*When Summaries Replace Substance, Details—and Decisions—Suffer
In an era of information overload, the allure of simplicity is hard to resist. Dashboards, one-page summaries, and single-word evaluations promise clarity and efficiency. But what happens when these tools become substitutes for the critical details they are meant to complement? The risks, as history shows, can be catastrophic.
Take, for instance, the UK education sector. In recent years, school inspectors have used one-word judgments—like “adequate”—to summarize an institution’s performance. However, such reductive labels fail to capture the nuance of a school’s culture, challenges, and achievements. The very department behind these assessments is now rethinking this practice because “adequate” tells us little about the true state of affairs. This example highlights the danger of oversimplification: in our pursuit of brevity, we often lose the complexity that enables informed decisions.
This issue isn’t confined to education. The tragic case of the 1986 Challenger disaster underscores how critical details, when overly summarized, can lead to dire consequences. Engineers raised concerns about faulty O-rings under certain temperature conditions. However, as the information traveled up the chain of command, it became increasingly diluted. Summaries of summaries stripped away the urgency, and decision-makers failed to grasp the gravity of the problem. The result? A preventable disaster that claimed seven lives.
Let’s be clear: summaries and dashboards are not inherently bad. They provide quick insights, helping leaders make sense of vast amounts of data. But when summaries replace the underlying detail, they become a liability. A dashboard may comfort stakeholders, but it cannot satisfy the rigor required for ISO or SoC 2 standards, nor can it stand up to scrutiny from regulators like the Jersey Financial Services Commission or the Information Commissioner. Behind every dashboard must be a foundation of robust documentation—standard operating procedures, training records, monitoring systems, and audit trails.
Too often, I’ve seen organizations attempt to replace documentation with flashy visuals. A project initiation document? A business case? A detailed budget? “Let’s just create a one-page summary,” they say. While summaries can guide discussions, they cannot replace the documentation necessary for effective communication, collaboration, and consensus-building.
Think of it this way: showing someone a photograph and claiming it represents an entire movie is absurd. The image might convey a moment, but it omits the plot, characters, dialogue, and soundtrack—the elements that make the story whole. Similarly, a single chart or page cannot encapsulate the complexities of a project or program. At best, it offers a snapshot; at worst, it misleads by omission.
In complex systems—be it education, aerospace, or business—success lies in balancing clarity with depth. Summaries should distill insights without discarding essential information. Dashboards should prompt curiosity, not complacency. And documentation should remain the backbone of any process, providing the context and rigor that summaries lack.
By treating summaries as tools, not shortcuts, we can avoid the pitfalls of oversimplification. After all, while a picture may be worth a thousand words, some stories need a million to be truly understood.
#Leadership #RiskManagement #DocumentationMatters #ProjectManagement #DataDrivenDecisions #CriticalThinking #OrganizationalCulture #ISOStandards #RegulatoryCompliance #Communication