Quick report I just did

[John Paul Sanborn]

This is a rush job, I may have put 2 hours into it total. Mostly because I was driving down the road yesterday and it clicked in my head that I could have phrased something better.

This is that rewrite, where I changed preexisting defect to known defect

I also changed personal injury to bodily injury

Comments? I like constructive critiques.

I think I sanitized it of personal information

 

[John464]

looks good to me but it depends who will be recieving that document? If that is going to American Arborits it's fine. It it's being submitted as is to Ms Chappy I would object the letter head of Sanborn's Tree Service on the consult and instead just use your name as the consulting arborist. It appears you are subbing for American Arborists.

I ocassionally use one of my subs for consults because he has higher arb qualifications such as his BCMA and I would rather focus those two hours on daily operations. He also runs a small tree care op. If I were to sub my consult work to him and submit his company name instead of my own I would be doing my company a disservice.

To me that is like one of my employees passing their own business cards out to my customers. I have fired guys on the spot for this.

 

[BC WetCoast]

John

In general I would say it's a good report. I have a few nit picky things you may want to consider and a couple of general observations.

First, I think you have used the term risk in a couple of different contexts. Risk is technically defined as the "Probabilty of an event occuring" multiplied by the "Consequence of that event" (I know you know that). Popular usage of the term risk usually is just the probability of the event occurring. I think you use the term both ways.

Second, in my reports I try to be very clear what I observe and that it is an observation without interpretation. Then when I make an interpretation/analysis based on that observation, I make it clear this is my opinion on what my observation means.

Nit picky comments
- professional reports are usually done in the third person, but that can be personal preferance
- add the date you made the observations
- specifically define that the trees in question are on neighbour's property (you may want to add the address)
- more clearly define the targets - ie fence
- when you discuss the consquence of personal injury, is this through the tree hitting the house, high use area in yard (deck) or low use area of yard.
- are you comfortable stating these are "significant" decay pockets, given you are seeing them from a distance
- you have put analysis and recommendations within the General Conditions section. I would suggest you add this to the conclusions
- I would add a section on the visual observations showing that you have looked at the entire tree (given your access limitations) that would include estimates of diameter, height, crown spread, any other visual defects (whether they are significant or not) eg scars, dead wood, ground conditions in the root zone (paved over 50% of root zone).
- You may want to add a couple of weasel clauses at the end

How you write a report is usually pretty subjective. I've worked for international and local consulting firms and written reports for local and provincial governments. Larger organizations usually have developed a organizational template. Also the larger consulting firms I worked with would not allow any report to be submitted without the review of someone equal or senior in experience.

As I said, this is just my opinion on how you could strengthen your report, I'm sure others will see it differently. Hope it helps.

 

[TreeTopKid]

I thought it was a well detailed report. I am presuming you will include a disclaimer.

 

[pdqdl]

Since I don't pretend to be a consulting arborist, I won't comment on the opinions rendered, or whether you should add disclaimers, or other stuff like that.

I DID take your document and re-formated it, with some grammatical and structural changes. I removed most of the "outline" structure of the report, mostly because I thought the document was too short for anyone to get lost reading it, so why add navigation guides? That's just a style difference. If I was writing it, I would not use the Scope/General condition/conclusion elements either. I think your introductory paragraph does a nice job of explaining the purpose and origin of the report, and I would not try any harder to make it seem like a more formal document.

I set your document up as a letterhead with an identifying footer, and I eliminated the letterhead on the second page.

Wherever I made a change in your original text, I highlighted it in blue, so that you can spot the differences.

Let me know if you like it.

If I were writing this report, I would use my letterhead, which has our company name and logo at the top, and the address at the bottom. I would put all my introductory comments in a letter addressed to American Arborist, and I would include any other comments not related to the "Report". Then I would put all the report on a second and third page of the document with no letterhead, using a simple heading identifying the name of the report, my observations, and then my conclusions.

The footer for the "report" would serve as the link between all the pages of the report. It's a good idea to always footnote "Page x of y pages", so that your report will always reveal lost pages in the future. It should be personalized to fit exactly that document, so that no one could misconstrue it's purpose or content at a later point in time.

Then I would go through and strip out any text that sounds like a personal comment (having already included it in the cover letter), and I would have a lean, mean report accompanied by a pleasantly explanatory cover letter.

