Here is a grouping of five complaints about the information coming from an information system, with similarity in the actions in each sentence:

1. Productivity figures for accounting, estimating, and surveying should be updated

2. Regular personnel turnover figures are now necessary for all types of employee

3. Competition information from tenders should be gathered so that the strength of competition in different markets can be monitored

4. The present information about market rates for salaries is not adequate

5. Division and project capital lockup figures are needed

It says the information:

1. Should be updated

2. Is now necessary

3. Should be gathered

4. Is not adequate

5. Is needed

You can see that the points clearly fall into two distinct groups:

-Those complaining that the information does not exist (2, 3, 5).

-Those complaining that the information exists but is not adequate (1, 4).

But these two points present us with another classification. Why these two sets of problems and no others? What is the same about them that made the author instantly recognize them as problems that should be grouped together? Possibly because these defects indicate a uselessness for planning purposes. In that case, the point the author would state at the top would be:

The planning system as presently set up produces information that is useless for planning purposes (Why?)

Either the information needed doesn't exist

Or it exists but it's not adequate

Now, seeing the point you want to make at the top, you can apply the concept of order to the points below to determine whether there are any other defects with the information system he might have overlooked mentioning. A logical next point for the author to check into might be whether "It exists and it's adequate, but it's not presented properly."

The major value of making a proper summary statement is that it helps you to find out what you really think. It also tells the reader in advance what he is meant to think about the ideas, and thus prepares his mind to receive them more easily, with greater confidence in their validity. And of course if you have been collectively exhaustive, the reader is unlikely to take issue with your reasoning. Above all, proper summary statements make the document less boring to read.

This is boring:

As you know, some of the results of our Information System (IS) Assessment indicated:

1. You require committed due dates from IS project managers so strategic business initiatives can proceed without delays

2. Inexperience is present at the project manager position

3. The IS culture allows target dates to be ''slipped" rather than implementing creative alternatives to achieving the target dates

4. Inconsistent use of the Systems Development methodology, tools, and techniques is present

5. Project managers have not installed "mission critical" systems of this size or complexity

6. Project managers have limited, if any classroom or on-the-job project management training or practical experience

7. Estimates, timeframes and schedules for your "mission critical" projects (e.g., Group and Individual) are at a high level--the ability to achieve the timeframes appears risky and suspect

8. The current system development life cycle methodology does not support techniques for client/server development such as Rapid Application Development, Joint Application Development, and Prototyping

But now you know the process, it is easy to isolate the essential structural elements .

1. Need due dates

2. Inexperienced project managers

3. Danger of slipping dates

4. Inconsistent use of tools

5. Never done something this big

6. Limited experience

7. Afraid of slipping dates

8. Don't have tools to do the work

. . . and turn them into a clear statement of ideas that is interesting, whether you understand the subject or not.

Our assessment of your Corporate Information Systems Division indicated some risk that your Project Managers may not be able to achieve the target dates (3, 7)

- They have limited experience in doing this kind of work (2, 6)

- They have never before installed systems of this size or complexity (5)

- They Lack skill in applying the methodology, tools, and techniques required to do the job (4, 8)

In these examples it has been easy to establish the point that the grouped ideas must be trying to make. Sometimes, however, the implication inherent in the similarities is harder to see, so that putting the insight into words requires making what's called an inductive leap. The springboard for that leap is likely to be a visualization of the source of the relationship reflected in the grouping.