2019286 Sequential Thematic Organization of Publications

8/6/2019 2019286 Sequential Thematic Organization of Publications

1/85

by WALTER S. STARKEY

Because proposal storyboarding began at Hughes-Fullerton

(a division of Hughes Aircraft Company), I have been

asked a number of times whether storyboarding was

imported from Hollywood to the proposal management

profession under the personal auspices of Howard Hughes. That is

a fetching myth, but it is not the way the STOP (Sequential

Thematic Organization of Publications) storyboarding technique

began. To the best of my knowledge, Howard Hughes never

graced Hughes-Fullertons hallways, and movie-making influence

had nothing to do with the conception and gestation of STOP.

The STOP technique, which eventually permeated much ofthe defense/ aerospace industry as the preferred proposal develop-

ment approach, began as a simple formatting idea, which then

became the nucleus for a cluster of strategizing, composition, and

publication disciplines focused on managing the complex task of

proposal development.

The DilemmaFor people in the business of writing, editing, and producing

engineering publications in the defense/ aerospace industry, the

early 1960s were an era of daunting challenges. Within the first

two or three years of the decade, the relatively small engineer-

ing report lost its place as the chief publication product. Such

reports had usually stemmed from the activities and intellect of

a single author, or at most a handful of authors, and moved

through the publication process at a sedate pace. With the seem-

ing abruptness of a seismic event as our nations military com-

mands became increasingly ravenous for complex computer-

based systems, engineering reports were supplanted by sales pro-

posals typically running hundreds and sometimes thousands of

pages. These proposals were generated by a large, multi-disci-

pline author corps, and were driven by Red-Alert schedules

imposed by the procuring customer (Department of Defense

agencies or other equally demanding customers).

Often, just getting the books off

the presses in time to hustle

them onto a last-chance, red-

eye flight was a victory in itself.

Under these circumstances, the hope of instilling qualities such as

strategic unity and overall coherence into a proposal were dim at

best. Often, just getting the books off the presses in time to hustlethem onto a last-chance, red-eye flight was a victory in itself.

Under particularly desperate schedules, niceties such as pre-print

buyoff had to be forgone, and a scramble to deliver errata sheets

followed hot on the heels of proposal delivery. At the climax of

one short-fused proposal effort, I remember spending a long night

in the print shop at Hughes-Fullerton, eyeballing pages for glitch-

es as they came off the press while Jim Tracey sat next to me typ-

ing errata sheets that were printed on the spot and bundled up for

delivery in the same package as the proposal volumes themselves.

I will resist the temptation to regale the reader with early-60s

war stories, since anyone who was in the proposal business in that

era could match them or top them with stories of their own. Even

those who were not can appreciate the urgent need of publica-

tions specialists for some way to cope with the overwhelming

matrix of dilemmas confronting them: How could the individual

contributions of dozens or scores of authors be brought into line

with the strategies management had in mind for the proposal?

How could the proposal manager guard against unpleasant sur-

prises when the authors inputs finally reached his desksurpris-

es that could activate managements panic button by exposing the

need for agonizing, eleventh-hour revisions? How could each

author be assured that he was not spinning his wheels when he

knuckled down to generate his inputs (i.e., that he was writing

The Beginnings ofSTOP Storyboarding andthe Modular Proposal

more...

ProposalManagement 41

Pr oposal

Histor y

To separate fact from fanciful folklore, w e asked Walter Starkey, co-auth or of the 1965 STOP

Manual, to reflect on t he genesis of that legendary m anua l and its t hen-revolutionary technique.


2/85

what the proposal manager really wanted)? How could

the strong points of the companys approach be made

glaringly clear to the proposal evaluator? How could

the publications specialist make any meaningful contri-

bution to the editorial caliber of the proposal?

As it turned out, workable (but not fail-proof)

answers to these dilemmas were afforded by the story-

boarding, composition, critiquing, troubleshooting, and

editing disciplines embodied in the STOP process. The

STOP disciplines, of course, did not, like Pallas Athena,instantaneously appear in full battle array from the head

of one individual or the collective heads of a group of

tech-pub specialists and proposal managersbut they

did germinate at a pace that seems breathtaking in ret-

rospect once the seed of the approach was planted.

An early impetus for the origination of this new

publications approach came from a tough-minded pro-

gram manager named Mike Rapport. The proposal he

was charged with developing represented an entree

into a product area deemed by Hughes-Fullertons man-

agement luminaries to be crucially important to the

companys future. With the spotlight on him, a fiery

determination to make Hughes proposal stand out

from those of the competition marked Mikes discus-sion of his proposal plans with Jim Tracey and Dave

Rugh. Tracey headed the publications group where

Rugh worked as writing supervisor and I worked as

editing supervisor, and which served the proposal

needs of Hughes-Fullertons Data Processing Products

Division and Systems Division.

There seems to be a natural

passage length that is

completely compatible with

treating a specific topic withinthe confines of a two-page

module.

In early 1963, Tracey, Rugh, and Rapport considered a number

of approaches to making the proposal distinctive. At one point, I

believe, Mike advocated some sort of comic-book treatment (my

apologies to him if my memory is wrong), which clearly would have

been too frivolous for proposal purposes. Finally, Traceys suggestion

of a modular approach won Mikes endorsement. The notion was to

construct the proposal entirely of two-page modules, with text and

any associated visual facing each other. Such a format, they agreed,

would offer important reader advantages, and would certainly dis-

tinguish the proposal from any that had come down the pike thus far.

The Tw o-Page M oduleEvolvesShortly after the meeting with Mike Rapport, Tracey convened

our group for an after-hours brainstorming session to explore

where the modular-proposal idea might take us. The response was

enthusiastic. I voiced the thought that the two-page modules

could be treated as self-contained themes, akin to college blue-

books. Others were quick to point out that treating them that

way would help us to exploit some of the proven techniques of

expository/ persuasive composition that were often lost in the fog

of loosely structured proposal discourse (e.g., clearly identifying

the subject and its relevance, sticking to it, making a strategically

persuasive point about Hughes approach to the issues pertinent to

it, and presenting an argument to prove this point via the modulestext and visual). The desirable thematic character of the modules

later led to the appellation Sequential Thematic Organization of

Publications, and STOP was born.

It seemed probable that working at the level of two-page mod-

ules could solve a lot of problems in proposal-cadre communica-

tion. An author could jot down a paragraph outline for his mod-

ule (call it a storyboard, somebody said) and include a rough

version of his visual. His storyboard, along with related story-

boards from other authors, could then be pinned up and reviewed

jointly by manager, editor, author, and anyone else concerned with

the subject (Figure 1 shows an early-days storyboarding session at

Hughes-Fullerton). The authors argument could be honed by dis-

cussing its pros and cons, and he could walk away with a marked-

up storyboard like that shown in Figure 2, reflecting what input

the manager really wanted. In other words, the module could be

revised at the outline level before the author invested his time and

energy in the difficult chore of composing it. What a boon that

could be! I wish I could remember everyone who took part in that

first brainstorming session, because, as things worked out, the

meeting proved to be a momentous one. Writers and editors

included Walt Starkey, Dave Rugh, Dave Gater, Mal Gable, Stu

Jones, Ailleen Lang, Carole McCorkindale, and Larry McCollum.

Art supervisor Jack Hunt and production supervisor Dorothy

Morico also took part. I left the meeting, as I know others did,

exhilarated by the feeling that we had hold of an idea that could

STOP Storyboarding

42 APMP Fall 2000

Figure 1. This photograph shows an early-days storyboarding session at Hughes-

Fullerton.


3/85

STOP Storyboarding

reshape our professional lives in a rewarding way. We did not

think of the meeting as the first shot of a revolution in proposal

development at that moment, but we later became fond of think-

ing of it in that light.

Everyone at the meeting deserves credit for their constructive

ideas about implementing the modular approach and their efforts

of putting them into practice in the ensuing weeks, as we applied

the approach to Mike Rapports proposal and to two others thatwere active at the time.

Having acknowledged that, I want to make it clear that with-

out Jim Traceys influence, the STOP approach would not have

taken root and flourished as it did. Jim passed away shortly after

his retirement in 1989, but those of us who worked with him

share indelible memories of his stubborn dedication to improving

the quality of the proposal product.

The Challenge ofEstablishing aStandard

As we launched our campaign to establish the modular approach

as the standard for Hughes-Fullerton proposals, the motto of our

publications group was sell STOP. Two aspects of the approach

raised objections in some parts of the engineering community.

First, limiting the discussion of a subject to the word count accom-

modated by a two-page spread appeared to some authors to

infringe on their freedom to thoroughly develop their subject

Second, other authors objected that mandatory visualization was

an artificial requirement on the grounds that some subjects simply

did not call for or support a figure.

The notion was to

construct the

proposal entirely of

two-page modules,

with text and anyassociated visual

facing each other.

Relative to the first objection, Dave

Gater and others did yeoman work in

local libraries checking word counts of

passages in various genres. Happily for

the practicality of the two-page module,

they discovered that many authors tend

to change the subject on themselves

after every 400 to 1,000 words. The

clues are easy to spot: subheadings,phrases such as On the other hand,

Another problem is Having deter-

mined that, the next step is, etc. There

seems to be a natural passage length

that is completely compatible with

treating a specific topic within the con-

fines of a two-page module.

(Incidentally, we began referring to the modules as topics early on,

and I will call them that for the rest of this article.)

The objection to mandatory visualization was overcome by

inventiveness at the storyboard wall. A visual does not have to be

a figure. Building on the line of argument in the text (or theme

body, as we began calling it), we learned to develop several kinds

of verbal visuals, all of which could illuminate and support a given

argument. Examples are the dot and indented-dash list, whichamounts to an X-ray view of the entire argument, and the dialec-

tic verbal visual (problem vs. proposed solution, trade-off candi-

date vs. advantages and disadvantages, key requirements vs.

Hughes approach, etc.). These turned out to be valuable brows-

ing aids for the evaluator.

ImplementationBroughtImprovements

Figure 3 shows several of the features that distinguish STOP

topics. These features were incorporated one after another in

the course of developing a fair number of proposals. A phrase-

structured topic title that suggests the authors intention or

attitude about a subject replaced the conventional, simple

noun title of the subject almost immediately. Topic tie-back ref-

erences under the title, which lead the evaluator from the

topic back to his own requirements documentation, also

appeared almost immediately. The two-part figure caption (a

Tracey invention), which adds a strategic commentary about

more...

ProposalManagement 43

Figure 2. This is a sample of a marked-up storyboard showing the author the pros and cons of his

or her argument.


