Welcome to Wednesday night live from New York!

Tonight, we will continue building upon our past discussions in a way that helps us consider more aspects of an audience, and to draft effective documents, including proposals as a specific communication.

As our weekly reminder, consideration of our audience can touch upon all aspects of tools necessary for our communications, and writing proposals also requires we communicate about all aspects of data analytics.

Here’s a reminder of the ways we’re practicing the concepts in this course. You’ve just turned in your individual homework three, and at the end of our discussion tonight, I’ll give you group assignments where you can begin to put those memos to use.

Tonight’s discussion should help you in both your individual homework four, in your group work writing a proposal, and hopefully in all your future communications.

A couple of weeks ago, we began considering various elements of writing a narrative, and you’ve started practicing applying those elements in your individual memos, which you’ve just turned in. I look forward to reading them.

This week, we’ll expand on the ideas in writing documents. We’ll consider how we can structure more complex documents for our audiences.

Speaking of audiences, here are ours.

Our audiences, if we recall, for our project include an analytics executive, a marketing executive, a general and mixed audience, and a chief executive. Who are these people? What do they do? How can we learn about them? Ideas?

Let’s research them! Googling, job search sites, LinkedIn, and online organization’s directories would all be great places to start searching.

Very generally, I’ve described an overall role for each. And each has overlap in their responsibilities. Each focuses on the goals of the organization. But they approach their responsibilities differently. An analytics executive, our first audience in the memo and proposal, uses data analytics to drive changes to reach their organization’s goals. So our communication goal for the proposal should help our audience do just that!

But even within an analytics executive, each is unique in their own way, and organizations differ drastically in their needs for analytics know-how. In the example profiles I’ve shown you earlier in this course, from CitiBike’s analytics executive, to the Dodgers, to the startup marketing agency, to one working for the City of New York: each of them had differing educational backgrounds and experiences, which should prompt you to adjust how you step into their shoes, how you establish common ground, and what specific vocabulary you choose to use.

As an active learner, each of you, by investigating those examples, should try to find generalizations, general principles, that are common to analytics executives, and use those along with your own specific research into your executive to help you communicate.

Google to try to learn who the analytics executive is as the company, learn about their background, their job responsibilities, and so forth. If the exact person cannot be identified, do the same for the most similar company to learn what kind of credentials that person would have.

Executives are also on the lookout for biases in communications.

Bias? You aren’t susceptible to any forms of bias when you try to persuade others are you?

There are many forms of bias, perhaps almost invisible, lurking below the surface of our communications that negatively influence decisions. If I were an executive you were communicating with, these are some of the things I would watch out for.

I would check for self-interested biases

Is there any reason to suspect the team making the recommendation of errors motivated by self-interest?

I would review the proposal with extra care, especially for over optimism.

I would check for the affect heuristic

Has the team fallen in love with its proposal?

I would rigorously apply all the quality controls on the checklist.

I would check for group think

Were there dissenting opinions within the team? Were they explored adequately?

I would solicit dissenting views, discreetly if necessary.

I would check for saliency bias

Could the diagnosis be overly influenced by an analogy to a memorable success?

I would ask for more analogies, and rigorously analyze their similarity to the current situation.

I would check for confirmation bias

Are credible alternatives included along with the recommendation?

I would request additional options.

I would check for availability bias

If you had to make this decision in a year’s time, what inform-ation would you want, and can you get more of it now?

I would use checklists of the data needed for each kind of decision.

I would check for anchoring bias

Where are the numbers from? Can there be … unsubstantiated numbers? … extrapolation from history? … a motivation to use a certain anchor?

I would re-anchor with data generated by other models or benchmarks, and request a new analysis.

I would check for halo effect

Is the team assuming that a person, organization, or approach that is successful in one area will be just as successful in another?

I would eliminate false inferences, and ask the team to seek additional comparable examples.

I would check for sunk-cost fallacy, endowment effect

Are the recommenders overly attached to past decisions?

