Technical Writing and Editing: Before/After Surplus Documentation
Initial document received by employer:
Final Edited Document Delivered to Employer:
Editing Report: Surplus Processing Checklist
This report contains a description of the edits made to the “Computer Equipment Surplus Processing” document, lists further concerns with the document, and provides an overall summary of how successful the newly edited document is in guiding readers. For the list of editing done, certain edits will be excluded from explanation. These edits are simple grammar or spelling fixes which typically have self-evident reasons for being changed. The document concerns will cover any problems remaining in the document after it was fully edited. The summary of success will highlight the positives of the document in its final form.
The paper underwent substantial format changes. The first design choice I made was to rotate the document from “portrait” to “landscape”. This allows the document to better display a checklist format by creating enough space to separate each section into its own block. To give each step the ability to be checked, I changed the ordered list from “1. a. i.” to a square outline and a circle outline. This encourages the reader to write checks to keep up with their progress. I decided to still use the “i.” in areas where more explanation is needed and the text is not a further step in the instructions. I continued using the 12 point Times New Roman font for the text because of its reader friendly design, however I made each subheading 16 point font, Verdana, and bold. This is to make each heading stick out and not blend in with the text, which occurred in the original document. The numbers over the headings are used to show a clear sense of progression. They show the reader when a major shift in instructions is going to occur. Every step has at least one underlined word. This was added allow new readers to get a quick sense of what each step means and allow those with experience using the list to skip from step to step with ease. Lastly, the graphical element added to step 2 is my solution to splitting off surplus and refurbished equipment without having to create a separate list. It gives a clear ending to the readers with refurbished equipment without confusing readers with surplus equipment.
The paper also underwent a significant amount of rewriting. Spelling issues were almost nonexistent, and most grammar was correct in the document. However, my goal was to fit the document onto a single front-and-back piece of paper. To do this, I had to shorten and eliminate certain steps. Also, some steps were rewritten to be better understood by inexperienced readers. The first change was made to the title of the document. Previously, the document was known as “Computer Equipment Surplus Processing”. “Computer Equipment” does not adequately describe all of the types of surplused machinery. This may confuse readers when they need to surplus an item that does not appear to be “computer equipment” to them. To alleviate this, the title was changed to Surplus Processing Checklist. Each word of the title gives a specific clue to what the instructions of the document are about. “Surplus” is what’s being affected, “Processing” is what’s being done, and “Checklist” is the type of the document. All of the “reference item” indications were removed, as they did not clearly show what they were referencing or why they were referencing the step. “Current area” designations were added and bolded. This is to indicate to the viewer that this is the current information, but is subject to change. In conjunction with this, a space at the end of the document now contains the last edited date to show the reader if they are using the most up-to-date version of the checklist.
Almost every line in the document was rearranged or rewritten to better clarify its meaning. Instead of justifying every change at length, I found three main reasons for each non-grammar/spelling change made to each step. Some or all of these reasons may have been used to change the text. The first and most common change was clarity. For some steps, the sentence structure made what it was asking unclear to a first-time reader. Additionally, some of the vocabulary used may not be evident to a new worker. To alleviate this, a majority of the steps were changed to have simpler word usage and more precise language. The second reason for most of the changes was the length of each step. These changes were necessary for two reasons. First, it was necessary to decrease step length to fit the document onto a two sided document. Second, to increase the efficiency of the document, readers need text that won’t bog down their work speed. By changing each step to have shorter instructions, readers can quickly figure out what to do. The third and final most common change was combining/deleting steps. Due to my already existing knowledge of the surplus process, I noticed many steps were outdated or currently unused. Additionally, some steps were repetitive of previous steps in the document. To fix these changes, many steps were merged or outright deleted to give the document a less confusing linear appearance.
Even with the changes listed, I still have two concerns for the document. The first and most pressing is the document’s tentative information. Because rooms are frequently repurposed and the surplus keys are often moved around, the document may contain inaccurate information when not updated properly. The manager of the document will need to take good care in keeping the document properly updated. The other issue is a long term idea for the document. Some items referenced in the document, such as the surplus clipboard, AASU ID, and storage pods, may not be easily identified by inexperienced workers. My suggestion is the creation of a document that contains pictures of every element in the checklist. This will save valuable time for first-time surplus processing workers.
Overall, the revised “Surplus Processing Checklist” establishes the surplus process in a step-by-step guide with simpler and more direct language that new and returning workers should be able to easily follow. By fitting it on a single page and adding checkboxes, workers can bring the document with them to keep track of the process as they complete it. I believe the document is now a more efficient tool for teaching new workers how to properly process surplus.