4/85

STOP Storyboarding

the figure to its noun title, came a little later. Shortly after that,

Mal Gable invented the balloon rubric, which uses a comic-

strip type of balloon to draw the evaluators attention to some

significant feature of the figure. Although we had all appreci-ated the thesis-driven nature of STOP topics for some time,

several months went by before I wrote the first thesis sen-

tences ever published in a proposal. The thesis sentence (dis-

played via bold type, underlining, or some such device) sum-

marizes the main strategic point of each topic, hopefully lead-

ing the evaluator to mentally challenge the author to prove it,

which, again hopefully, the theme body and visual proceed to

do. (After I had written thesis sentences for the 50 or so topics

in that first proposal, I copied them out in order, added some

connective tissue, and found myself with a concise two-page

summary of the proposal. This convinced us that if we dis-

played thesis sentences in all topics, an evaluator could gain a

fair grasp of the thrust of a proposal just by reading them before

delving into the details.)

These focusing features phrase-structured title, verbal visu-

al, figure, two-part caption, thesis sentence found high favor

among proposal evaluators.

Early Reviews NowFocused Our MessageAs we implemented storyboard reviews, there was grumbling

in some quarters that they imposed too much front-loading of

the proposal effort that too much time would be spent in

the reviews before the actual composition task could begin.

This objection faded away as it became clear that because each

topic was a self-contained theme, authors could launch theirwriting chore as soon as the agreed-upon writing plan came

down from the wall (i.e., writing could begin within an hour

or two of beginning storyboard reviews). The self-contained

nature of the topics also permitted lock-step scheduling, in

which the phases of the development effort overlap (story-

boarding, writing, technical/ management approval, critiquing,

troubleshooting, editing, production, preprint buyoff, and

printing). In other words, no phase of the effort had to be com-

pleted before the next phase began. Suddenly, short-fuse pro-

posals were easier to cope with than they ever had been. (The

modular approach also eliminated the domino effect in which,

under the conventional approach, late changes in one part of

the proposal threatened the schedule by impacting other parts

of the proposal.)

The author who came to the

review with a skimpy storyboard

left the review with a fleshed-

out, agreed-upon writing plan.

44 APMP Fall 2000

Figure 3 shows sever-

al of the features that

distinguish STOP top-

ics. These features

were incorporated

one after another in

the course of devel-

oping a fair number of

proposals.


5/85

As we put storyboard reviews into practice, we were struck by the

creative force that group dynamics brought to bear on the pro-

posal development process. The shared goal of making each topic

and topic string as telling as possible on the proposals chances of

winning energized the review cadre to debate and improve upon

the strategic point of each topic and the theme

body/ visual supporting it. The author who came to

the review with a skimpy storyboard left the review

with a fleshed-out, agreed-upon writing plan. At

times the review process went far beyond topic-levelcritique once the review cadres creative juices

began to flow. I have seen systems redesigned and

management plans retailored at the storyboard wall.

To ensure consistent steering of proposal strat-

egy, we determined that, as a minimum, the

review cadre should include the proposal manager

and technical director or their representatives, sec-

tion or topic-string honchos, the topic authors, and

a STOP specialist to conduct the review.

STOP Became a Way

of LifeThe STOP specialist was a new breed of technical editor, one

equipped through mastery of STOP disciplines to be instrumental

in developing and presenting sound proposal strategy. Our most

senior STOP specialists were dubbed Managing Editors. They were

supported by topic critiquers, troubleshooters, and copy editors.

Once the STOP storyboarding technique was adopted, it didnt

take long for Hughes-Fullertons win-percentage to mushroom. And

it did not take long for the technique to be widely adopted in our

industry, spread at first by our proposal-teaming efforts with other

companies, and then by its own momentum as word got around.

In the mid 1960s, I served as managing editor for a consor-

tium-generated proposal to implement the air-defense ground

environment for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The

proposal ran into thousands of pages and involved, on a limited

schedule, teaching STOP and conducting storyboard reviews at

companies in Italy, France, The Netherlands, West

Germany, England, and Canada.1 The coherence

and strategic unity of the finished proposal were not

perfect, of course, but they were good enough to

beat the competition. Considering the diversity ofcontributors to the proposal, I believe they could

have been achieved in no other way than by the

application of STOP principles. As had been the

case a number of times in the past and would be the

case many times in the future, this effort demon-

strated the effectiveness of the proposal storyboard-

ing approach.

The promise we sensed at our initial brainstorm-

ing session was fulfilled. The challenges of the pro-

posal adventure were still there and still real, but the

STOP disciplines gave us the tools we needed to cope with them.

ReferencesTracey, J.R., Rugh, D.E., and Starkey, W.S., 1965, STOP, How

to Achieve Coherence in Proposals and Reports,

Fullerton, CA, Hughes Aircraft Company

Special Interest Group for Documentation, 1999, The Journal

of Computer Documentation, Vol. 23, No. 3, New York, NY,

Association for Computing Machinery

STOP Storyboarding

1As luck would have it, a general grevestruck Paris at the beginning ofthe storyboard review schedule there, shutting down electricity amongother things. Because the schedule, which could not be slipped, calledfor review sessions extending late into the night, these were the only sto-ryboard reviews ever conducted by candlelight.

Except for four years at the University of Chicago, where he investigated infrared and

cosmic-ray detection techniques as a research physicist, Walt Starkeys career has

been spent in engineering publications.During his 29 years at Hughes Aircraft

Company, he was one of the developers of the STOP storyboarding technique. Since he

retired as head of Hughes-Fullertons Proposal Development Section in 1989, his free-

lance articles, short stories, humor, and poetry have appeared in numerous periodicals.He can be reached at [email protected].

See excerptsfrom theHughes

Aircraft STOPReport on the

followingpages


6/85

Reprint4

SEQUENTIAL THEMATIC ORGANIZATIONOF PUBLICATIONS (STOP):

How to Achieve Coherence in Proposals and R eports

HUGHES- FULLERTONHUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY

GROUND SYSTEMS GROUPFullerton, Calif.January 1965

J. R. TRACEYD. E. RUGHW. S. STARKEY

Information Media DepartmentID 65-10-1052092

Copyright 1965, Hughes Air cr aft CompanyAll rights re serv ed. No part of this document may be used or reproducedin any manner without written permission from Hughes Aircraft Company.

*Journal of Comp uter Documentation August 1999/Vol 23, No. 3


7/85

Reprint5

C O N T E N T S

T H E S T O P T E C H N I Q U E A T A G L A N C ES t o p: A B e t t e r M e t h o d o f O r g a n i z i n g a n d W r i t i n g R e p o r t s a n dP r o p o s a l s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0C o n c e p t o f t h e T o p i c a l M o d u l e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

T H E N A T U R E O F T H E P R O B L E MS t o p : W h o N e e d s I t ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4P i t f a l l s i n t h e C o n v e n t i o n a l M e t h o d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6T h e L o s s o f O u t l i n i n g C o n t r o l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8T h e R i v e r R a f t D o c u m e n t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0

T H E M A T I C Q U A N T I Z A T I O N A S A S O L U T I O NN a t u r a l T o p i c a l S t r u c t u r e o f E x p o s i t o r y D i s c o u r s e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2T h e C o n c e p t o f T h e m a t i c Q u a n t i z a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4E x a m p l e s o f H o w Q u a n t i z a t i o n R e v e a l s t h e T h e s i s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16A P P L Y I N G T H E M A T I C Q U A N T I Z A T I O N W I T H S T O PS t o r y b o a r d i n g : A N e w W a y T o O u t l i n e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8W r i t i n g T o S t o r y b o a r d s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0S a m p l e S t o r y b o a r d s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2H o w T o W r i t e T o p i c H e a d i n g s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4H o w T o W r i t e T h e s i s S e n t e n c e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5T h e O v e r a l l S t o p P r o c e d u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6S t o r y b o a r d R e v i e w i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 8C o n v e r t i n g F r o m R i v e r - R a f t T o M o d u l a r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 0T h e T o p i c i z i n g O p e r a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2T h e " A u d i o - V i s u a l " T e c h n i q u e F o r M a t h W r i t e - U p s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4S a m p l e A u d i o - V i s u a l M a t h T o p i c s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6U s e o f T h e T h e s i s S e n t e n c e s T o W r i t e T h e S u m m a r y . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 8H o w S t o p I n d u c e s R e f o r m s I n F i g u r e U s a g e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2

S U M M A R Y O F S T O P B E N E F I T SI n - H o u se A d v a n t a g e s o f S to p M e t h o d o l o gy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4A d va n ta g es T o T h e R e a d e r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6A d v an t a g es T o T h e E va lu at or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8

A P P E N D I XS e c on d T h ou g h ts A b o u t S to p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A - 0T h e Q u es t io n O f C on ti nu it y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A - 2T h e Q u e st i o n O f R el at iv e I m p o r t an c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A - 4O bj ec ti on s T o S to p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A - 6R e c e p t i o n o f S t o p B y G o v e r n m e n t a n d M i l i t a r y A g e n c i e s . . . . . . . . . . . A - 8T h e S o u r c e o f t h e T h e s i s S e n t e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A - 1 0T h e S w a p p e d R o l e s o f t h e A u t h o r a n d R e a d e r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A - 1 2B a c k g r o u n d a n d A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A - 1 4

*Jour nal of Com pute r Documentation August 1999/Vol 23, No. 3


8/85

Reprint6

T h e S T O P T e c h n i q u e a t a G l a n c e

S T O P : A B E T T E R M E T H O D O F O R G A N I Z I N G A N D W R I T I N G R E P O R T S A N D P R O P O S A L S

S T O P i s a s y s t e m a t i c m e t h o d o f o r g a n i z i n g a n d w r i t i n g t h e t e c h n i c a l r e p o r t a n d p r o p o s a l w h i c hs i g n i f ic a n t l y i m p r o v e s o u t l in i n g c o n t r o l an d e d i to r i a l c a l i b e r o f t h e c o n t e n t . E s s e n t i a l l y , t h em e t h o d s p o o n - f e e d s th e r e a d e r i n " b i t e - s i z e " , 2 - p a g e t o p ic s .