I would consider the issue as if you are a new executive.

I would check for overconfidence, optimistic biases, competitor neglect

Is the base case overly optimistic?

I would have a team build a case taking an outside view: use war games.

I would check for disaster neglect

Is the worst case bad enough?

I would have the team conduct a premortem: imaging that the worst has happened, and develop a story about the causes.

I would check for loss aversion

Is the recommending team overly cautious?

I would align incentives to share responsibility for the risk or to remove risk.

The point is not the labels. The point is not in memorizing these specific biases. The point is to help you become broadly aware that there are many ways your communication can become biased.

Those are some of the ways I would be aware of and try to guard against if you were communicating with me. And you should do the same.

So we need to actively work at keeping bias out of communications. More generally, how can we do that?

Here are a few tips to get you started in being proactive to address potential biases.

[READ SLIDE TOGETHER]

Now that you have a solid understanding on who you are communicating with, and how to guard against biases, let’s discuss how we’ll think about structuring our communications, like our proposal, for our audience.

More specifically, with those audiences in mind, let’s consider more precisely how we can create effective written documents.

To start, let’s consider some characteristics of written documents compared with other forms of media and communication. Let’s do this with a poll.

[SCROLL DOWN AND ACTIVATE]

[ACTIVATE POLL AND DISCUSS]

[SCROLL BACK UP]

To do so, let’s first define effective. By effective we mean the written communication achieves its goals for which it was written. And here is our ever-present, general goal. What the messages are will, of course, depend on specifics of a particular communication, right?

Let’s start with planning. Answering these five questions will help you get started with your communications, and more specifically, with your proposals.

Why? Who? What? When? Where?

Sounds similar to some of the ideas around including context to provide meaning to numbers we discussed last week, doesn’t it?

Now that we’ve planned, I’d like to discuss structure, and more specifically, a way we can structure the beginning of our document, our communication, even if we don’t write it first. Ok?

I pulled an idea on structure from your reading in Doumont.

DISCUSS

A little later, we’ll use the idea to test one of our class examples.

Here is an example in that reading from Doumont. This communication preceded a report provided to the CEO and CFO of an organization to prepare them for a meeting.

I’ve labelled where each of the components we just discussed shows up in this writing.

Let’s go through it.

DISCUSS

Having a beginning of the whole document with this structure well prepares the reader for what’s ahead, and allows them to decide if, how, when, and what they will read or focus on.

Now this idea carries throughout a document, not just in the beginning. Effective documents have a fractal nature. In other words, we find a global message, followed by details on the document level, and that same structure within chapters, within sections, even within paragraphs.

Ok, we’ll use these ideas as tests. Let’s see if these ideas, and those we discussed the last couple of weeks, seem to be followed in one of our class examples: the draft proposal to the Dodgers.

We’ll step through it a bit, but I highly encourage you to critically review it in more depth on your own, think back to each of the general principles we’ve been discussing, try to identify those ideas carried out in this document or communication.

Test for yourself whether those concepts were applied. Whether they should have been applied. Whether they could have been better applied.

In the process, try to generalize how you can apply these ideas to your own work instead of directly mirroring language from the class examples.

Here’s the draft proposal. Take a moment to look it over again. By the way, is there a Scott Powers in this classroom? Ok, so remember, your name isn’t in the To: field.

Let’s start by reviewing its beginning.

Let’s check whether it applies Doumont’s ideas of using concentric layers of information, and whether we can improve it by following Doumont’s advice.

Does it begin with only necessary context?

Need. Does it motivate the audience by stating the difference between the desired and actual situations?

Does it explain what tasks have been done?

Object. Does it text covers without repeating the task?

Findings. Does it state the main results useful for a mixed audience?

Conclusions. Does it interpret findings, or provide the so what, with a recommendation?

Perspectives. Does it broaden the view with any further needs and tasks?

Now, let’s consider the whole document structure. What we just reviewed serves as the beginning of the document, where details follow, right?

