Structural integrity matters
When a 12-storey apartment building collapsed in Miami in 2021, killing 98 people, many observers couldn’t understand how previous building inspections had failed to avert the disaster. We now understand that while faults were obvious, inspection reports failed because they obscured them.
In an article published in the International Journal of Technical Communication, a structural engineering supervisor was asked his opinion as to why the most recent engineering report failed to spur the building management to action. He lays the blame firmly on the way the report was structured and the writers’ failure to consider the intended audience.
The 2018 structural field survey report for Champlain Towers discusses 11 issues, with no hierarchy to differentiate the level of importance for each. Nor is there a separate list of recommendations of how to address these issues or the priority for doing so. Problems with leaky windows and doors (an issue for individual owners) appears first, while the fact that ‘failed waterproofing is causing major structural damage to the concrete structural slab below [the pool deck and entrance drive]’ – widely believed to be the cause of the collapse – is item number 9.
When it comes to the report structure, the engineer (who only uses his first name to protect his identity) says it should have followed the ANSI/NISO standard for Scientific and Technical Reports. This is a US standard, but similar recommendations can be found for producing reports in Australia. Critically, the results and discussion should be kept separate from the conclusions and findings.
Another problem with the report is the language, which is totally unsuited to the target audience. The report is addressed to the treasurer of the condominium association (what we would call an owner’s corporation in Australia), and yet the wording is highly technical and unlikely to be fully comprehensible to anyone without specialist knowledge of the subject matter.
When discussing risks and consequences, particularly when they involve possible threats to human life, a risk assessment matrix can help communicate the criticality by providing a visual representation of the likelihood of a risk occurring and its impact. By failing to adequately explain the probability and severity of the risk posed by the damaged concrete, the report didn’t produce the response required to prevent a disaster.
Like the author of the journal article, I’m not seeking to add to the criticism of the people involved by writing about this tragedy, but rather to highlight what the lessons are for producing better technical documentation, and perhaps avoid a repeat.
With this in mind, here are some simple rules for writing a technical report:
Structure the information to prioritise the most important elements.
Summarise your findings in a conclusion.
Provide separate recommendations in the form of clear steps for what should be done next.
Write with your reader in mind using language they will easily understand.