0

S T O P s t a n d s f o r S e q u e n t i a l T h e m a t i c O r g a n i z a t i o n o f P u b l i c a t i o n s . I t i s a n e wa n d u n o r t h o d o x m e t h o d t h a t i s s u r p r i s i n g l y e f f e c t i v e f o r o u t l in i n g a n d w r i t i n g t e c h -n i c a l r e p o r t s , a n d p r o p o s a l s , p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e l en g t h y , d e t a i l e d a n d t e c h n i c a l l y c o m -p l e x p u b l ic a t io n s p r e p a r e d b y t e a m s u n d e r t i m e s t r e s s . I n a S T O P r e p o r t o r p r o -p o s a l t h e su b j e c t m a t t e r i s o r g a n i z e d i n to a s e r i e s o f r e l a t i v e l y b r i e f t h e m e s ,e a c h p r e s e n t e d i n a " m o d u l e " o f t w o f a c i n g p a g e s , c o m p l e t e w i th a s s o c i a t e d f i g u r e ,i f a n y .T h u s , y o u c h a n g e t h e s u b j e c t w h e n e v e r y o u t u r n t h e p a g e a n d y o u r a t te n t i o n i so c c u p ie d w it h o n ly on e m e s s a g e a t a t i m e . T h i s f r a m i n g o f m e s s a g e " m o d u l e s "in a S T O P b o o k i n c r e a s e s t h e i m p a c t o f e a c h a n d m a k e s i t e a s i e r t o c o m p r e h e n d .W h a t m a k e s S T O P w o r k a s a p r a c t i c a l m e t h o d f o r a l l t h e m a t i c t y p e s o f t e c h n i c a lw r i t in g i s th a t it m a k e s u s e o f t h e m o r e - o r - l e s s u n i f o r m t o p i c a l s t r u c t u r e t h a te x i s t s n a t u r a l l y i n o r d i n a r y e x p o s i t o r y d i s c o u r s e , b u t w h i c h i s h id d e n b y c o n v e n -t i o n al o u tl i n in g p r a c t i c e s . I t c a n b e s h o w n s t a t i s t i c a l l y t h a t th i s n a t u r a l t o p i c a ls t r u c t u r e e x i s t s a n d t h a t t h e t o p i c s , o n c e y o u r e c o g n i z e t h e m , f it t h e 2 - p a g e s p r e a din a n o v e r w h e l m i n g m a j o r i t y o f t he c a s e s . T h e r e f o r e , r e c a s t i n g o r b o il in g d o wni s n o t r e q u i r e d i n t h e S T O P t e c h n i q u e .C o n v e n t i o n a l o u t l in i n g p r a c t i c e s n o t o n l y h i d e t h e n a t u r a l t o p i c s o f a d i s c o u r s e ,t h e y a l l o w t h e th e s i s o f t h e t o p i c s to r e m a i n u n s t a t e d , a n d th i s m a k e s i t e a s y f o rt h e r e a d e r t o m i s s t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t p o i n t s t h e a u th o r w a n t s t o m a k e , a n d f o rt h e a u t h o r t o m i s s m a k i n g th e m i n t h e f i r s t p l a c e . T h e c o n v e n t i o n a l o u t li n e i s" c a t e g o r i c a l " r a t h e r t h a n t o p i c a l , s o i t i s e s s e n t i a l l y a o n e - m a n t o o l . T o s u p -p l a n t t h e c a t e g o r i c a l o u t l i n e , S t o r y b o a r d s a r e u s e d i n t h e S T O P t e c h n i q u e t o p r e -p a r e a d e t a i l e d , " t e a m - v i s i b l e " o u t li n e f o r e a c h t h e m e m o d u l e . T h e t r a d i t i o n a lb u t n e g l e c t e d T h e s i s S e n t e n c e , w h i c h i s th e k e y to c o h e r e n t o u t li n in g a n d w r i t i n g ,g u i d e s t h e d e s i g n o f e a c h S t o r y b o a r d f o r m a x i m u m t h e m a t i c u n i ty . T h e T h e s i sS e n t e n c e s h o w s t h e r e a d e r a t a g l a n c e t he e s s e n t i a l a r g u m e n t o f t h e t h e m e b o d y ,a n d s in c e t h e t o t a l s h a p e o f t h e t h e m e b o d y i s r e a d i l y a p p a r e n t , t h e r e a d e r i s r e -l i e v ed o f t h e c o m m o n v e x a t i o n : " W h e n w i l l t h is p a s s a g e e n d, a n d w h a t p o in t i s t h ea u t h o r d r i v i n g a t ? "S T O P i s b a s e d o n t h e p r i n c i p l e o f T h e m a t i c Q u a n t i z a ti o n , w h i c h a s s e r t s t h at p r o p e rr e c o g n i t i o n a n d t r e a t m e n t o f t o p i c a l u n it s o f d i s c o u r s e i s t h e e s s e n c e o f " c o h e r e n c e , "a n d th a t t he b e s t w a y to a c h i e v e t o p ic r e c o g n i t i o n i s t h e d e v i c e o f u n i f o r m m o d u l e s .F o r a g i v e n s u b j e c t a r e a , t h e a u t h o r a l w a y s h a s t h e o p ti o n of s p i n n in g o f f a d -d i t io n a l to p i c s , p r o v i d e d e a c h i s t r e a t e d i n a u n i f ie d m a n n e r , b u t h e n e v e r e x c e e d sa 2 - p a g e s p a n o f a t t e n ti o n a t a n y o ne m o m e n t . T h e t o p i c a l s e g m e n t a t i o n o f n a t u r a le x p o s i t o r y s t r u c t u r e i s th u s t a k e n a d v a n t a g e of : i t r e p l a c e s t h e a r b i t r a r y a n d a r t i -f i c ia l r u l e s o f " l o g i c a l " c a t e g o r i z i n g a s t h e i s s u e o f t h e " o r g a n i z i n g " p r o c e s s .E x p e r i e n c e w i t h S T O P o v e r a p e r io d o f y e a r s h a s d e m o n s t r a t e d t h e p r a c t i c a b i l i t yo f t h is s e e m i n g l y b r o c h u r e - l i k e o r g a n i z i n g m e t h o d f o r d e t a i l e d t e c h n ic a l e x p o s i -t io n . O n e h u n d r ed a n d t w e n ty m a j o r S T O P p r o p o s a l s a n d r e p o r t s h a v e b e e n p r o -d u c e d s i n c e N o v e m b e r 1 9 62 . I t i s c o n s i d e r e d n o w to b e d e m o n s t r a t e d a s a p r a c t i -c a l m e t h o d f o r al l t y p e s o f s u b j e c t m a t t e r , t h e u s u a l m i x o f e n g i n e e r i n g w r i t in gt a l e n t, t y p i c a l c r a s h s c h e d u l e s , a n d c o n v e n t io n a l m e t h o d s o f m u l t i l i th p r o d u c t io n .

*Journal of Computer Documentation August 1999/Vol 23, No. 3


9/85

Reprint7

A s e v i d e n c e d by r e a d e r r e a c t i o n , i n c r e a s e i n c o m p r e h e n s i b i l i t y o f S T O P d o c u -m e n t s a s c o m p a r e d t o t h e i r R i v e r - R a f t c o u n t e r p a r t s c a n o n ly b e d e s c r i b e d a sd r a m a t i c . T h i s h a s b e e n e s p e c i a l l y t r u e i n t h e p r o p o s a l f i e ld , w h e r e t h e q u a n -t i z i n g m e t h o d o l o g y r e v e a l s c o m p a n y i n t e n ti o n m o r e p l a i n l y , a n d p r o v i d e s a s t a n -d a r d " p r o c e s s i n g " f r a m e w o r k f o r th e e v a l u a t o r , w h o i s c o n c e r n e d w i t h i d e n t if y i n gp o i n t s f o r s c o r i n g p u r p o s e s , s p o t ti n g a r e a s o f d i s a g r e e m e n t , a n d r a n k - o r d e r i n gi t e m s f o r p r i o r i t y a n a l y s i s .52092.

T H E R IV E R - R A F T C O N C E P T

F,GURE

T H E S T O P C O N C E P T

t j jOPIC__ I ~ i ~ S E Q U E N C E OF THEMESCATEGORI CAL OUTLI NE OF THE RI VER, RAFT PROPOSALIt , GENERAL SYSTEM CONSI DERATIONSI . BAS I C CONSI DERATIONS2, COM PUTER SUBSYSTEMA. I NTRODUCTI ONB. ORGANI ZATI ONAL CONCEPTS( I ) CONFI GURATI ON A(2) CONFI GURATI ON B(3) TEST UNI T T I E . I N3. RADAR DATA CONVERTERA, GENERALB. MAJ OR FUNCTI ONS OF RDCC AZI MUTH CONVERSI ON( I ) SYNCHRO METHODS,E T C TOPI CAL OUTLI NE OF THE MODULAR PROPOSALII . KEY SYSTEM CONCEPTS1. CHI EF PERFORMANCE TRADEOFFS2. AVOIDANCE OF SPEED SACRIFICECOMPUTER DESI GN GOALS3. ADVAN TAGES OF SPECIAL-PURPO SE DESIGN4, LOW COST OF DRUM MEMORYS. IMPORTANC E OF AUTOMA TIC TESTING6. DRAWBACKS TO CENTRAL CON TROL?. PRO POSED REMOTE PROCESSINGSELECTI ON OF ROC TECHNI QUES8. CR I T ICAL NEED FOR MUL TI PLE I NPUTS9, V I DEO QUANTI ZER MOVED TO COMPUTER10. ADVANTAGES OF ELECTRONI C AZ I MUTH CONVERSI ON,ETC.F i g u r e i . P a g e - b y - p a g e p r i n t i n g o f t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l " r u n - o n " p r o p o s a l t e n d s t o c o n c e a l t h e f a c tt h a t i t t a k e s t h e f o r m o f a s c r o l l o r a r i v e r o f w o r d s . S i n c e th e u s a g e a n d l o c a t i o n o ff i g u r e s a r e u n p r e d i c t a b le , f i g u r e s a r e r e f e r r e d t o a s r a ft s . T h e p e r m i s s i v e c h a r a c t e ro f t h e r i v e r - r a f t p r o p o s a l i s r e f l e c t e d i n t h e c a t e g o r i c a l o u t l i n e on th e le f t , w h o s e r i d d l e -l i k e h e a d i n g s m a y b e c o m p a r e d t o t h e p e r t i n e n t t o p i c s o f t h e s a m e m a t e r i a l t r e a t e dm o d u l a r l y o n t h e r i g h t .

*Journal of Computer Documentation August ] 999/Vol 23, No. 3


10/85

ReprintI

8The STOP Technique at a Glance

C()NCEPT OF THE TOPICAL MODULE

B~cause it has obvious boundaries (both physical and editorial) and an appropriate capacity, theself-contained theme of two-page proportions becomes a prescription for thematic coherencethat is more objective to the author and reviewer, while being compatible with the natural be-ha\dot of the author and reader.