 

[treeseer]

how you can judge the "significant" level of the decay pockets and call for removal of this tree as the only way to go with just a visual is beyond me. if you had pics then we would know what you :Eye: .

yes include afull disclaimer like the attached, and next time you sanitize take out the name and street; betcha anything we could googlemap it and look at the trees. opcorn:

buy the asca report writing book if you want to get into this.

 

[TheKid]

I've always wondered about the use of the term "deadwooding" as a verb. I have noticed the general public does not always understand what you are referring to. "removing dead wood" leaves no question. just my 2c.

 

[Justice]

Nice job. Like everyone else I would do a couple things different.

I would use the term "crown clean" for dead wooding and then define in lay-mans terms.. either in the body of the report.. or with a definition page at the end of the report.

I would write it in third person. "our concerns"... "The concerns" and no "I".

I would not use the term "high wind".. as that can be very relative. "wind gusts" or just "wind" would be descriptive, and be vague enough.

I would remove any reference to "moderate" as again that is relative and exposes you for possibly not quantifying it properly... if it fails tomorrow would it then be determined "high" or "emergency" and you failed to properly notify?

I would remove the "Tree with these defects can stand for years" and say maybe "the movement in the Tillia _____ greatly increases the possibality of failure"

I would define all trees in Latin and common name.

I would also take my own pictures.

There is the possibility that you can be sued by her insurance company if there is a loss, and your report has "loop holes" in it, or the neighbors.. because I assume your client is going to present it to them.

I would like to mention that it is great to see that there are members here that share their knowledge, thanks, it keeps me learning.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

Thanks for the replies, a lot of good things to think about. These are just comments on some of your comments, not a defense. Maybe some is explanation, some excuse , some reasoning.

Yes, I know sentence structure is a weakness, along with spelling , this is one of the reasons I'm taking a writing course this semester. Not only do I need the credits, but I need to improve. Whish vs wish!

Yes, I was working for American. When the homeowner requested documentation of my observations I offered a price for a report and then gave my client a lower price for the work.

As to format, I do use essay style on larger reports, where there is time for me to spend time on structure. With outlines I can transcribe and order my field notes without as much concern for sentence structure. More like the budget model, one step up from the verbal report already given. Said verbal report was paid for by being on my clients clock. Also, Tim from American can choose to elaborate on the information, or just pass it on if he wishes.

Regarding cover letters, I'm not fond of them, outside of large reports. There is too much redundancy, and if one is writing it more as a memo, then the fewer pages the better. I actually strive for no more then 2 pages when it is this straight forward.

I would have liked to have had pictures, but the cost and time constraints of made it impractical. I don not keep the camera with me at all time in the winter after having one loose an LCD screen from freezing. Imagine that, Liquid Crystal not liking extreme cold. Yeah Guy, I would have loved to have recommended saving these reds, but there just is no way to reduce risk w/o topping down to a rotten trunk. One may work out as a partial or staged removal, but the blown out top was at a very large diameter. This resulted in a huge decay pocket, with the majority of the load leveraged over her property and decorative faux wrought iron fence.

Sanitizing! D'oh! I looked for the road, dagnab'it.

First vs third person; I will often write a report in the third, but when rendering pure opinion of my own I use first. I am owning it after all. If it is a combination of two or more opinions, let's say the American crew said more then "that looks bad" in response to my comments, then i would have said we. Though, by using my template/boilerplate page I did mix the person up a bit here.

Deadwooding... yes, i am prone to the sin of incorporating jargon into my reports. In this one it probably should have been "hazard dead wood pruning".

Disclaimers tend to make a report rather verbose. Since the entire purpose of the report is to point out these major defects, I do not think a "this is only a professional opinion" paragraph is needed. Also I feel that this sentence

These old defects are of a nature that a “reasonable person” can see that they greatly increase the risk of failure compared to that of a healthy tree.

alludes to a statement that any tree can fail.

Gotta get my shoose one to go to church and then brunch (FIL is taking their side of the family out, one of the BIL's is in town from B'mo.)