Now, Doumont explained that we can use a similar concept, not just for the whole document, but within the details of a document, too. Let’s see if and how this example makes use of such a fractal nature.

Looking more closely in sections of the details. Do we find similar structure?

Does each section have some type of global message with an indication of the details to come?

The draft proposal I gave you to review is organized as a multi-level narrative. This term should remind you of some ideas we considered from Giorgia Lupi, the information designer.

Here, the title itself is meant to identify the scope and purpose of the communication on a high level.

Then, the headings are meant to convey the point on their own level, separate from the body. So if someone were skimming just the headers and not reading the body, they’d get a sense for the argument presented. Each time we we move within structure, the detail increases.

Again, by multiple levels, I mean that your audience, reading at any given level, should be able to understand why they are reading and what you are asking of them.

Finally, each of the body paragraphs are written to support those sub-headers.

So in your review, consider whether each of these levels meaningfully present the purpose of the narrative with increasing detail?

Second, in the body, remember the idea of closing the communication as William Zinser discussed. Does the ending echo or reflect the beginning?

One of the constraints of your group’s proposal is to keep the title, headers, and main body under 750 words.

So I wrote this draft to be exactly 750 words in its title, headers, and body. That way you can get a sense of what that constraint looks like.

This example, as you can see in the reading statistics, so keeps its messages within that constraint.

Maximize use of those words for messages, within your constraint!

Consider how your information is organized within the document. The example proposal used a grid structure that placed primary content in one column, and secondary information aligned with that main content in a second, adjacent column.

Whatever layout you might build with a grid, keep in mind the advice from Brockman:

[READ]

Along with grid systems, which we’ll come back to again when thinking about interactive communications, we have other tools, too.

Consider whether this draft document follows best practices in typography and design for organization. Think back to our discussions from on design and from your readings in Butterick. And take the time to review his advice in his textbook I’ve given you a reference to.

Consider whether the draft proposal applies what we discussed, applying the principle of proximity by integrating text and graphics. Does it place data displays directly into the text?

Does it optimally annotate the data displays?

Did we apply the principles of similarity, using channels like color — hue — to link narrative to data?

Review the details of how it tries to accomplish these principles.

Remember our goals in communication? Does this draft proposal,

get its audience to pay attention to, understand, and be able to act upon a maximum of messages, given constraints.

How does it do each of these things? How does it get the audience to pay attention? To understand? To be able to act upon what? What are the messages. What information supports those messages?

If it does not accomplish all these things optimally, perhaps we should revise.

Revision, or re-writing, is extremely important.

Let me point out a couple of ideas for your re-writing. First, actually read out loud your proposal. Reading out loud will help you identify language that does not flow well or is even, perhaps, nonsensical. Listen to how this sentence in the upper left sounds:

When we read prose, we hear it … it’s variable sound. It’s sound with — pauses. With emphasis. With, well, you know, a certain rhythm.

Second, and this is so important, step into your audience’s shoes, write the entire communication from the perspective they will want the information. Establish common ground. Your audience is More likely to be persuaded to decide something favorable to you, like approving your project, if you do this. Omit any needless background that wastes your audience’s time.

Now let’s review another example.

This next example is from a past individual student submission.

At that time, the proposal assignment was, unlike now, an individual assignment, not a group project.

So let’s keep that in mind as we try to learn from her homework. As with the last example, try to identify each of the general principles we’ve been discussing. I think you’ll find that she trie to apply many of the concepts we’ve been discussing.

Here’s her **memo.

Try to see how she applied our various teachings to create the memo. Then, we’ll see how she expanded upon it in a proposal.

Notice that she explicitly identifies her audience, Martha Norrick, Acting Chief Data Analytics Officer in the City of New York.

Secondly, our student author, Joy, adds a title that explains to her audience, Martha, why she should read and what is expected of her. It includes the purpose and on a high level explains what Martha should do to meet that goal.