2

Application of Thematic Quantizatlon to the printed document is illustrated in Fig-ure 2. The read er is confronted with a self-contained and easily assimilatedtheme where ver he may open the document. Since all disco urs e on a topic ceaseswithin the module boundary, turning the page means st arti ng a new topic. Thenumber of topics selected during initial outlining to cover a given subject categ orycan be as few or man y as des ire d, depending upon the emphas is intended and theoverall page limit of the publication. The topic repr esen ts what could be called"unit thematic intention;" it is not predefined by subject matt er. Different authorscould obviously cover the s ame subject categor y with different arrang ement s ofideas within topics, according to the part icul ar expos itory strategy of each. Atheme may take up the same subject categor y as a previous theme, though fromanother aspect and ther efor e justifiably as another topic. Likewise, changes intopic covera ge during writing can be effected by topic spinoffs or consolid ations.The only absolute requirement is that each resulting theme must be coherent,pertine nt and not in exce ss of two pages. Violations of themat ic unity are eas ierto spot and the refo re more likely to be repair ed earl y in the game.In the typical STOP publication, the text is placed on the left and the figure s a replaced arbit rar ily on the right, but since the use of illustration s is not essentialto the method, the text may "slop ove r" as desir ed. Conventional 8-1/2 by 11repro ductio n methods allow about 500 words per page, for a maxi mum topic lengthof about 1,000 word s without illu stra tion. Multiple figur es can be employed perpage, to the limits of ar t- si zi ng ingenuity, as can foldouts in the custo mar y way,which, however, must be "backed up" with the text for the subsequent module.It will be shown that the engineer writing a report or proposal invariably startsa new topic after about 500 words on the avera ge. This is fort unate because itmeans that the STOP format accommodates normal writing habits without a lot ofcopyfitting troubl e as might be feared . Mate ria l does not have to be chopped up,boiled down, or supe rfl cia liz ed in any way. The mo re detailed, techni cal andtheoretical the better.The reader is provided outline orientation at a glance by the categorical Sectionand Subsection headings; he does not have to remember or turn back to the tableof contents to see where he is in the sche me of things. No room is provided forwriting text under secti onal headings because thei r function is only categorizing,but the catego rical headings constantly reappea r from theme to theme. The es-sential argument of the topic is cris ply summ ari zed fo r the re ade r by the printedout Thes is Sentence, which faci lita tes scanning, and the figure is always foundright there, ~t ho ut the nuisance of page flipping to locate it .If the topic does not com plet ely fill the module, the remai ning blank space is a c-cepted as a mere aesthe tic d ifference from the run-on format. However, i t alsobecomes regarded as a beneficial signal to the reader that he can now begin todigest what he has just received, before confusing the issue with the next theme.



11/85

Reprint9

52092.

D E F I N I T E T O P I C

35 0 W OR D S "

B O U N D A R I E S S T R E N G T H E N S C O H E R E N C E

5 00 W OR D S I o000 W OR D SC O P Y F I T T I N G F L E X I B I L I T Y

50 0 W O R D S W I T H F O L D O U T

Section - Technical ApproachSubsecti on- Environment Control TechniquesADVANTAGES OF T IlE EVAPORATIVE COOLING METHOD

Evapora tive cooling is more effective than air coolin g or cold pl ates because ambient liquidabsorbs heat fast er than circu latin g air, the constant vapor temperatur e is exploited, and thewaste heat is positivel y discharg ed into the ship' s water sys tem - with less equipment weightand space.

(theme body)

Figure 2. The modular organization with printed thesis promotes stronger coherence and con-tinuity within the topic simply because the point is more clearly defined and thespace restriction prevents the author from over-reaching it unwittingly.

*Note: Most rep ort s and prop osal s have about 12 perce nt blank space, re gar dle ss offormat method.

*Journal of Compu ter Docum entat ion August 1999/Vol 23, No. 3


12/85

Reprint10T h e N a t u r e o f t he P r o b l e m

STOP: WHO NEEDS IT?

There is evidence that the technical report and proposal are failing to perform their intendedfunctions because the methods of preparation don't cope with the characteristic changes thisliterature has undergone in modern times.From a distance, any improvement of technical l ite rature sounds fin e. But whoneeds a method as rad ica l as S TO P? Don't our proposals win contracts, our re -ports get accepted? These questions ari se as s oo n as the engineer-author workingon a proposal o'r rep ort tr ies STOP for the first time. Th en he realizes that STOPimposes rules and constrain ts, requires more effort, hard er thought, and is less"forgiving" than conventional, permissive methods of outlining and writing.With practice, the engineer-author overcomes these annoyances and lea rns toappreciate the underlying compatability between the STOP discipline and his naturalinborn habits of dis course. But STOP wil l alw ays sta nd for more intellectual ef-fort. Is it ne ce ss ar y? The answer can be seen in the situation of technical lite ra -ture to da y. The widespread lack of comprehensibility and retrievability of theinformation content of repo rts and proposals is w ell known. The problem is madeapparent by every fina l rep or t left unread and unused , and by every contractsettlement put off by delayed submittal of final repo rts . It is r eitera ted by everyRFP which warns against "brochuremanship", pleads for "clari ty and conciseness, "dictates content paragraph-by-paragraph, or imposes stringent page limitations.Accustomed to living with our technical information problems, we take the m forgranted, but a higher loo k at the situation w ill show tha t there are grave problemsindeed, both for Hughes and the nation at large.Vice Pres ident H ubert H. Humphrey called Congressional attention to the extent ofthe problems in 1962, when, as Subcommittee Chairman on Government Operations,he scored "the unsatisfac tory management of scientific and technica l information bythe Department of Defense," leading to: "2 billion do llars a year needlessly lost in the yield of Federa l r esea rch and

development expenditures, and A year of time needlessly added to the average 5-yea r development cycle of aweapons system','*As can be seen at Hughes, the typical report and proposal is prepared under terr-rific time str es s by "nonprofessional" wri ters , e .g., the design engine er. Fourcha rac teri stic features of this process (Figure 3) which tend to degrade editorialcaliber are 1) multiple authorship, 2) increased size and complexity, 3) schedulingpressures, and 4) the impracticability of editing. Against these threats to coher-ence, our conventional approach to document development brings to bear the same"closet" p rocedures employed by the 18th century scien tific essayist: categoricaloutlining, "Rive r-Raft" drafting of manuscript, and post-facto reviewing.The result, in general, has been a ve ry low quality in content of documents, anda ve ry high difficulty in the ir control and preparation.If poor proposals win , and poor rep ort s bring follow-on work, it happens despiteinferior effectiveness of the document, that is, through the absence of competition.A more independent se t of editorial cr ite ria is suggested below. If you can scorehigh on these, th en you would not benefit from STOP.* U.S. Senate Scientific Rese ar ch Study, the Depar tmen t of Defense and Scientificand Technical Information, Memorandum S-3-11- 62, March 26, 1962, fromHubert H. Humph rey to George H. Mahon, House Committe e on Appropr iations.

* J o u r n a l of Computer Documentation Aug ust 1999/Vol 2 3, No. 3


13/85

I

Reprint11

Is your document: Planned and writte n with cl ar it y and har mony ? (Do the cont ribu tors turn in~Tit e-up s that match the outline and intent of the document manager , or is

there confusion and disappoi ntme nts 7)Easy to read, comprehend and evaluate? (Does the cus tome r's behavior showhe has recei ved your key messag es one way or another, or are additional oralpresentations required to "sketch out the big picture"?)Answerable to trade-off s against s tiff technical competition7 (Is your technicaledge clea rl y appare nt, as it must be when the proposal outcome is not wired,or is it disadvantaged by editorial faults?)Innocent of the fran tic, overni ght "bash", in which larg e portions are thrownaway or redone at the la st minute?Useful as "program a ids, " for costing purpose s, in-house orientation andtraining, follow-on efforts , etc. (Or do key memb ers have to re-e xpla in theprogram to newcomers and staff workers?)

5 2 0 9 2

; C O M P L E X , T Y

EDITOR METHODS

F i g u r e 3 . W h i l e t h e p e r i l s o f t h e m o d e r n r e p o r t a n d p r o p o s a l c l e a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h i t f r o m t h e 1 8 t hc e n t u r y e s s a y , i t s t e c h n i q u e s o f p r e p a r a t i o n r e m a i n t h e s a m e . E d i t o r ' s r o l e i s p r o -f e s s i o n a l l y u n d e f i n e d . F r e q u e n t l y l a c k i n g t h e t e c h n i c a l s k i l l s o r t i m e t o o p e r a t e , h er e v e r t s t o f o r m a t a n d l a n g u a g e f l y s p e c k i n g .

5

*Journal of Com pute r Documentation August 1999/Voi 23, No. 3


14/85

Reprint12

The Nature of the Probl emPITFALLS IN THE CONVENTIONAL METHOD

The standard approach to document prepa rati on has thre e ingredients: 1) a mysteriou s outline,2) a long wait for manu scr ipt s to be written , followed by 3) a las t-m inu te c ri si s while the piecesare pulled together. Parti cipan ts are in the dark until the document is completed.

The historic procedure for developing a proposal or report is shown in Figure 4.You make an outline, w rite the draf ts, revie w the manusc rip ts, then make re vi-sions, and so qn. When pro ble ms develop, the stand ard compla ints of theparti cipant s , culled from thousands of hallway comments, are as shown. Noticethat each participant feels he is in the dark, which is the chara cte rist ic featureof the whole proce ss, making it a verit able "tria l and er ro r" proposition. Onereason for this is that the conventional outline says very little, except to the indivi-dual who wrote it. Another reaso n is the occur ren ce of the "long wait" after theoutline is issued, while the manuscripts are being labori ously composed sentenceby sentence. During this period, the document manager can only fr et - and keephis fingers crossed.Unfortunately, when manuscript submissions are finally made, the documentmana ger is suddenly faced with a cruci al task which he may not be skille d athandling, that is , cri tic all y reviewing the content, paragr aph by paragraph, tosee what is being drive n at, judge whether it is acc eptab le, and decide what to doabout it if i t is not. The difficulties of performi ng a text critique are much great erthan ordin aril y appreciate d. Analysis of technical s ignificance is often obscuredby li te rar y and organizing defects , and so becomes entwined with editoria l crit-icis ms the manager would pref er to avoid.Fur the rmor e, the sentences and paragr aphs are set up in a "concre te" of worked-out gra mma r and continuity. The neces sar y improvement is difficult to envision,and changes diffi cult to make, since the defects a re see ming ly "locked up" in athematic aggregate of diction, syntax, paragra ph struct ure, and rheto rical devices.The usual feelin g is that "somethin g is wrong but I don't know exac tly what it is."Reme mber , too, that time is now running out. The upshot all too often is thatthe materi al is rel ease d regret full y r 'as is , " or just nit-picked, or junked inwholesale lots .The document manage r at this point real ize s that an awfully lot was contractedfor when his initial outline was ra ther casua lly tossed off as the basis for makingassignment s to his engineers. But his resolv e to do bette r the next time is quick-ly eroded away when he undertakes the baffling act of preparing a better outlinefor communicating his wants more speci fical ly to his contributors. Strangely,it all reduc es to more confusion, misundersta ndings, and mere talk. The con-censu s is that it is ea si er to "bash it out", and mak e-d o with poor inputs, thanit is to face the frustations of attempting to correctly plan and control the contentin the firs t place.Cynical? N o . Real ist ic? Yes - a recognition that outlines, as now built , canonly be the sket chie st of pred ict ions , and are not the specif icat ions they shouldbe to effect positive control over the elusive and heurist ic p roces s of writing.

