Consulting Journal: Writing - Taking out appendices

Writing: Taking out appendices

by David Blakey

Consultants' reports can sometimes have more pages in the appendices than in the main text. Here's how to avoid this.

[Monday 9 July 2001]

I often read other consultants' reports. I get two opportunities for this. The first is when I am reviewing a client's strategy, so that I see reports written for the board or for senior management, which have either reported progress or suggested change. My second opportunity for reading other consultants' reports is when I am working on an acquisition - either a corporate acquisition involving due diligence or a systems acquisition involving competitive proposals.

I am often surprised by the volume of appendices attached to some consultants' reports, especially when these appendices are larger than the main body of the reports. This can actually be annoying, especially on competitive proposals. Let's look at an example.

Imagine that you are one of the people employed by the customer to review proposals from a number of bidders. In order to differentiate the proposals, you have asked a series of questions. One question might be: "Describe, with proof, your financial status." It is reasonable that a company responding to this question would include a copy of its latest annual report, and that this report would be attached as an appendix containing either the printed report or a CD. It is not, however, reasonable that the response to the question would be the words: "See Appendix F." The bidder should answer the question and then refer to the appendix as proof. It is not the job of the proposal reviewer to hunt for the answers to questions in a bidder's response.

The appendix should be used to provide proof, as in this example. It should not contain the full body of the response. Consider the following question: "Describe any methodologies that you intend to use." It is not sufficient for the bidder to respond to this with: "See Appendix M." and then to reproduce details of its methodology in that appendix. If the methodology is described in a separate publication - on either paper or CD - then it may be useful to include it as an appendix, as we have just discussed. But, if the proposal is a Word document and the methodology description is a Word document, it is inacceptable to just slot one Word document into another as an appendix. The response to the question should be "in-line", in the main text. Again, it is not the job of the proposal reviewer to have to hunt for answers to the questions.

Footnotes can be another problem. If we continue with the example of the methodology, the bidder may provide a description of its methodology in the main body, and it may also wish to include a publication that supports its case. Provided that the appendix is not essential to the response, it is acceptable to include a footnote, as in

Our proposed methodology is blah blah blah. ¹²

where the footnote says

¹² Additional detail is provided in Appendix M.

Returning to the question about financial status, where the bidder was asked to: "Describe, with proof, your financial status.", it is not acceptable to include the description in the main body and then to refer to an appendix containing the proof in a footnote. In this case, the proof is essential to the response and must therefore be referred to in the main text. So,

Our financial status is blah blah blah. ²³

where the footnote says

²³ Proof is provided in Appendix F.

should not be used. Instead, you should write

Our financial status is blah blah blah. Proof is provided in Appendix F.

Use footnotes only where the appendix supports your argument, without being essential to it.

I am convinced that some bids fail because the bidders do not follow these simple rules. I know that reviewers become frustrated by proposals that are difficult for them to navigate, and that this can lead to a negative subjective view of the bidder. However objective the review procedure is intended to be, focusing solely on the responses, it is not good to induce a negative feeling in the proposal reviewer.

These same rules should be applied any consultant's report.

My tips

So, here are my tips.

Keep the important content in the main body
Avoid including anything in the same medium as an appendix. This applies also to Excel sheets or charts in a Word document.
Use footnotes only to refer to non-essential appendices
Keep the main text running smoothly and make sure that it includes references to all essential material in appendices.
Put appendices in order
The appendices do not have to be in the order in which they are referred to in the main text. If essential financial information is in appendix S and non-essential sales brochures are in appendix A, the reader can get an incorrect impression of their relative importance.
Never use footnotes to make "asides"
If you want to add a comment such as "This was discussed in section 3, above.", then do it in the main text.

You may not win more bids by doing these things - because whether you win depends on the quality of your content - but you may lose less bids - because whether you lose can depend on the quality of your presentation.

[ List articles on Writing ] [ View printable version ]