Then, in the first two sentences, she creates interest by showing an unexpected difference or a gap in knowledge: quieter streets, but more car crashes.

Then, she brings in past research that is analogous, traffic fatalities and risky behaviors in other cities, and offers to extend that research to NYC. Notice that she does not use the research just for background. Instead, it is introduced specifically to extend to her own proposal for the project in NYC.

She identifies a specific data set “NYPC collision reports” and a specific available source “NYC OpenData”. She identifies specific variables she will include in the analysis: counts of collisions, injuries, fatalities, location, and time. The proposed research will visually explore trends in associations over time and location.

Finally, she closes the communication loop with information in the end that reflects or echos the beginning in her call to action. She ties them together using the “Vision Zero goal”. How does she link her thoughts? Old before new. For example, her first sentence refers to “eerie quiet”. Second sentence begins by referring back “empty streets.”

Ok, so that’s her memo. How did she extend the ideas in her proposal? Let’s now look.

Now Joy wrote this proposal herself; she did not have the benefit of a team or group, unlike you.

Now our communication goal for this proposal is to get the chief analytics officer to make a decision, to approve of your analytics project. Where does she establish her purpose?

[DISCUSS]

Right in the title, right?

“Proposal to analyze driving behaviors contributing to fatal vehicle collisions during Covid-19”.

That title says that Joy thinks something should be done, and it’s a message, not just information. Further, it identifies the overall point of the communication precisely.

If Martha only read the headings here, would she better understand the argument? Let’s try this and see.

First header:

“There is little research on NYC traffic fatalities during Covid-19.” So a gap in knowledge.

Second header:

“Knowing the state of traffic safety can inform awareness and action.”

So it refers back, old before new. And it provides motivation; closing that knowledge gap does something; help with public awareness and action.

Third header:

“For value, compare an investment to data scientists salaries.”

What might Martha have to do to approve this project?

PAUSE. Perhaps justify the costs. This provides some idea on how it can be justified.

Forth header.

Joy uses this section to help Martha with another of her job responsibilities: provides a way to assess whether the project is a success; a way to measure the results.

If Joy had just used generic headers, Martha would not be able to skim them to learn anything specific about this specific proposal.

Back to the detailed paragraphs. Does Joy begin by establishing common ground with Martha?

DISCUSS

Notice the first sentence, actually the first word. “We have” or “We’ve”. That word itself suggests Joy and Martha have something in common, and that something comes right after.

We see that Joy has included a graphic.

Did she use best practices in maximizing the data ink? Did she treat the graphic as a paragraph about data, and place it or located it next to where it was being discussed? Did Joy use techniques we’ve discussed for linking the text with the data?

Did Joy provide proper citation for information she used to support her argument?

Did Joy tie the ending back to the lead, the beginning?

The answer to all these is yes. You should think through this in more detail on your own.

Your job in reviewing this example is, as an active learner, to pull out general principles from this example. See how the same general principles can be applied over multiple examples. That way you do not end up copying or mimicking sentences from examples, but instead, apply the general principles to your own communications.

Now two things to keep in mind. Joy did not have exactly the same home work instructions that you have. For example, your proposal is looking for you to include more graphics than this. To include a table, and so forth. Those were not her instructions.

Second, is Joy’s proposal perfect? No communication is perfect.

But she did a lot of things right, and we should learn from her generosity in sharing with you.

Indeed, she did not have to agree to share her work, and I would encourage you to thank her for sharing.

Now, I’d like to contrast our audiences and purposes with more general academic writing, especially for the purpose of obtaining money from granting agencies.

Understanding the differences, I think, will help to

  1. reinforce what we’ve been discussing and
  2. help us better understand the full scope of information generally used to explain a data analytics project, just using a different structure for a different purpose.

On the left, I”m showing you a generic outline of the topics that such a proposal may cover for those agencies. Let’s briefly go through these.

