document your own emotional and intellectual reactions to them. Her systematic approach to this practice is useful for other activities, such as studying for exams, researching for a book you wish to write, or mastering any intellectual discipline. 

Like Adler, she reserves chapters for studying different genres, including novels, memoir, history, drama, and poetry. After suggesting a practical and challenging reading technique—all worthwhile accomplishments come from diligence—Bauer uses the final three-fourths of the book covering classics through her own journaling experience. Scores of authors from Herodotus to Langston Hughes, and great works from the King James Bible to Seamus Heaney's Opened Ground: Selected Poems, 1966 - 1996, find their way into the discussion. 

In laying down a reading list for a lifetime, Bauer also offers a practical way to tackle the material: Don't worry about not understanding everything you're reading the first time; serious reading takes multiple passes through the narrative. Ask specific questions while reading, from a basic What does this writer want me to know or believe? to a deeper Have I experienced what the writer wants me to experience? Still more rewarding, share your observations and assessments with a reading partner. 

You'll get the tips you need to start on this worthwhile endeavor of self-education through the classics, which will make you a more critical reader of all topics that fit your fancy. And you'll thank Susan Wise Bauer for the roadmap.

BOOK BRIEF: The Psychology (and Philosophy) of Time Management

The New Science of Time Management: Why Emotional Awareness Matters Most for Control of Your Schedule by Robby Slaughter. Method Press 2019. 225 pages.

You have to be intrigued by a book on time management whose first sentence is "Let's face it: You can't really manage your time." In starting with such an assertion, Robby Slaughter sets a high bar for us to continue reading, as well as for himself to justify his approach to the topic, as he immediately makes clear this book is not the usual rose-colored how-to treatment of our most precious resource: time.   

Like me, you might have read a lot of books on time management, applied their principles, and when eventually reverting to your own habits and rituals, held fast to one, at most two, recommended techniques before they too fade in the turmoil of a pressure-packed period when your time management depended on others who have their own conflicting priorities. How can you manage your own time when running from one emergency to another fraught with unavoidable project-derailing delays, seemingly endless damage control, and distracting political consequences?  

Slaughter unflinchingly and candidly explains it all in The New Science of Time Management. He describes case studies to illustrate universal theories from philosophy, psychology, and business, which he blends into his practical structured suggestions for time mastery. While reading under his spell, you will find yourself saying, "Now I know why I can't tell how long that job will take" (Kappa Effect/Tau Effect), "What's true for here is not necessarily true for there" (Learned Helplessness), "Oh, how I love getting things done" (Mindfulness), "I knew it!" (Social Loafing), "No wonder that happens to me" (Zeigarnik Effect), "That's what happens to my team" (Bystander Effect), and much more. For the deep thinkers, the author provides source material to back up his claims and encourage independent research on the studies and precepts he cites.

If you want a theoretical basis to justify or to discover your time management practices, successes, failures, and lessons learned, read The New Science of Time Management. At once. In spurts. Repeat.