I bet that got your attention. This is the first line from a well-known story that illustrates the difference between pyramid reporting, and inverted pyramid reporting. Pyramid reporting, also known as academic style reporting, is characterized by starting with a problem statement, elaborating on the background, discussing influencing factors and finally stating the conclusions. When the academic approach is used to give project status reports, people who are still awake for the punch line are silently praying, “Please! Kill me now!”
Contrast this with the inverted pyramid reporting style. In this formulation, the report which begins with the conclusion, followed by the most important facts and, finally, the details. A more engineering-oriented description of these steps, quoted from the article, would be;
1. Punch line: The facts; no adjectives, adverbs or modifiers. “Milestone 4 wasn’t hit on time, and we didn’t start Task 8 as planned.” Or, “Received charter approval as planned.”
2. Current status: How the punch-line statement affects the project. “Because of the missed milestone, the critical path has been delayed five days.”
3. Next steps: The solution, if any. “I will be able to make up three days during the next two weeks but will still be behind by two days.”
4. Explanation: The reason behind the punch line. “Two of the five days’ delay is due to late discovery of a hardware interface problem, and the remaining three days’ delay is due to being called to help the customer support staff for a production problem.”
We have all sat through reports that start with all the reasons why something did or didn’t happen. I think we should focus on the inverted style of reporting. It’s more efficient and keeps us sane, even if we have to kill the bull.
