Writing in Engineering 3

Let's see an example of what you are saying.

I think that it's a fascinating dichotomy in modern engineering. Classical engineering is about phenomenology and mathematical representations that do not lend themselves to emotionally loaded verse.

Writing is a tool. As such, you apply the tool as required for the intended application or audience as the case may be. Much of modern engineering writing is applied to persuasion. Persuasion requires argument, which requires action and emotion.

Therefore, you should at least tailor your writing for the intended application and audience. A preliminary design review requires you to convince the audience that you have understood the requirements and that you have a demonstrated a design that meets the requirements with adequate margin.

On the other hand, it's not clear there is really a place for passive writing. The act of writing implies that you have something to say and you probably need to convince the reader that what you are writing is worth reading and that your proposition is correct and proven. TTFN

a3a...this is a good one!

IRstuff gave some excellent insight and comments on writing for your audience. One of the reasons we (particularly consulting engineers who produce more narrative "reports" than other engineers)have gotten into the poor habit of "writing in the passive voice" is litigation.

The passive sense allows "wiggle room", whereas the active sense is more definitive, thus more liability prone. As an example, the following statements could be thought to mean the same thing, but stated differently, allowing them to be interpreted differently.....

"There is clean sand fill over the entire building site".

"It appears that clean sand fill was placed on the site".

A lawyer would use the first statement to destroy your credibility if another engineer disagreed with the statement and could reasonably show an area where the full truth of the statement might be doubtful.

The second statement says to one interpreting it that there are credible indications, based on reasonable exploratory means, that fill was used on the site.

The first statement hangs you out all alone with respect to a "Standard of Care". The second statement would be typical of a statement meeting a local "Standard of Care".

The difference between them is the difference between negligent and non-negligent practice (a biggie!). If statement 1 is found to be wrong (even a little bit!), then the engineer has likely exposed himself to greater liability than he intended. Statement 2 could be off target by quite a margin, but the associated caveats of practice would probably cover the engineer's liability, even if the engineer suffered a bit of professional embarassment.

In short, the practice has reached a point of litigious paranoia whereby if you definitively state something, you had better be completely right or you'll get reamed!

I would argue, that if you stamp the report (written actively or passively) then you are fair game. Even if you are eventually acquitted of any wrongs, you may still get dragged into court, incur the expense of time and lost business and possibly be at odds with your former client. It can be a lose - lose situation. That said, I still love my job and don't lose much sleep at night.

As you might notice in past threads, I use the passive sentence structure quite a bit. Why?? I learned from the "old school" types of geotechnical engineers. Is it wrong to use it. NO, in my opinion. Previous comments are correct in that active voice is, perhaps, more clear and concise. Still, I actually hate reading reports that consist of one sentence after another all in active voice and all about 20 words long. It is BORING. Sorry, that is my opinion. I have read many reports over the years and none match the eloquence of my old mentor, MAJ Matich (Canadian geotechnical engnineer). His reports are beautifully structured. One thing is that he doesn't leave the reader with a chance to misinterpret. He does not allude to an earlier paragraph - if there is ANY chance that the reader might be mislead. These are things to keep in mind when structuring your report.

In the final end - it is my opinion, in general (based on my Canadian experience) that geotechnical consultants are some of the best writers out there in the engineering profession.

Ron said:

"...In short, the practice has reached a point of litigious paranoia whereby if you definitively state something, you had better be completely right or you'll get reamed!..."

Notice I added quotes and elipses. Truer words were never spoken - oops, passive voice.

There's nothing wrong with using the passive voice. Is it possible to write a "materials and methods" section of a report without it?

Bottom line: write well enough and coherently.

Never say "I saw this" or "I saw that" you didn't see anything, you "visually observed" something.

. . . and you never "recommend" - you "suggest" or "anticipate that . . ."

Hi there!

Being a naive graduate engineer, my report writing is pretty much the "don't"s suggested by Ron, DaveViking and BigH. Is there by chance a book out there that might improve (and "save&quot me from getting myself into statutory problems?

Cheers,
Luk

I have found that in addition to the passive/active voice you also need to consider what may be implied by what has not been said that may need to have been said. For example a client recently took a damage report that I wrote on a specific box culvert and by verbal implication, implied that I had inspected many culverts by the same manufacturer and that they to were faulty as well.

What I should have stated in the report was that other inspections were for the reason of comparison only and not for comment on workmanship of the other culverts. I now have the manufacturer chasing me for a retraction of what I did not explicitly state. Despite the report being identified by title and context as relating to one site only. Apparently (according to my solicitor) I should have placed a sentence in that clearly identified that the report was for the one site only, I should not have stated that I have made comparisons between different sites.

I have learnt from this, but I still tend to believe strongly in the intent of the report and what is actually said, not what can be implied.