*Journa l of Computer Documentation August 1999/Vol 23, No. 3


15/85

R e p r i n t13

52.092 4

T H E C O N V E N T I O N A L ,TRIAL AND ERRORP U B L I S H I N G PROCEDUREI ) MAKE OUTLIN~E . / , - - . - - - -~ - ' - 7

1) WRITE DRAFTS, .

I (LONGWAIT)

l THE LOOP

.E,,i~,MANUSDRIRS ~ ' N 1

O

ENGINEER/AUTHOR

PROPOSAL/REPORT MANAGER

o ~

MANAGEMENT/MARKET ING

~ ~ ~ JOB." TOO MANY "DETAILS"; DOESN'T RELATE \f~ "~ \ f~"~ TO MY REQUEST. (NEXT TIME. I 'LL SPECIFY

PROPOSAL EVALUATOR/REPORT READER

F i g u r e 4 . L a i s s e z - f a i r e w r i t i n g a nd p o s t - f a c t o r e v i e w i n g m e a n s t h a t th e c o u r s e o f t h e d o c u m e n tc a n b e o b s e r v e d a n d c o r r e c t e d o n l y a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t . I n e f f e c t i v e o u t li n i n g m e t h o d i st h e b a s i c c u l p r i t , n o t l a c k o f t i m e o r w r i t i n g s k i l l .

7

* Jou rn a l o f Co m p u t e r Doc u m en t a t i on Au g us t 1 9 9 9 /Vo i 2 3 , No . 3


16/85

Reprint14The Nature of the Problem

THE LOSS OF OUTLINING CONTROL

Achieving cohere nt thematic organization depends on writing thesis sentences at the topic level.Outlining without the thesis /topic concept reduc es to mer e categorizi ng, which pract icallyguarantees team confusion and thematic incoherence.

If an outline is to effectively control the writing proc ess, it must s pecify contentin terms of topical points and lines of argument rather than categories of subjectmatt er. Thus, the basic steps of outlining, as shown in Figur e 5, re qui re thewriting out of a thesis sentence, or statem ent of proposition, before one can listand arrange the subject items meaningfully. While this fact has long been recog-nized by orthodox ref ere nces on the craft of exposi tory writing (e. g., J. RaleighNelson, Writin g the Technical Report, McGraw Hill, 1940), the prac tice of writingout thesis sentences as part of outlining has become extinct in industry.There are many compelling reas ons for the general demis e of orthodox outlining.They include: 1) the lag of technical incubation, discour aging e arly committ mentsto story -li ne speci fics , and 2) the growth of scope and complexi ty, exceeding oneman 's grasp of the content' s essentials. In propos als another insidious reason isthe assumption that the theses reside in the RFP and the proposal therefore onlyhas to contain the "answ er half of the dialogue. " The fundamental reas on, how-ever, is the seem ing lack of appr opria te pla ces or l evels in the swollen outlineat which to summa riz e the various propositions. Do you write a new thesis sen-tence for each chap ter? Each heading? Each par agr aph ? We now detect amethodological oversight. In defining the Thesis Sentence 25 yea rs ago, Pr o-fesso r Nelson had in mind the sh ort te chnical re po rt of 10 pages, or Theme paperof the c la ss ro om; he never envisioned the 100, 500 or 2,000 page prop osa l orprogram final repor t.In any event, the elimination of Steps (2) and (3) in Figur e 5 res ults in the tenta-tive subjec t list, Step (1), becomi ng the sole mech ani sm of outlining. The sis -less, it soon takes on the cha rac ter ist ics of the "categ oric al" outline, Figure 6.The categorical outline is so named because its headings are preponderantlycategories, such as "General Description," or "Introduction." Categorical out-lining is preo ccupied with regulations, with "off icial" nomenclature of subordina-tion, "logical" rules like subordinate bifurcation, and lit era ry conventions of formsuch as linguistic paral lelis m of headings and indentation symm etry.As a text organizing tool, the catego rical outline has se veral major methodologicaldefects. Firs t, the implication that gre ate r degre es of indentation must systemat-ically cor res pond to lower levels of detail. This leads to differences of opinionover absolute levels of given subject mat ter s, and to generation of "fal se-f ront "headings to achieve outline alignment of given write-ups.Second, the lack of distinction between the functions of categorizing and subordinat-ing (both ar e shown by indenting). This lead s to confused organiz ation s by ob-scuring the fact that the true criteria of subordination is thematic dependence,not class membership.Third, the lack of distinction between ca tegor ical headings (which cannot bewritten about) and topical headings (which are wr itten about). This leads toeration of redundant or trivial copy under ca tegor ical headings (e. g., topicalborrowings or editorialese), and disunified, partial writ e-ups under topicalheadings.

gen-



17/85

Reprint15

F o u r t h , t h e a b s e n c e o f q u o t a s o r l i m i t s o n w o r d l e n g t h p e r h e a d i n g e n t r y . T h i sl e a d s to s k i m p i n g o n h a r d i s s u e s , o v e r - e l a b o r a t i n g o n f a m i l i a r d e t a i l , c h a n gi n gt h e s u b j e c t w i th o u t w a r n i n g , a n d p r e v e n t s t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e m a t i c u n i t y t h r o u g ht o p i c a l s e l f - c o n t a i n m e n t .F i f t h , t h e a b s e n c e o f t h e s i s s e n t e n c e s , a n d t h e u s e o f n o u n - t y p e t o p ic t it l e s . T h i sm a k e s t h e t h e m a t i c i n t e n t i n v i s i b l e , s o e a c h p a r t i c i p a n t m u s t r e s o r t t o a p e r s o n a l ,i n t u i t i v e s e t o f t h e s e s , a n d p r o f o u n d t e a m c o n f u s i o n t h e r e f o r e e n s u e s .A n i c e t h i n g ab o u t t h e c a t e g o r i c a l o u t l i n e i s t h a t t h e s i s d e v e l o p m e n t , b e i n g a t r o u b l e -s o m e i n t e l l e c t u a l c h o r e , c a n b e p u t o f f t o th e a c t u a l w r i t i n g p h a s e - i n d e e d , t h ep u r p o s e o f w r i t i n g ou t t h e p a r a g r a p h s b e c o m e s e r r o n e o u s l y d e f i ne d a s a p r o c e s so f t h e s i s s e e k i n g , r a t h e r t h a n on e o f t h e s i s p r e s e n t i n g . T h i s m i s c o n c e p t i o n fi t sn i c e l y w i t h ~ c t t ha t w r i t i n g is a lw a y s m o r e - o r - l e s s u n a v o i d a b l y h e u r i s ti c( yo u d o n ' t k n o w e x a c t l y w h a t t o s a y t i l l y o u ' r e i n t h e p r o c e s s o f p h r a s i n g i t ) , s ot h e c a t e g o r i c a l m e t h o d s e e m s t o b e a " n a t u r a l " a p p r o a c h . B e c a u s e t h e a u th o r c a ng e t g o in g w it h a n " o r g a n i z a t i o n " b e f o r e h e h a s w o r k e d o u t p r e c i s e l y w h a t to a s s e r t ,a r g u e , p r o v e , e t c . , t h e c a t e g o r i c a l m e t h o d h a s b e c o m e h i g h l y p o p u l a r fo r th e c r a s hp r o p o s a l a nd r e p o r t .

52~92.

5 2 0 9 2 5

O U T L I N I N G B A S I C S1 ) M A K E T E N T A T I V E L I S T O F S U B J E C T I T E M S

' i i i l : i ~ ~2 ) F O I ~ L A T E T H E T H ES IS .3 ) S E L E C T A N D o R i ~ l l ' f i lZ E T H E S U B J E C T I T E M ST O B E S T D E M G ~ R A T E T H E T HE SIS .

T H E " C A T E G O R I C A L " O U T L I N E

(1)(2)

C

E N G I N E E R P R O P O S A L M A N A G E RF i g u r e 5 . W h e n t h e d o c u m e n t g r o w s l a r g e r t h ana s i n g l e t h e m e , t h e r e i s n o o b v i o u sp l a c e t o w r i t e t h e t h e s i s s e n t e n c e ( s ) ,s o t o p i c - l e v e l " o r g a n i z i n g " , s t e p s 2)a n d 3) , i s l e f t u n d o n e u n t i l t h e a c t u a lw r i t i n g i s u n d e r t a k e n .

F i g u r e 6 . S k e l e t o n of a c a t e g o r i c a l o u t l i n e s h o w si t s r e l i a n c e o n t h e m e c h a n i s m o f s u b -o r d i n a t i o n . W i t h t h e s i s s e n t e n c e s m i s s -i n g, e a e h p a r t i e i p a n t m u s t r e a d h i s o w ni n t u i ti v e t h e s e s i n to t h e r i d d l e - l i k e n o u nh e a d i n g s .

9

*Journal of Computer Documentation Augu st 1999/Vol 23 , No. 3


18/85

Reprint16

The Nature of the Problem

T H E RIVER-RAFT D O C U M E N T

Categorical outlining re sult s in the "discre tion ary" wTiting of the Riv er-Raft document, so calledbecause it follows the lln e of lea st thematic res ist an ce . The s tory telling impunity of the eate -_gorieal approach was borrowed from the novel tradition and is not suited to expository discourse.

