Writing change communications that people actually read

Most programme update emails are written to demonstrate that the programme is being managed, not to inform the people receiving them. The distinction sounds subtle, but it produces very different documents. One is written for the sender. The other is written for the reader.

The problem with most programme updates ¶

A typical programme update covers what has happened since the last update, what is planned for the next period, and a summary of risks and issues. That structure is not wrong. The problem is that it is usually written in a way that assumes the reader has been following the programme closely and understands the context.

Most readers have not been following closely. They receive the update, scan it for anything that requires their attention, and move on. If the thing that requires their attention is buried in paragraph four, they will miss it.

Writing for the reader who is scanning ¶

The most useful change communications are structured around what the reader needs to know and what they need to do, in that order. The headline should tell them the most important thing. The first paragraph should give them enough context to understand it. The rest of the document should provide the detail for those who want it.

That structure requires the writer to make a judgement about what the most important thing is. That judgement is the hard part. It is also the part that most programme teams avoid, because making it requires taking a position.

Frequency and channel ¶

The right frequency for programme communications depends on the pace of the programme and the needs of the audience. A fortnightly written update works well for most governance audiences. A weekly note works better for delivery teams who need to coordinate closely.

The channel matters too. An email that arrives in a crowded inbox competes with everything else in that inbox. For communications that require action, a direct conversation or a short meeting is often more effective than a written update, even if the written update follows.

The test of a change communication is not whether it was sent. It is whether the people who received it understood what was happening and knew what, if anything, was required of them.