Bullets and "delusional" briefing slides

Another set of PowerPoint briefing slides was released to the public recently. The slides, which were obtained by the National Security Archive under the Freedom of Information Act, show what planners in 2002 projected might occur if the US invaded Iraq (get all slides in PDF). The slides contain "completely unrealistic assumptions about a post-Saddam Iraq..." according to National Security Archive Executive Director Thomas Blanton. These PowerPoint Slides were used to brief the White House and Donald Rumsfeld in 2002. (See CNN article and video report.)

These slides were likely never projected on a screen. PowerPoint decks like this are instead often printed and used in the US government and military as a kind of document. (See earlier posts related to slideumentation here, here, and here). Slides like these would not make for good visuals, but they do not make for good documents either. Even though the title of the slide (err, "page") below is "Key Planning Assumptions," the problem with presenting bullets like this is that important assumptions about each bullet point are left unstated and unexplained. Since printed slides like these are acting as de facto documents to be left behind and examined later, why not present the information with more written explanation and greater clarity in a properly written document which adheres to the principles of good writing and good document design?


Is the last bullet the most or least important?
In a document like the one above, what is the relationship of the bullets? Is it sequential from the first to the last in order? Or is it priority from the most important to the least important? (Or the other way around?) Or is it that the bullets are just related in some way. When most people look at such a long bullet list like the one above it's only natural to assume (whether consciously or not) that the last bullet may be of lesser importance than items higher up on list. In this case the last item, "Iraq regime has WMD capability," looks almost as if it were a parenthetical addition following the two-line acronym-filled bullet (number nine out of ten if you're counting) on "forces in Turkey" placed above it. WMDs, of course, would apparently move up the bulleted-list chain on future PowerPoint decks in Washington.

In the Cognitive Style of PowerPoint, Edward Tufte, citing the 1998 Harvard Business Review article ("Strategic Stories: How 3M is Reviewing Business Planning"), suggests that bulleted lists "can make us stupid" because bullet lists (1) are too generic, (2) they leave important relationships unspecified, and (3) key assumptions are left vague at best. These briefing slides seem like pretty good examples of the kind of "documents" we should avoid subjecting our audiences to.

Bullet outlines dilute thought, says, Tufte. Certainly if we are going to make a document to be left behind as a handout we have to do better than printing out slides of bulleted outlines. Says Tufte:

"Instead of showing a long sequence of tiny information fragments on slides, and instead of dumping those slides onto paper,report writers should have the courtesy to write a real report (which might also be handed out at a meeting) and address audiences as serious people. PP templates are a lazy and ridiculous way to format printed reports."  (Emphasis mine.)      
             – Edward Tufte, The Conitive Style of PowerPoint

Above: POTUS = President of the United States. SECDEF = Secretary of Defense. The first bullet reads much differently if it is written "George Bush/Donald Rumsfeld directed effort; limited to a very small group."

I am not arguing with the content of the briefing slides, there are plenty of sites for that. I am saying that the way in which it was presented is something that we ourselves should avoid doing at all cost. Presenting paper documents like this — which violate rule after rule of good document design and good writing — will obfuscate our message, not clarify it.

You will need this: List of acronyms used in War Planning Slides (PDF).

Thanks to my buddy Les in Australia for the heads up on these slides.

Comments

[lilalia]

I was taught that if there is a sequence of order, priority, or importance in a listing, then don't use bullets but numbering. Bullets are only to be used items of equal importance and non-ordered.

[Tom Moore]

This seems like be a good place to reiterate your recommendation that, in the absence of a full report, printed handouts be supplied in a format that augments each slide with adequate speakers notes to caption each chart, supplying the otherwise verbal material.

[Charles Edward Frith]

What's clear to me is that the U.S uses language and rationale that is even more out of whack and mendacious than corporate death speak AND can't present them either.

WMD's on the bottom say's it all. Mission at the top or at the bottom (unless one is lying of course).

Expect invade/attack Iranian presentation contributions shortly. The 5th fleet is stirring it up in the Persian Gulf.

[Russ Conte]

I appreciate the post, keep up the great work. One other aspect that this touches upon (for me) is how people and organizations make decisions. It seems likely to me, based on the evidence, that decisions were made without the supporting evidence, and in a total absence of any contradictory evidence. So not only are bullet points a method that I've long abandoned in presentations, the whole mode of thinking is insufficient for the most important matters I face daily. My preferred method is to create presentations without any bullet points, and allow for plenty of interaction from different sides. That seems to be very effective for me.

[Travis]

"Presenting paper documents like this...will obfuscate our message, not clarify it."

You obviously misunderstand the point of a bureaucracy if you expect anything less.

[Christian Bühlmann]

Garr,

An interesting article on Powerpoint and the military written by William S. Lind :
Military Intellectual Blasts Endless PowerPoint Briefs
http://uscavonpoint.com/blogs/reconstructing_iraq/archive/2007/03/16/2066.aspx?utm_source=onpoint+mar2007Bd&utm_medium=bulkemail&utm_term=powerpoint+briefs&utm_campaign=onpoint+mar2007Bd&urlid=onpoint_powerpointbriefs

[Zed]

I am a officer in the Army. I found myself with a very unique problem these last 2 weeks. I have 2 new analysts that know very little about Iraq. In the course of browsing our government inter-tubes online, I realized something that drew me to your blog today: our military community has officially departed the business of analysis and good briefings and went into the business of making slides.

The implication is subtle, but it took me nearly 3 hours to find a written article on a subject I needed to train analysts on. In place of good analysis and thought, I found a litany of slides with vague points, numerous Excel charts with dubious meaning and so many bullets that I could prosecute my own war if only I had PowerPoint machine gun.

My point is these slides from the head-shed of DoD (Pentagon) are almost identical to slides at every level of our military. It's painful. I'm sad to say I'm one of the few that is wishing and hoping we stray away from a PowerPoint centric briefing and return to presenting analysis and genuine thought within our own intel community.

Hopefully one day your advice and mantra on the art of presenting will filter its way into the government and military channels. Until then, a few of us will continue to dutifully suffer "death by PowerPoint."