T h e r e s u l t o f t h e c a t e g o r i c a l a p p r o a c h t o w r i t i n g ( c o m p o s i t i o n a s t h e s i s - s e e l d n g )i s t h e " R i v e r - R a f t " d o c u m e n t ( F i g u r e 7 ) . U n p r e d i c t a b l e l e n g t h o f p a s s a g e g i v e st h e t e x t i [ s s c r o l l - l i k e c h a r a c t e r , w h i c h i s s e e n a s a " r i v e r " o f w o r d s . U n p r e -d i c t a b l e u s a g e o f f i g u r e s s u g g e s t s t h e a n a l o g y o f " r a f t s , " s i n c e t h e u n e x p e c t e da p p e a r a n c e o f f i g u r e s , a n d t h e i r l o o s e r e l a t i o n t o t h e t e x t m a k e t h e m n a v i g a t i o n a lm e n a c e s .T h e e a s e o f o u t l i n i n g t h e R i v e r - R a f t p r o d u c t i o n g o e s h a n d - i n - h a n d w i t h a t e n d e n c yt o w a r d c o n c e a l m e n t a n d d i s t r a c t i o n w h e n t h e a u t h o r i s p r e s s u r e d b y s c h e d u l i n ga n d s u b j e c t d i f f i c u l t i e s . T h e c a t e g o r i c a l h e a d i n g d o e s n ' t s e r i o u s l y c o m m i t t h ea u t h o r t o a s p e c i f i c t o p i c , s o a w e a k p o i n t c a n b e s l i g h t e d o r a n e x t r a n e o u s p o i n ts n e a k e d i n ~ i t h o u t t h e r e a d e r b e i n g t h e w i s e r . S i n c e t h e a u t h o r i s f r e e t o w a n d e ra t h i s d i s c r e t i o n , h e w i l l b e t e m p t e d t o f o l l o w t h e l i n e o f l e a s t t h e m a t i c r e s i s t a n c e ,f a v o r i n g p r e f e r r e d s u b j e c t a r e a s a n d a v o i d i n g h a r d o n e s , w i t h o u t c o n c e r n f o r b e i n gc a l l e d t o a c c o u n t .O n e c o n s e q u e n c e i s f a l l i n g f o r P a r k i n s o n ' s L a w o f t h e T r i v i a l , w r i t i n g m o r e a n dm o r e c o p i o u s l y t h e d e e p e r o n e p r o c e e d s i n t o t h e d e t a i l s o f t h e s u b j e c t . A n o t h e ri s t h e t e n d e n c y t o t h e l a z y - m a n ' s c l r c u m l o c a t i o n , t h e s t y l e t h a t c o u n t s o n t h e r ea l w a y s b e i n g a n o t h e r s e n t e n c e c o m i n g a l o n g w h i c h c a n b e u s e d t o b o l s t e r t h ew e a k n e s s o r c l a r i f y t h e a m b i g u i t y o f t h e l a s t o n e . T h e m o s t c o n f u s i n g c o n s e -q u e n c e o f " t r u s t e d " o r g a n i z i n g i s t h a t c h a n g e s o f " s u b j e c t " , t h a t i s , c h a n g e s o fi m m e d i a t e t o p i c a l f o c u s , c a n o c c u r w i t h o u t w a r n i n g , e . g . , t h e g e n e r a l d e s c r i p t i o no f t h e b l o c k d i a g r a m i s i n t e r r u p t e d b y a n e q u a l l y l o n g d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e s p e c i a ld e s i g n t e c h n i q u e f o r o n e p a r t o f t h e b l o c k d i a g r a m . G u i d e d o n l y b y b r o a d c a t e -g o r i e s , n e i t h e r t h e a u t h o r n o r t h e r e a d e r h a s a r e a d y t e s t f o r t h e c o n d i t i o n o fe x t r a n e i t y . I t i s s t r i c t l y a m a t t e r o f g o o d n e s s o f i n t e n t a n d s k i l l w h e t h e r t h ea u t h o r a v o i d s t h e t e m p t a t i o n s o f " l e a s t r e s i s t a n c e . " T h e o r g a n i z i n g r u l e s a r en o h e l p t o h i m .F i g u r e u s a g e i s a b u s e d t h r e e w a y s i n t h e R i v e r - R a f t d o c u m e n t : i ) t h e r e a d e r c a n ' tt e l l w h e n a f i g u r e i s a b o u t t o b e r e f e r r e d t o , 2 ) h e c a n ' t f i n d i t e a s i l y w h e n ar e f e r e n c e i s m a d e , a n d 3 ) t h e f i g u r e s a r e o f t e n n o t d i s c u s s e d i n a n o r d e r l y w a y ,b u t a r e t h r o w n i n a s r e f e r e n c e d a t a o n t h e b a s i s o f " f i g u r e i t o u t y o u r s e l f . " I ti s n o t s u r p r i s i n g t o s e e f i g u r e s t r e a t e d a s " a t t a c h m e n t s " i n t h e R i v e r - R a f t m e t h o d .O n e m u s t b e w o r k i n g i n t h e t o p i c c o n c e p t b e f o r e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y i s f u l l y a p p r e c i a t e do f h a n d l i n g f i g u r e s a s t h e m a t i c e l e m e n t s o f m e s s a g e u n i t s , r a t h e r t h a n a s o f f i -c i a l d a t a s u b m i t t a l s p r e p a r e d b y t h e d r a f t i n g r o o m a n d n o t t o b e t a m p e r e d w i t h .T h e c h i e f o f f e n s e o f t h e R i v e r - R a f t f i g u r e i s t h a t i t c o v e r s t o o m u c h g r o u n dt o p i c a l l y , e i t h e r i n s c o p e o r l e v e l , w h e n t r a n s l a t e d i n t o a t e x t d i s c u s s i o n .T h e c a t c h a l l d i a g r a m o r s c h e m a t i c c o n c e i v e d i n e q u i p m e n t t e r m s a s a f u n c t i o n a le n t i t y i s f i n e a s " e n g i n e e r i n g d a t a , " b u t n o t a t a l l s u i t e d t o t h e e x p o s i t o r y n e e df o r t h e m a t i c , o r l e s s o n e n t i t i e s . F i t t i n g f i g u r e s i n t o m e s s a g e s m e a n s b r e a k i n gt h e m d o w n i n t o t o p i c a l l y u n i f i e d d i m e n s i o n s , a n d p e r h a p s c r e a t i n g o t h e r s i nv e r b a l t e r m s s u c h a s t h e k e y w o r d l i s t .T h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c t r a i t o f t h e R i v e r - R a f t r e p o r t o r p r o p o s a l i s t h a t a t a n y g i v e nm o m e n t o f r e a d i n g , t h e r e a d e r u s u a l l y c a n ' t t e l l w h e r e h e i s i n t h e o v e r a l l o u t -l i n e a n d w h a t i s b e i n g d r i v e n a t i n t h e p r e s e n t p a s s a g e . T h e a u t h o r , h o p e f u l l y ,

*Jou rnal of Com puter Docu ment ation August 1999/Vol 23, No. 3


19/85

Reprint17

is "buil ding up" to a conclusion, and the rea de r must hang on until he ar ri ves atit. The psychology of the re ad er putting himse lf into the hands of the author, tobe led to the promi sed land of compre hensi on, is a piece of cult ural mythologycall ed "The Assumption of the Wise Author. " According to this li te ra ry conven-tion, the role of the author is that of the omniscient story teller, as in the noveltradition. I ts coro lla ry is that if the rea der bec omes confused, he just wasn' tpaying' attention.The implicati on that the rea de r is not entitle d to know beforehand where he' sgoing is p art of the enjoyment of being entertai ned, but is unworkable for thesituation of instru ction. Unfortunately, the technical repo rt and proposal lack theplot s tructu re that privileg es the novelist and makes this concept of wise author-ship reasonab ly valid for the li tera ture of fiction.

52092.9

,~/~;.~ F' - ~ I 'VE LOST THE THREAD:THE RIVER-RAFT DOCUM ENT ~ _ ~

~\

F i g u r e 7 . In the conventional run-on pr opo sal, the te xt-sc ro ll is a "riv er " of writing inhibitedonly by the a utho r's good intent ions . Fi gures ar e "rafts , " guided by the ir own infor-mation al momentum. Confused re a de r' s complain t is caused by autho r's misconcep -tion that continuity of whole na rra tiv e is the same thing as coherenc e. Rheto ricalflow has been str es se d over logical inevitability.

l l

*Journal of Computer Documentation August1999/Vol23, No. 3


20/85

,i

Reprint18

Thematic Quantization as a Solution

N A T U R A L T O P I C A L S T R U C T U R E O F E X P O S I T O R Y D I S C O U R S E

I f y o u i g n o r e t h e c a t e g o r i z i n g o f e x i s t i n g h e a d i n g s i n t h e t e x t o f t e c h n i c a l l i t e r a t u r e , a n d s e a r c ho u t t h e in d e p e n d e n t u n i t s o f d i s c o u r s e o n s t r i c t l y t h e m a t i c g r o u n d s ( l i ne of a r g u m e n t ) , y o u w i l ld i s c o v e r a s e q u e n c e of m o r e - o r - l e s s s e l f - c o n t a i n e d t o p i c s h a v in g m o r e - o r - l e s s u n i f o rm l e n gt h s .