Gone are the days of good faith and belief in the persons intent.

regards

sc

The road to hell is paved with good intentions! A well written report should be specific, with enough detail that the reader can picture the contents of the report. That is tough to do and is why a well constructed engineering report has graphs, pictures, charts and other visual aids, in addition to the verbage. A picture is worth....

For the most part, an engineering report is not literature, it is meant to convey information. Correct English is nice, but in the end the main objective is to be understood.

Luk,

Several years ago I purchased a book called something like "successful letter writing for engineers and scientists." I read the book once and began writing letters using the style suggested (notice I used "suggested"!) by this book - lo and behold, I'm taken seriously. Henh! In the years that have passed, I've added/subtracted and come up with a style that's recognizable as "mine."

First of all, I try very hard at keeping a letter to a single page. This is for several reasons: a) historically, my bosses have told me "if it's more than a page, it's too much" - yeah, the "too many notes" syndrome, but they're the boss... b) anticipating (a) I know my audience. c) Additional pages are diagrams, sketches, etc. that are referred-to in the memo - if the boss compains about that I mention that I could've written a twenty-page monograph instead of a one-page memo and a five pages of PowerPoint sketches... They seem to like the latter.

Also, I'm not afraid to indicate (never "say" always "indicate" or "mention" or "explain" or "reply&quot my refusal to offer a "suggestion" regarding something when information is lacking.

I agree with the comments offered by Big H. This problem has been with the engineering profession for a long time. I remember very well that I was taught report writing by a true language prof who grilled us in the use of the English Language. It seems that we would all fail if we were marked in relation to correct grammar usage etc. Now with the word processors we are tempted to check our grammar and of course they tend not to like those pasive sentences. Indeed sometimes if you wewre to re-read your report a few days after you would have wanted to change many things. But this is the case almost always despite the field we are in.

I think that once we are clear and the message is clear that should govern. I note as well that we are today not as picky as years ago about the correctness of the English Language. One thing that may be more of a concern is poor spelling and perhaps tense of verbs. However, we all are subject to making such errors as at times we cannot always write smoothly. The thing to do is to set it aside and write it another day.

It is very true that one should not allow the wrong message to get across to a reader. However, I note that technical specifications are documents that seem to have many interpretations but no one seems to worry about those too much. Of course some of these have been handed down and are viewed as correct inspite of interpretation problems.

If it is anywhere I would like to start is to ensure that we do not have specifications written in lawyers language. Terms of references also fall into the same category as these are often subject to many interpretations. The Client is often always able to show that you did not do all that was required or that investigate means to design or that his comments were just comments and not intended to be interpreted as anything else etc etc.

Nice thread and good discussion.

Even though I strive to be comprehensive and precise when I write, I generally have a someone else review my work before it goes out the door. Very often, another set of eyes will catch things that I might have overlooked or did not consider to be important. Preferably, this person is not my secretary, but my supervisor or another engineer at a similar level of experience to myself. Many firms require this as standard practice.

I agree with the comments about how important writing is to an engineer - both legally and to keep up professional appearances.

A previous colleague (much older and more experienced than I) had excellent writing skills, but a few "bad habits" when it came to communicating verbally. I would cringe every time I heard "ALLS I know is..."



Personally, I know there are areas in which I could improve, but I am very grateful to my high school english teacher for being so strict about the basics. (I went to a catholic school, and I learned the most from the two strictest nuns - math and english!) At a recent job interview, the employer asked for writing samples because he has seen too many engineers who can't write properly.

Again - great topic! (As I sit here nervously re-reading my post - I would hate to make a mistake in THIS thread!!)

Hi DaveViking,
Thanks for the advice.
Cheers, Luk

SC - the American Soils Foundation Engineers Assn (ASFE???) has some pretty good information for its geotechnical consultants on disclaimers, etc. I know that our company had a "Terms and Conditions" page added to the reports; others I know add this as a closing paragraph in their reports - something along the line that 'this report is specific to . . . no use of this report outside the specific intended use . . . if ground conditions are found to differ, the engineer is to be contacted immediately so that he may amend his recommendations . . . ' Sorry I don't have with me more exact wordings - but apparently these help keep us out of trouble. But, in the end, we need to ensure our message is understood by the client without ambiguity and within the scope of the report's intent.

Thanks BigH,

sc

spell check for ms word will flag passive snetences, but for definitve legal cantract dialog the passive structure may be more binding.

Hmmm,

I missed this thread, and didn't find it until this morning! (active voice) Written communications have many different purposes, and readers have varying expectations. (passive voice) I try to avoid the use of absolute terms in my engineering reports, such as 'always', 'never' and the like. (active voice with "loss prevention" {"weasel words"} cap on ['try to' rather than 'always'])

I prefer the active voice in engineering reports because I believe it results in clearer communications. (active voice) I do not believe that the use of the passive voice reduces one's risk of being sued; in fact, it can increase the risk if the reader doesn't understand the information that has been conveyed. (active; passive)

I let the lawyers write most of my contracts since I don't practice law... (active voice with trailing dots...)




Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.