Here is a list of the major points of a presentation given by a consultant to a client who wanted to know whether he should enter the automotive aftermarket (spark plugs, tires, etc.)

Our Conclusions

I. Market is large and growing at an attractive rate

2. Aftermarket is profitable

3. Key market characteristics indicate high barriers to entry

4. Overall trends are favorable, but uncertainties obscure some market segments' outlooks

5. Overall, the market appears attractive, but is highly fragmented.

Again the ideas fall into two groupings:

- Positive points: large, growing, attractive, profitable, favorable trends, attractive (1, 2, 4, 5)

- Negative points: high barriers to entry, uncertainties, fragmented (3, 4, 5)

We can summarize the positive points immediately. Clearly, if the market is large, growing, and profitable, it is attractive. And favorable trends also means it's attractive. Visualize the attractive market as a circle.

The negative points don't group so easily. Fragmented means that the circle must have some segments in it, but uncertainties obscure some of the segments' outlooks. This means some of the segments must look different from the others, as shown below. Finally, there are barriers to entry, which can be shown with a line stopping entry.

Now it is time to see if the two points relate inductively. What conclusions can we draw front this visualization?

-  Only some parts of the market are attractive

- These are going to be difficult to get into

Do these two points have an inductive relationship? Is there anything the same about being attractive and hard to get into? No. So if they relate it can only be deductively:

Therefore what? The reasoning was never carried to its conclusion. Therefore forget it? Therefore you will have to buy your way in? Therefore hire us to work out a careful strategy? This example illustrates again the danger of settling for an intellectually blank assertion rather than pushing your thinking to its completion.

Sometimes you will be presented with groupings that look like situation ideas, but are really action ideas in disguise. Begin by treating them as if they were classed together because of their similarity; and then switch the form if you can visualize the effect that together they would achieve. For example, suppose you read:

There are four variables to be managed in the resource allocation process:

- Sequence and timing of activities

- Definition of specific people's tasks

- Definition of information needs (content and form)

- Decision making process

Why these four variables and no others? What is the same about them that made hint group them together? If you try to state them more specifically, so as to find an order, you will see that the author is really talking about four steps, and probably meant to say something like this:

The major management task in the resource allocation process is to ensure early and substantial participation of the proper people (How?)

- Spell out the sequence and timing of project planning activities (1)

- Specify where decisions are needed (2)

- Identify who will participate in making them (4)

- Define the information they need to do so (3)

This is not to say that situation ideas cannot be in time order. Here, for example, is a list of points that are statements about a company's sales proposals, which can be sorted into a time-ordered grouping:

Our sales proposals can demonstrate a new image to our customers through improvements in the following areas:

1. More effective Opportunity Analysis to insure that we maximize the utilization of resources

2. Coordination of all proposals, including the establishment of a single quality process for proposal development, standards for content and packaging, and a system for continuous quality improvement

3. Maximize the reuse of proposal information

4. Share the knowledge and experience of those involved in the proposal process both within the company and the industry whole

5. Become more cost-effective in proposal preparation

6. Further reduce response time

7. Focus the proposal process on customer needs as a sales tool (not a mechanism for transfer of technical information)

If we follow our standard process (look for similarities, draw inferences) we get three ideas, justified by the order in which each activity happens.

Our proposals are not effective as a sales tool:

1. We don't present a compelling message (l, 4, 7)

2. We don't make it look outstanding (2)

3 We take too long in the process (3, 5, 6)

Before you start objecting to the difficulty of forcing your thinking upward every time, let me admit that you are not going to be enforcing this discipline absolutely rigidly throughout all your writing-not because it's not a useful thing to do, but because you don't always need that degree of precision, given a reader's automatic tendency to impose a gestalt where necessary. Thus, if you know your reasoning is valid, you can get away with a less precise summary point.

Our sales proposals can demonstrate a new image to our customers provided we:

1. Present a more compelling message

2. Make it look outstanding

3. Deliver it with great speed

The message to take away from this discussion is that you cannot simply group together a set of ideas and assume your reader will understand their significance. Every grouping implies an overall point that reflects the nature of the relationship between the ideas in the grouping. You should first define that relationship for yourself, and then state it for the reader.

Always ask yourself of any grouping, "Why have I brought together these particular ideas and no others?" The answer will be:

- They all possess a characteristic in common, and are the only ideas linked in this way

-In which case your summary point will be an insight gleaned from having contemplated the significance of the similarity.

- They are all of the actions that must be taken together to achieve a desired effect

- In which case the summary point states the direct effect of taking the actions.

lf you force yourself to justify each grouping of ideas in this way, the thinking you communicate to your reader will be totally clear, and will more likely than not con vey insights that you did not know you had before you sat down to write.