D e s p i t e c a t e g o r i c a l o u t l i n i n g a n d t h e f o i b l e s o f R i v e r R a f t i n g t h a t r e s u l t , t h e c o n -s c i e n t i o u s a u t h o r o f e x p o s i t o r y m a t e r i a l u n c o n s c i o u s l y f o l l o w s a n a t u r a l p a t t e r n o fo r g a n i z a t i o n : t h e s e q u e n c e o f t o p i c a l t h e m e s . A p o i n t i s r a i s e d , t h e n d i s c u s s e d ;a n o t h e r p o i n t is r a i s e d a n d th e n d i s c u s s e d , a n d s o o n . W h a t m a k e s t h i s o b s e r v a t i o ns i g n i f i c a n t is t h e s u r p r i s i n g d e g r e e o f u n i f o r m i t y i n n a t u r a l t h e m e l e n g t h s , a n d t h ed e g r e e t o w h i c h t h e to p i c a l c o n t e n t o f t h e t h e m e s g o e s u n r e c o g n i z e d i n t h e s y s t e mo f c a t e g o r i c a l h e a d i n gs . T h e s e f a c t o r s r a i s e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f a s t a n d a r d i z e d , m o d -u l a r t h e m a t i c s t r u c t u r e o f o u t l in e , w h e r e i n t h e p r e c i s e o b j e c t of t h e p a s s a g e c a na l w a y s b e k e p t c l e a r f o r b o t h t h e a u t h o r a n d t h e r e a d e r t h r o u g h t h e d e v i c e o f t h et h e s i s s e n t e n c e .N a t u r a l t o p i c s t r u c t u r e c a n e a s i l y b e sh o w n to e x i s t i n a n y s a m p l e o f t h e m a t i c m a -t e r i a l p r o v i d e d t h at : I ) i t is r e a s o n a b l y c o h e r e n t t o b e g i n w i t h; 2 ) t h e " s u b o r d i n a t i n g "s i g n o f c a t e g o r i c a l h e a d i n g s , f f a n y , i s c o r r e c t l y i n t e r p r e t e d ; " a n d 3) t h e " t o p i c " i su n d e r s t o o d t o b e an y s e m a n t i c a l l y d i s c e r n a b l e p a s s a g e , w h i ch c a n b e s u m m a r i z e di n a t h e s i s s e n t e n c e t h a t i s t h e m a t i c a l l y i n d e p e n d e n t o f t h e p r e v i o u s t h e s i s s e n t e n c e( th u s r u l i n g o u t t h e p a r a g r a p h a s t o p i c s ) . S t u d i e s o f H u g h e s r e p o r t s a n d p r o p o s a l ss h o w t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t i s t i c a l p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e n a t u r a l t o p i c : T o p i c l e n g t h r a n g e s f r o m a b o u t 20 0 to 9 50 w o r d s . T h e a v e r a g e t o p i c l e n g t h i s a b o u t 5 00 w o r d s . T h e s t a n d a r d s a m p l e d e v i a t i o n is a b o u t 20 0 w o r d s . T h e r e a p p e a r s t o b e a n o r m a l d i s t r i b u t i o n a b o u t t h e m e a n .I n o t h e r w o r d s , t o p ic r a n g e a nd v a r i a t i o n is a m a z i n g l y s m a l l , m o s t a u t h o r s e x -h a u s t i n g a g i v e n t h e m e i n a b o u t 5 o r 6 p a r a g r a p h s o n t h e a v e r a g e . T h i s p a t t e r n i sm o s t p r o n o u n c e d i n d e t a i l e d t e c h n i c a l e x p o s i t i o n , w h e r e t h e a u t h o r i s m o t i v a t e d t om a k e a f u l l e x p l a n a t i o n o f a l l t h a t i s s i g n i f i c a n t a b o u t t h e s u b j e c t , a n d i s t h e r e f o r em o s t l i k e l y to c h a n g e t h e s u b j e c t o n h i m s e l f w i t h o u t r e a l i z i n g i t, i . e . , b e c o m e " e x -t r a n e o u s " t o th e o r i g i n a l i n t e n t i o n o f h i s h e a d i n g o r o p e n i n g s a l i e n t .A t o p i c - s t r u c t u r e a n a l y s i s f o r a r a n d o m s a m p l e o f R i v e r R a f t p r o p o s a l m a t e r i a l i ss h ow n i n F i g u r e 8 . T h e n u m b e r o f w o r d s p e r h e a d i n g i s f i r s t p l o t t e d in b a r - c h a r tf o r m . T h e t e x t i s th e n e x a m i n e d t o d e t e r m i n e w h e r e t h e " t r u e " t o p ic b o u n d a r i e s d on o t c o i n c i d e w i t h t h e s y s t e m o f h e a d i n g s . T o p i c b o u n d a r y v a l i d i t y i s d e t e r m i n e d( s o m e w h a t s u b j e c t i v e l y ) b y th e r u l e s o f T h e m a t i c U n i t y a n d t h e s i s i n d e p e n d e n c e ,b u t n o t b y l e n g t h p r e c o n c e p t i o n s . T h e a u t h o r ' s o w n t r a n s i t i o n a l d e v i c e s a n d h i n tsa r e u s e d w h e r e p o s s i b l e t o f i x t o p i c b o u n d a r i e s . T h a t v i o l a t i o n s o f u n i t y in t h e s e -m a n t i c s e n s e u s u a l l y c o r r e s p o n d t o a b n o r m a l v a r i a t i o n s i n l e n g th i s t he e s s e n t i a l( th o ug h " m y s t e r i o u s " ) p r o p e r t y a n d a d v a n t a g e o f t h e m o d u l a r t e c h n i q u e . W h e r ed i s c r e p a n c i e s e x i s t, t h e v a l id t o p i cs a r e r e - p l o t t e d , a s s h o w n by t h e d a s h e d b a r s .C o r r e c t l y s u b o r d i n a t e d p a s s a g e s a r e s u m m e d ( by t h e b r a c k e t s ) t o s h o w in t en d e dt o p i c a l t o ta l . D e v i a t i o n a b o u t t h e m e a n i s th e n c a l c u l a t e d i n t h e u s u a l w a y .N o te t h a t t h i s a n a l y s i s d o e s n o t c o m p l e t e a n y e d i t o r i a l p r o c e s s o f c o n v e r s i o n . N e wt o p ic ti t l es , n e c e s s a r y c a t e g o r i c a l r e v i s i o n s , a n d l e f t o v e r n o n - t o p ic a l f r a g m e n t s( o ft e n e d i t o r i a l e s e o f q u e s t i o n a b l e s i g n i f i c a n c e ) a r e y e t t o b e a c c o u n t e d f o r .



21/85

O U T L I N E H E A D I N G S( T A B L E O F C O N T E I ~

k : P R O P O S A L F O R I N D U C T I V ES T O R A G E S W I T C H I N G S T U D Y (S E C T I O N I V P U L S E S H A P I N G C

A . C U R R E N T - F E D P U L S EB . M A G N E T I C P U L S E S H A( N E W M O D U L A T O R C I R C U( S Q U A R E L O O P M E T H O D )( A C H I E V I N G U N I D I R E C T I OC . S O L I D - S T A T E P U L S E SD . A C T I V E P U L S E - S H A P I I ~

E . R L C P U L S E S H A P I N G( C O N V E N T I O N A L M A G N E T

S E C T . I l l S W I T C H I N G D E V I C E ,A . C O N T R O L L E D - C O N D U C

1 . V A C U U M T U B E S2 . T R A N S I S T O R S3 . S I L I C O N C O N T R O L L

B . T R I G G E R E D ( U N C O N T RC . T R A N S F E R S W I T C H E S

S E C T . V I I I R F G E N E R A T O R SA . O V E R - C O U P L E D T E S L IB . R E S O N A N T S T R U C T U R E

1 . C A V I T I E S2 . D I S T R I B . P ~ A R A M E T I

C . N O N - L I N E A R C I R C U I T1 . F E R R I T E D E V I C E S2 . S O L I D - S T A T E D E V I (

D . O T H E R D E V I C E S

OZU~Z '~

F I G U R E S :[ ] S M A L L

1 P A G EF O L D O U T

0 1700 1800 1900 2000 21 00 2200 2300

F i g u r e K . T h e m e S t r u c t u r e P r o f i l e . 1 3i 3

Reprint19

*Journal o f Computer Documentation August 1999/Vol 23, No. 3


22/85

Reprint20

Thematic Quantization as a Solution

T H E C O N C E P T O F T H E M A T I C Q U A N T I Z A T I O N

R e c o g n i ti o n o f t o p i c s in th e w r i ti n g t r e a t m e n t i s v e r y i m p o r t a n t t o t h e m a t i c c o h e r e n c e . S i n c et h e r e i s a s u r p r i s i n g u n i f o r m i t y in n a t u r a l t o p i c le n g t h s , t h e d e v i c e o f a s t a n d a r d t o p ic m o d u l ec a n b e u s e d t o i m p l e m e n t a n d i n s u r e t o p i c r a c o g n i t i o n .

S T O P ' s r e c o g n i t i o n o f n a t u r a l t o p i c b o u n d a r i e s in h e h e a d i n g s t r u c t u r e w o u ld s e e mt o b e a n o bv i o u sl y d e s i r a b l e r e a d e r a i d. M o d e r n t e c h n i ca l l i t e r a t u r e a l r e a d y a t -t e m p t s t o d o t h i s . T h e R i v e r R a f t d o c u m e n t m a k e s l i b e r a l u s e o f o u t l in e h e a d i n g sw h i c h t r y to sh o w t h e m a t i c c o n t e n t , b u t t r u e t o p i c s t r u c t u r e i s c o n c e a l e d b y t h eu s e o f n o n i n d ic a t iv e c a t e g o r i z i n g h e a d i n g s a rid n o n r e t r e i v a b l e s u b o r d i n a t e h e a d in g s .D e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e s i s s e n t e n c e s f o r e a c h t o p i c i s a l o g i c a l e x t e n s i o n o f t o p i c a l r e -c o g n i ti o n , a n d h a s t h e f u r t h e r a d v a n t a g e o f r e - i n s t i t u t i n g t h e t h e s i s s e n t e n c e a s a no u t l in i n g a i d . S T O P g o e s o n e s t e p f u r t h e r b y s t a n d a r d i z i n g t h e m o d u l e d i m e n s i o n ,w i t h a c a p a c i t y t h a t a c c o m o d a t e s t h e u p p e r l i m i t o f th e n a t u r a l r a n g e o f t o p i cl e n g t h s , t h u s p h y s i c a l l y e m b o d y i n g t h e t o p i c a l r u l e s o f o r g a n i z i n g a s a d i s t in c ta n d s y s t e m a t i c f o r m a t f e a t u r e . T o p i c re c o g n i t i o n t h r o u g h m o d u l a r i t y i s il l u s t ra t e din Figure 9.This rationale behind STOP is called "Thematic Quantization. " As a princ iple ofwritten communication it states:

"Recognition of topical s truct ure as distinct from categorie s is essential toelicit the co rre ct respon ses in writing and reading known as coherence. Themost reliable and objective way to insure such recognition and co-resp on sefor both author and read er is to communicate in message frames of uniformsize. "

A s i d e f r o m t h e b a s i c q u e s ti o n o f j o i nt a u t h o r - r e a d e r c o h e r e n c e , t h e b e a u t y of T h e -m a t i c Q u a n t i z a t i o n i s t h a t i t o b l i g e s t h e a u t h o r t o s e a r c h o u t a n d i d e n t if y h i s k e yp o i n t s m o r e s p e c i f i c a l l y a n d c l e a r l y b e f o r e w r i t i n g . T h u s , i n a d d i t i o n t o T h e m a t i cU n i ty , i t t e n d s t o e l i c i t g r e a t e r p e r t i n e n c e d u r i n g t h e p l a n n in g o f t h e s e q u e n c e a n dt h e a c t u a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e i n d i v id u a l t h e m e s . I t t h e r e f o r e r e s u l t s i n i m p r o v e dc o m p r e h e n s i b i l i t y o f t h e w h o l e d o c u m e n t ( w h ic h is t h e p r o d u c t o f c o h e r e n c e a n dp e r t i n e n c e , i f y o u w i sh ) . A l l of w h i c h i s a g o o d d e a l m o r e i m p o r t a n t t h a n i t s m o s to b v i o u s b e n e f i t s : t h e m e c h a n i c a l i m p r o v e m e n t s i n r e a d a b i l i t y , s u c h a s t h e i n s u r e df i g u r e / t e x t r e l a t e d n e s s .It is important to no te that Thematic Q uantization works a s an organizing tool, thatis, despite individual differences in writing and reading skills. Us age of the prin ci-ple is ubiquitous; it can be seen in numerous forms such as flip-chart presentations,tutorial booklets, broc hures, junior textbooks, e tc. That it has not been applied tocomplex technical materia l before is p robably due to our unfortunate categoricalmisconceptions about the nature of theme structure, and the general fear of losingthe privileges of wise-authorship.

