LVIAs are vanity projects. Discuss.
Who are they intended for?
Often not the reader.
Do they actually get the message across or are they so bogged down in process that they've missed their point?
I think so.
Overly lengthy, formulaic, impenetrable, jargony landscape assessments with no tables and no point to make. My pet hate.
Dull to write and worse to read with no point to make.
Is there a better solution? Do you even need an LVIA? Does setting out whether the magnitude is medium or medium-high actually help anyone understand what the issues are?
I'm not saying that LVIA doesn't have value, of course it does. Sometimes you need that comparative distinction, particularly in EIA, but often you don't. Often a simpler, more approachable and, importantly to the client, cheaper document will tell the story.
And your document needs to tell the story. Could you explain your argument to your mate in the pub? Does your report convey that point? And does it do it succinctly in a way that can be read by a non professional?
If not, then I'd argue that document has failed.
Make it purposeful, make it succinct, make it robust.
More words = less message.
And with that last in mind, I'm signing off.
No comments:
Post a Comment