BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful • Hacker News Board

Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful

#71

Post by sandworm101 » Sat, Sep 14, 2019, 3:06 AM UTC

thesuperbigfrog wrote: post #66

sandworm101 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> taking the form of commands, as opposed to actually conveying information that would enlighten the reader. That's a key observation. BLUF is most used when officers are talking to non-officers. The assumption is that the non-officers need to know what to do, but do not need to know why they need to do something. Between officers, BLUF is not nearly as common. The assumption is that officers shall have wider latitu…

>> BLUF is most used when officers are talking to non-officers. I have seen it used by staff officers to quickly convey important information to commanders who need to make decisions and don't have time to read a novel of details. Commanders need important information first and supporting details second. BLUF is an ideal format for this since it emphasizes concise, prioritized communication.

I find that most of the time those written statements between staff and commanders are just the tip of a huge iceberg. Lots of non-official communications back and forth have already happened. The commanders are already aware of the reasoning behind the decision because they probably briefed it to the staff. So the eventual official communication is indeed very brief.

Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful

#72

Post by vasili111 » Sat, Sep 14, 2019, 3:08 AM UTC

Also look at Inverted pyramid (journalism): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism)

Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful

#73

Post by woliveirajr » Sat, Sep 14, 2019, 3:26 AM UTC

cryptonector wrote: post #33

anotherevan wrote: post #27

I wish more news site articles would practice this. So many times I'm scanning the damn thing for the bottom line to decide if I want to read all the waffle or not.

Back before the Internet became users' most important news source, newspapers used to do have a hierarchical structure to their stories. The headline would tell you a fair bit, then the first paragraph or two would tell you all the salient points, and each subsequent paragraph would add details. Now it seems that the important things are buried at the end of the article. The idea seems to be to hook you in and make y…

or make you view all the ads that appear in the page :)

Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful

#74

Post by plutonorm » Sat, Sep 14, 2019, 3:31 AM UTC

Great for 'red' type personalities. But for a green/yellow like me this is horrific

Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful

#75

Post by Animats » Sat, Sep 14, 2019, 3:33 AM UTC

The author is writing about advertising and bulk mail copy, not "communication". This is the classic advertising concept that ads should include a call to action.[1] Also, this came from Harvard Business Review in 2016.[2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_to_action_(marketing) [2] https://hbr.org/2016/11/how-to-write-email-with-military-pre...

Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful

#76

Post by feedbeef » Sat, Sep 14, 2019, 3:38 AM UTC

jcurbo wrote: post #46

Donald wrote: post #4

Like everything else in the US military, there is a written standard to support this style. See Army Regulation 25-50, Section IV "The Army Writing Style" https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/r25_50.... > Army writing will be concise, organized, and to the point. Two essential requirements include putting the main point at the beginning of the correspondence (bottom line up front) and using the active…

The Air Force has a similar guide that has been around for decades, the "Tongue and Quill." We were introduced to it starting in officer training. https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/saf_cio_a6/p...

As does CIA

https://fas.org/irp/cia/product/style.pdf

Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful

#77

Post by stubish » Sat, Sep 14, 2019, 3:38 AM UTC

This style is critical for effective remote work. I might steal or link it for our internal documentation.

So much time wasted 'handshaking' before an actual point is made before I can determine if I can spend time on the query or need to pass it on.

Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful

#78

Post by hackerbabz » Sat, Sep 14, 2019, 3:46 AM UTC

I appreciate a detail of this author's writing that is not pointed out. It lacks a concluding paragraph.

I think this is a relic of gradeschool essay writing rules (i.e, Say what you are going to say, say it, say what you said).

I almost alway stop reading an article once I sense I've reached the conclusion. That means I've learned what the author wants me to learn, and all I'm going to get next is a pithy sign off.

Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful

#79

Post by phaus » Sat, Sep 14, 2019, 4:01 AM UTC

sandworm101 wrote: post #69

phaus wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The assumption is that the non-officers need to know what to do, but do not need to know why they need to do something. I spent almost 2 decades in the Army. Its a terrible assumption. Except for combat situations, other emergencies, or really trivial tasks, everyone should know why they are doing something. It is physically impossible to make a non-stupid person care about a thing of which they have no knowledge. F…

You are overthinking the problem. It isn't that there is no advantage in explaining things, but often times the enlisted really don't want to listen to some officer drone on about why something is being done. For the trivial stuff, stuff like my example above, they really have no immediate interest in why something has to be done. That can come later. The published SOP, the checklist in the guard shack, doesn't need…

I agreed above that for trivial things an explanation is unnecessary.

> It isn't that there is no advantage in explaining things, but often times the enlisted really don't want to listen to some officer drone on about why something is being done.

From my experience this mostly happens when the explanation is either blatant lying, or if its true and reveals that incompetence at a higher level than the officer delivering the message has generated a bunch of unnecessary work for the unit.

More commonly I hear Soldiers saying "This is stupid, why are we doing this?" to their comrades and NCOs. Usually followed by the Soldiers doing whatever it is to the minimal accepted standard.

Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful

#80

Post by dllthomas » Sat, Sep 14, 2019, 4:35 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #37

jejones3141 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps "You deserve jump pay for time spent in training last year"?

That is active voice, but subtly changes the meaning. “Deserve” suggests non-binding moral qualification, “are entitled to” suggests binding legal qualification. “You earned jump pay for...” is closer. Honestly, though, this is a case where the usual purpose of active voice rules (to avoid deenohasizing or obscuring responsibility) is not actually frustrated even though the sample is in passive voice so while I would…

In another thread, I got to: "Applicable regulations entitle you to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year." For the passive reading I think that's the correct active version.