The title, and, this becomes important later, when working communications like memos or proposals. A title should accurately represent the content and scope of your document, in this case a proposal to a funding agency. So the title is important. Be specific. Write the title as a message, not just information. To refresh your memory on the differences, review the assigned chapter in the textbook by Doumont.

Along with the title, funding agencies generally expect an abstract.

The abstract frames the goals and scope of the project. It gives a sense of what methods would be used, and offers some expected results.

Funding agencies also look for, of course, a project description.

The project description discusses the significance of the proposed project. That goes back to the question we’ve already thought about: what impact would the project have for whomever it is intended?

Funding agencies also look for a literature review.

So the proposal normally includes some form of a literature review. Here’s another area that is commonly misunderstood. This is not intended to be a catalogue of whatever your research uncovers.

Instead it provides, and this is important, it provides the context to show what your work is extending or what gap in knowledge your project intends to fill.

Preliminary data, meaning relevant data found before the project occurs, also helps.

So to the extent you can find preliminary data from your research, describe it in the context of how it helps to guide your proposal.

Again, this is what funding agencies expect.

Then there’s the main event, the research plan. The plan identifies data, details of implementation, analyses, and expected inferences of the study. The goal in describing the plan is to convince our audience that the goals can be accomplished within our constraints.

And that plan commonly goes into details about the objectives, aims, and methods.

Finally, and as I’ve already mentioned, the plan commonly includes how the data will be analyzed and what kind of results we might expect. I’ll let you go back and review the details of these descriptions instead of reading them to you.

Ok, so I think this helps us think about the categories of information we may need to conduct an analytics project, and if we were communicating to a funding agency, we might have a starting structure for our communication.

But our project in this course, as I’ve mentioned, is not intended for a funding agency. Let me say that again. Our project in this course, and our communications, are not intended for a funding agency. What are some important ways that a funding agency differs from our audiences? PAUSE. In one very important way, a funding agency’s goals are typically to advance science and inform its public. It’s goals are rarely to directly use or apply the proposed work for its own decision making. In stark contrast with these agencies, our communications with our audiences are specifically to assist our audiences in their decision making directly. It is to inform those decisions that directly affect the organization.

So do not blindly follow the outline structure we just discussed when writing for our audiences. While we will include many of the components that we just discussed in our own communications, the specific structure of agency communications do not apply to our audiences.

We will need to restructure our communications and be selective in what, and how, we communicate with our audiences.

So who are our audiences, again?

Ok, let’s switch topics for a moment. I’d like to help give you some context I hope you’ll find helpful for starting on your individual assignment, which is designed to individually give you more advanced practice using graphics to both explore and explain.

By the way, why are these individual? And what are the implications?

In your first two individual assignments, we’ve focused on our class case study with Citi Bike. We’ll Twitter has been blowing up over the years on the issue of rebalancing. Let’s take a look.

Instead of reviewing information at the overall system level, I want us to take a look at a particular station. See if we can gain insight into rebalancing, and then consider whether we can generalize what we learn in next steps.

So I hopped onto social media, searched twitter. Let’s see what I found…

Whoa! All kinds of complaints! This is overwhelming! Should we take a trip down to the station? Maybe the trip would help us gain some context into rebalancing issues and possible solutions.

Pack your bags!

Well, wait a minute. That would maybe be fun. But there probably are not enough bikes for us all to hop on to get there.

So let’s virtually go.

To do that, I’ve hired a very, very low budget production company — that’s me — to give you a not so Hollywood tour. So let’s go there, and go back in time.

Let’s roll this video short.

play the video.

I hope this video short will help you think about rebalancing as you individually work through homework four.

Now, I want to use the rest of class to introduce you to your groups, your teams!

Show them the group assignments

Let’s gather into your groups. Now, I suggest you don’t start by discussing your memos and which you want to extend. Instead, say hello! Get to know each other. Make a plan for how you would like to work together. Become a team!

As always, I like to end by giving you resources to learn more about these ideas when you are ready.

Here are the major resources I recommend for your reference related to our discussions tonight. That’s all for tonight. Thank you!