*Journal o f C omputer Documentation August 1999/Vol 23, No. 3


23/85

Reprint21

52092.9

ORIGINAL FORMATI GENERA L DESCRIPT ION I I ETC.A . COMPU TER B. SOFTWAR E C. EQUIPMENTING

BREAKOU T OF NATURAL TOPICS

s o o .w o R o ~ _ . _ _ . , L ~ % ~ _ . . _ S ~ l i e " , , , , ~ _ , ,

_ . ~ _ e CAP,C,T~ OF "~,2 - P A G E M O D U L EM O C K U P O F M O D U L E SI o l o i I o l o ro ' o ' i T

O F C E N T R A L I Z E D D A T A P R O C E I N,o,,,,T,o~, ~ o,,o,,,.,,o, ~ : , C : ; , : ~ : . ! , , ; . : , , t , % % . , . o~.. , .& AVAILABILITY ~, ~O VIAL COMPILER ,NSTA~LAT,ON ND ,OWER

R E Q U I R E M E N T S I(~ ) ECON OMIES OFMIGROELECTRONICC I R C U I T CONSTRUCTION

Figure 9. Themati c Quantization forces recognition of topic struct ure by a uniform modular format. Thestandard 2-page spread is convenientlyavaita ble for use as the module. Capacity of the 2-pagemodule, fortu nately, is suf ficient for more than 95 per cen t of natu ral topics. Note that thefragm ents making up Topic 5 don't really belong in Section I. Topic 4 has copyfit problems,but would probably make into two topics with considerable reader advantage.

15

*Journal of Co mputer Documentation August 1999/Vol 23, No. 3


24/85

Reprint2 2T h e m a t i c Q u a n t i z a t i o n a s a S o l u t i o n

E X A M P L E S O F H O W Q U A N T I Z A T I O N RE V E A L S T H E T H E S I S

W h e n R i v e r R a f t m a t e r i a l i s c o n v e r t e d t o t o p i c al f o r m , t h e v a r i o u s t h e s e s o f t h e t o p i c s " f l o a to u t " f r o m u n d e r t h e c a t e g o r i e s , g i v i n g t h e r e a d e r q u i c k e r i n s i g h t i n to t h e l i n e of a r g u m e n t .

A s a n i l lu s t r a t i o n o f n a t u r a l t h e m e s t r u c t u r e a n d th e e f f e c t s o f T h e m a t i c Q u a n t i z a -t io n in f a c i l i t a t i n g c o m p r e h e n s i o n , i t i s i n s t r u c t i v e t o o b s e r v e w h a t h a p p e n s w h e nc a t e g o r i c a l l y o u t l in e d m a t e r i a l i s c o n v e r t e d t o t o p i c a l f o r m . T h i s c o n v e r s i o n i si l l u s t r a t e d f o r t h r e e r e a l - l i f e c a s e s i n F i g u r e 1 0 . T h e b a s i c c r i t e r i a b e h i n d t h ec o n v e r s i o n i s t h e m o d u l e l i m i t . E a c h t o p i c a l h e a d i n g o n t h e r i g h t ( a ll c a p s ) s t a n d sf o r n o m o r e t h a n 2 p a g e s o f c o p y ; h e a d i n g s o n t h e l e f t st a n d f o r u n k n o w n a m o u n t s .A s s u m i n g c o h e r e n t o r i g i n a l c op y , n o r e - w r i t e i s p e r f o r m e d ; h e n c e in c o n v e r t in g ,t h e e x i s t i n g m a t e r i a l r e a r r a n g e s i t s e l f in t o t h e t o p i c a l u n i t s s h o w n , d i c t a t i n g t h e i ro w n t o p i c a l t i t l e s i n t h e p r o c e s s , a l s o j u s t a s s h o w n . T h u s , i n C a s e 2 " I n t r o d u c t i o n "n a t u r a l l y a n d o r g i n a l l y c o n s i s t e d o f t w o r o u g M y e q u a l p o r t i o n s c o v e r i n g g e n e r a la d v a n t a g e s o f th e d e s i g n a n d lo w c o s t o f t h e d r u m m e m o r y .N o t e t h a t t h e s u b h e a d i n g s w i t h i n t h e t o p i c s w o u l d s t i ll b e e m p l o y e d i n t h e m o d u l a rf o r m . T h e y j u s t d o n ' t s h o w in t h e o u t l in e , s i n c e b e i n g t h e m a t i c a l l y d e p e n d e n t t h e ya r e n o t c o n s i d e r e d a r e t r e i v a b l e i t e m . T h u s , i n C a s e 3 t h e p a s s a g e o n a p p o r t i o n -m e n t o f s u b s y s t e m r e l i a b i l i t y g o a l s i s b u r i e d u n d e r t h e s e t t in g o f g o a l s i n g e n e r a l.T h i s i s j u s t i f ie d b e c a u s e , w h i l e i t c o u ld h a v e b e e n t r e a t e d i n d e p e n d e nt l y b y t h ea u t h o r , i t w a s n ' t , e i t h e r i n t e r m s o f i t s ow n t h e m a t i c u n i t y o r le n g t h .N o t e a l s o t h a t t h e l o s s o f o u t l i n e o r i e n t a t i o n ( c o n t e x t of su b o r d i n a t i o n ) a t a n y g i v e np o i n t i n t h e t o p i c a l o u tl i n e i s o n ly a p p a r e n t . T h e r e v e r s e i s a c t u a l l y t r u e i n th ep r i n t e d t e x t . T h u s , i n C a s e 3 th e r e a d e r o f t h e c a t e g o r i c a l c o p y m i g h t fa c e a p a g ec a r r y i n g o n l y t h e s u b h e ad " E l e c t r o n i c C o m p o n e n t s . " T h e t o p i c a l r e a d e r w o u l d se e :" M i s s i l e R e l i a b i l it y , E f f e c t s o f S t o r a g e a n d H a n d li n g on C o m p o n e n t s , E l e c t r o n i cC o m p o n e n t s . "I n c i d en t a l ly , t h e d o u b l e t o p ic on " E f f e c t s o f S t o r a g e an d H a n d l i n g . . . " i s a t y p i -c a l i n s t a n c e o f t h e n o n - t o p i c a l " s t r u n g - o u t " m o d u l e , c o n s i s t i n g o f a l i s t o f i t e m sw i t h n o b a s i s f o r t h e m a t i c u n i ty o t h e r t h a n c a t e g o r i e s . T h e " c o n t in u e d " o p t io n iss e l e c t e d w h e n a t t e m p t s t o a c h i e v e a u s e f u l d i s t i n c t i o n f a i l . T h i s i s a d e f e c t in th ec o n v e r s i o n p r o c e s s , a n d t h e c a s e i s fo r t u n a t e l y i n f r e q u e n t s i n c e th e v a r i o u s s o l u -t i o n s t a k e e x t r a e f f o r t .T w o o b s e r v a t i o n s s h o u l d b e m a d e a b o u t t h e s e e x a m p l e s . F i r s t , t h e r e i s a s i g n i fi -c a n t a n d v a l u a b l e i n c r e a s e i n t h e s i s v i s i b i l i t y . T h u s , i n C a s e 1 , t h e " C N F A R Q u a n -t i z a t i o n " l a b e l t u r n s o u t to b e h i d in g b o t h a d e s i g n a p p r o a c h a n d a s e t o f t e s t d a t a( i n c o r r e c t l y l u m p e d ) . A l s o , C a s e 2 is a g o o d e x a m p l e o f t h e s i s - r e v e a l i n g a l l t h ew a y t h r o u g h i t. T h e r e v e l a t i o n i s o n ly h i n t e d a t i n t h e m o r e s p e c i f i c t o p i c t i t l e s .O n e m u s t i m a g i n e t h e i m p r o v e m e n t e f f e c te d b y w r i t t e n o u t T h e s i s S e n t e n c e s s u m -m a r i z i n g w h a t i s a c t u a l l y b e i n g s a i d .S e c o n d , t h e i n d e p e n d e n t " t h e m e l e v e l , " i . e . , t h e p o i n t t o w h i c h t h e m a t e r i a l a c t u -a l l y a d d r e s s e s i t s e lf ( a b o v e t h e s u b o r d i n a t e p a s s a g e s ) w a n d e r s b a c k a n d f o r t h u n -p r e d i c t a b l y i n th e c a t e g o r i c a l o u t l in e . I t i s t h is a b s e n c e o f t h e s t r a i g h t - l i n e t h e m el e v e l w h i c h c a u s e s s o m u c h c o n f u s i o n t o b o t h th e a u t h o r a n d t h e r e a d e r i n t he R i v e rR a f t a p p r o a c h .

*Jour na l of Computer DocumentationAugust 1999/V0123 , No. 3


25/85

Reprint23

Case I

C a s e 2

I

Or igina l Ca t e go r i c a l Out l i ne " topi c a l Out l i ne a f t e r Con ve r s ionI . De s ign .. \pprua e h for Autom a t i c I ) c t e c uon

I . Autom a t i c De te c t i on Autom a t i c De te c t i on Pr inc ipl e sA , I n t r od u c t i o n ~ T E C I I N I Q E E S F O I l A C T O M A T I C T A I t G E T I ) E T E C T i O NB . A u t o m a t i c D e t e c t io n T ~ . ch n i q u es / ~ / - - - ~ - C O N S ID E R A T I U N S O F I tA D A B E N V D t O N M E N T

l ) I nt ro d uc ti on ~ - - H UG II ES V ID E O P I{ OC ES SL NG M E TI IO I) S/2 ) E x t e r n a l B a l d ar P h en o m e n a C o n s i d e r a t i o n s / Ada pt iv e Cont rol Me thods i n Autom a t i c De te c t i on

T I l E STATISTICAL V I DE O Q U A N T I Z E R C O N C E P T) CNFARQuantization ~ ' ~4I Multileve

2019286 Sequential Thematic Organization of Publications

Documents

Transcript of 2019286 Sequential Thematic Organization of Publications