Chapter 5 — Engineering communication

Lesson map

Lesson 05 published. Map, example, EX013.

flowchart TD
  N0["Learning outcomes"]
  N1["5.1 Three audiences"]
  N2["5.2 Stating uncertainty"]
  N3["5.3 Memo structure"]
  N4["Synthesis"]
  N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4
  N4 --> EX["Worked example"]
  EX --> Q["Exercise EX013"]

Logical drawing

flowchart LR
  N0["Learning outcomes"]
  N1["5.1 Three audiences"]
  N2["5.2 Stating uncertainty"]
  N3["5.3 Memo structure"]
  N4["Synthesis"]
  N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> Q["EX013"]

[Learning outcomes]
    |
    v
[5.1 Three audiences]
    |
    v
[5.2 Stating uncertainty]
    |
    v
[5.3 Memo structure]
    |
    v
[Synthesis]
    |
    v
[Worked example] --> [Exercise EX013]

Learning outcomes

You will (1) write for boards, auditors and engineers; (2) present risk with uncertainty; (3) structure a short governance memo.

5.1 Three audiences

Nadia learns that governance messages reach three audiences with different needs. Boards need decisions, options and consequences in plain language. Auditors need precise statements linked to evidence. Engineers need specific actions and deadlines. A single document rarely serves all three, so she practises writing a one-page board summary, an evidence table for auditors and a task list for engineers from the same analysis. Each version is accurate, but each emphasises different details for its readers. She checks that the three versions never contradict one another.

5.2 Stating uncertainty

Her first board summary says that ransomware will cost Ardwell ninety thousand a year. Prof. Brenner asks how she knows. She revises it to say that, under stated assumptions, expected annual loss is about ninety thousand, with a wide range because the frequency estimate is uncertain. He explains that boards make better decisions when they see uncertainty honestly, and that false precision erodes trust when reality differs. Hubbard and Seiersen (2016) make this argument at length for cybersecurity risk. She keeps the range in every later version.

5.3 Memo structure

Nadia adopts a memo structure for governance decisions: the decision needed, the recommendation, the options considered, the risk and cost of each, the assumptions and the evidence. She keeps it to two pages, moving detail to appendices. She also adds a line stating who was consulted, because governance decisions affect many teams. Her lecturer notes that clear memos create a record of why a decision was made, which later supports audits and helps successors understand past choices. She files each memo with its evidence.

Worked example

Nadia writes one analysis for three audiences, states uncertainty around expected loss and uses a decision memo structure.

Synthetic case. Figures are synthetic; Hubbard and Seiersen (2016) is real.

Errors and limits

Plain language can lose nuance. Long appendices go unread.

Exercises

• EX013 — Board needs. What do boards need from governance messages?
  Show marking criteria

  Rubric: 3 = decisions, options and consequences in plain language;; 2 = decisions;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
• EX014 — Revised claim. How did Nadia revise her ransomware statement?
  Show marking criteria

  Rubric: 3 = expected loss under stated assumptions with a wide range;; 2 = uncertainty;; 1 = certainty;; 0 = none.
• EX015 — Consulted line. Why add who was consulted to a memo?
  Show marking criteria

  Rubric: 3 = governance decisions affect many teams;; 2 = record;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.

Synthesis

Clear, audience-specific writing with honest uncertainty makes governance decisions sound and traceable.

Continue studying — chapter 05 of 50

← Chapter 04 (draft) · Course chapter index · Chapter 06 (draft) →