allblogs

Page count is a somewhat useless measure.

When I was young, every once and awhile a teacher would allow us to bring in a “cheat sheet” to use when taking a test. I would write in tiny script so that I could fit a ton on that single page. (sidenote: It was definitely a trick, because I would then spend way more time creating this sheet than I would usually spend studying).

Technically the “cheat sheet” was one page. But that one page would probably be the equivalent of about 6 pages if it were regularly structured 12 pt font.

I find lots of evaluation teams tasked with writing shorter reports take a similar approach. Instead of editing down their reports, they just use smaller fonts and include fewer pictures. So you end up with fewer pages that are far harder to read. (I talk more about this and what to do about it in another blog post: Is your report too wordy? Don’t do this).

But in this post, I want to break down how long it actually takes to read a common length annual report. You can then use these estimates to start a conversation with your colleagues about how many words you “should” include in your report and how much time you believe your readers will spend reading it.

Reading rates are relative.

The general estimate you find on the web is that most educated adults can read at about 300 words per minute. But that’s assuming they are interested in what they’re reading. It also assumes that the text is not too complicated or filled with jargon.

Skimming lets you read faster, but you are going to miss things. But this will increase the speed at which you can read a report.

Intentionally reading more carefully slows down your reading rate. And if the material actually makes you think, that’s going to slow it down even more. And honestly, if the report is important, don’t you want your audience to think and apply?

My rule of thumb estimates.

I found this well-researched set of reading rate estimates from Wake Forest University’s Center for Advancement of Teaching. The point of the article was to estimate the amount of time it would take a student to complete common academic tasks.

Now report readers are not college students. I doubt that you are planning to grade your report readers’ comprehension. But I do think we can derive our own report reading estimates based on their findings. And since these are estimates, I’m going to round them out to make discussion easier.

WPM = Words per Minute

Here are my four levels of reading:

• The skim read – 600 wpm
• The quick read – 300 wpm
• The careful read – 150 wpm
• The deep read – 75 wpm

Typical technical report word counts.

A college paper, 12 pt font and single spaced, will give you about 500 words a page.  Unlike most college papers, even text heavy technical reports usually include some images.  There are also notes that the authors likely expect their readers to skip.  

So let’s estimate 300 words per page for a standard report with some charts, images, and notes.  If the total length of that report is 30 pages, that would be 9000 words.

The skim read – 600 wpm

Time spent reading the 30 page report: 15 minutes

A skim assumes the audience member will skip large portions of the report.  This reader will read headings and spend more time when they see an interesting chart, illustration, or section.  But ultimately, they will miss lots of content.  

This will give them a sense of the report material but likely not stick in their heads or be retained for any significant length of time.

The quick read – 300 wpm

Time spent reading the 30 page report: 30 minutes

A quick read assumes the audience member will read at a speed similar to one you might use when reading an interesting novel or magazine article.  If your report is highly technical, uses lots of jargon or complex words, or discusses complicated material, this speed is more like a skim than an actual careful reading.

Just a note: the closer you are to the base material, the faster you will read.  So the author’s judgement on time to complete could easily be twice as fast as an actual reader who is experiencing much of this content for the first time.

The careful read – 150 wpm

Time spent reading the 30 page report: 60 minutes

A careful read assumes the audience member will read just about every major section of the report and take a look at all the charts and graphs.  While slower than a quick read, there will likely not be much in the report challenging the reader to think deeply or apply lessons learned.  

At two minutes per page, some of the more interesting information shared will likely be retained.  But you would also assume nothing in the report will be deeply mind changing.

The deep read – 75 wpm

Time spent reading the 30 page report: 120 minutes

The deep read assumes that the audience member is very interested in the content of the report.  The reading speed will be slower either because the content is complicated or the reader is actually applying lessons learned to their own work.

If your goal as an evaluation report writer is to provide information you believe will change the reader’s perspective and influence their decision making, you should assume a longer period of time would be required for someone to read through the report.

Final thoughts.

These are estimates built on top of estimates.  I have seen 20 page evaluation reports with 11,000 words and 50 page evaluation reports with 5,000 words.   There are people who read very quickly and are still able to retain information and apply it to their own work. The only way to know for sure how long something would take to read is to test it, but that’s something we rarely do when it comes to reports.

But you can get word counts pretty quickly by using the tools menu in either Microsoft Word or Google Docs.  If you have a PDF report, I recommend copying and pasting out the words into one of those two options to check the counts.

Do this with an old report.  Once you have your word count, calculate the time estimates by dividing the total by the words per minute estimates above.  Then use this as data as a conversation starter when writing your next report.  

So how do you waste data?

I’ve decided to start the year by really digging into my own report design process.  My hope is to eventually create a set of tools that can be used to help guide the review of an organization’s reporting strategy.

Part of that review will be very user centric.  But in today’s post I wanted to switch the perspective a little, focusing on the data and identifying the stages where we find the most waste.

I came up with five stages.

Stage 1. What we Could Know vs. What we Know

This first stage is mostly about your research, evaluation, and data collection methods.  To put it simply, if you don’t ask the questions, you won’t know the answers.  

When writing this post I almost skipped this stage because it’s not really about reporting.  But I think it’s important to recognize that having asked the right questions is foundational.  

The collection methods also directly influence data quality.  Poorly administered surveys, bad interviews, and confusing question language can produce low quality/unusable data (which is a waste).  

We also potentially waste data by not tapping into relevant existing data sources or through poor data governance.  

Stage 2. What we Know vs. What we Share

Stage 2 is where we traditionally put a lot of focus.  It’s the stage that usually pushes an evaluation team to write a long wordy report.  It’s also where we see the most resistance to shorter visual reports from conservative evaluation teams, because the assumption is that creating a shorter report means sharing less of what we know.

I always encourage my clients to continue writing their longer reports because I think it’s important to document what we know.  Even if very few people will ever read this technical report (and you should expect that very few people will actually read the long report).

We can also waste data by not making these reports public, and by not sharing the underlying data sources.  

Stage 3. What we Share vs. What they See

This is where the status quo reporting methods really start to break down.  Most often, only a small subset of your overall intended audience will actually see your reports.  We can waste data by not adapting our longer reports into formats that are more accessible to a variety of audiences.

Creating shorter visual reports can increase accessibility, but it also requires making choices about what to share and what to not share.  It’s a balancing act because if we don’t share enough in our accessible reports, we also waste data (see stage 2).

This is where layering can help.  Make sure your shorter accessible reports link back to the longer ones as well as the underlying data sources.

We also have to choose appropriate reporting methods for the platforms we plan to use for dissemination.  Far too often organizations merely send links to longer pdf reports through their social media and email newsletter content.  This is a missed opportunity, as simple adaptation to things like infographics and carousels can greatly increase exposure.

Stage 4. What they See vs. What they Retain

Just because someone sees your report, or actually reads your report, does not mean they are going to retain what you shared.  Jargon, giant blocks of text, poor formatting, and bad graphic design reduces the information your audience will potentially retain.

Alternatively, better design, writing, and illustration can increase retention.  

Stage 5. What they Retain vs. Where they Take Action

Retention is not always enough.  If your ultimate goal in sharing data is to give your audience the data they need to make decisions, you need to share your data in an actionable format.  Your audience needs to be able to answer the follow-up “so what” question in order to make use of the data.

There are a lot of evaluators uncomfortable with this stage.  But I believe that the people who best know the data, should play the role of an influencer and guide. If you want to get better here, storytelling, copywriting, and presentation design can be really useful skills to learn.