I enjoyed this, especially BC's post. I'm going to print it out to think about it more.

you have put analysis and recommendations within the General Conditions section. I would suggest you add this to the conclusions

I think Scott Cullen called me on that a few years back. (who, me, name drop??? Actually I consider him and Russ Carlson to be E-Mentors of mine)

 

[pdqdl]

You said:
My comments

...
Yes, I know sentence structure is a weakness, along with spelling , this is one of the reasons I'm taking a writing course this semester. Not only do I need the credits, but I need to improve. Whish vs wish! Turn on spelling and grammar in MS Word; that will catch a lot of mistakes.

I think your sentence structure is just fine. You need to quit writing in shorthand (or the way you think), and start writing for the reader. You need to stop dropping those little words that change a typed-out thought into a complete sentence.

Yes, I was working for American. ...I thought that was obvious.

As to format, I do use essay style on larger reports, where there is time for me to spend time on structure. With outlines I can ...
It's just a matter of style. If everybody wrote the same, what a boring world it would be.

Regarding cover letters, I'm not fond of them, outside of large reports. There is too much redundancy, and if one is writing it more as a memo, then the fewer pages the better. I agree. Don't be redundant. I actually strive for no more then 2 pages when it is this straight forward. An excellent policy

I would have liked to have had pictures, but the cost and time constraints of made it impractical. I don not keep the camera with me at all time in the winter after having one loose an LCD screen from freezing. Imagine that, Liquid Crystal not liking extreme cold. ... Really! I never heard of that. I guess that might happen if it got colder than it does in KC.

First vs third person; I will often write a report in the third, but when rendering pure opinion of my own I use first. I am owning it after all...
I write in the first person, too. The only time I think a document should be in third person is if the reader is not known to the author. In this case, it would be somewhat insulting to write in the third person to a lady that loaned you a camera for pictures.

Disclaimers tend to make a report rather verbose. Since the entire purpose of the report is to point out these major defects, I do not think a "this is only a professional opinion" paragraph is needed...

I wouldn't worry about any disclaimer either. I suppose it might happen, but I'll bet most lawsuits are caused by bad opinions compounded by the presence of deep pockets to sue. I suspect that neither is an issue here.

I can probably be a bit overbearing on my proofreading and style comments; I was a proofreader for the "University Typing Services" when I went to college. [This was well before the age of computers] The bad part of that job was that we didn't get to correct errors, we had to make sure that every typewritten document matched the author's handwritten copy. So a typist might accidentally type correctly what had to be made wrong again so as to match the original.

So you can pitch my picky comments out if you like, most people don't read with the same attention to detail that I do.

 

[treeseer]

recommended resources

http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/contents.html

try it for 30 days--free!

http://secure.isa-arbor.com/webstore/A-Consultants-Guide-to-Writing-Effective-Reports-P244.aspx

a disclaimer's verbosity is minimal if it is appended; important to let reader know your limitations; it's not all about cya, but honesty.

 

[outofmytree]

I liked the report JPS but I liked the constructive criticism even more. It's what I like about this forum, the ability to get opinion from your peers. What a great resource for professionals arborists.

 

[Drummer]

quick review of a quick report

JPS,

I've redlined and attached your MS Word file with some suggestions. My input is strictly confined to spelling, contruction and grammar related issues.

Roger

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

Thanks, I've been told I need to build my verb/adverb stockpile.

The only part I disagree with is the change

Climbing these trees to sound, drill and measure to assess the integrity of the good tissue may result in an altered amended opinion.

I change my opinion when the facts before me change.

To me amend means that you make it better from before, with the above scenario the facts before me change so I alter my statement.

 

[Drummer]

John,

Not much of a difference between the two words. The dictionary at hand shows one definition of amend as: "to alter formally by adding, deleting or rephrasing". It implies a work-in-progress and less suggestive of a rewrite, which is why I prefer amend in the context of this type of communication, albeit a minor point overall.

Regards,

Roger

 

[outofmytree]

Im with Drummer here. By closer inspection you may "amend" your position to one of restorative pruning rather than removal. This is not a different or "altered" opinion as your belief hasnt changed, simply the scope of information available.

I often type and then retype my reports to suit the individual who is going to read them. These reports are effectively target specific advertising so sometimes little words can make a big difference to a client. Remember they count on you to tell them what to do, so sounding "strong" is really important.

 

[BC WetCoast]

My comments are somewhat redundant to what I said before, but given that several people have now edited the report, I think I need to say them again.

For the most part, the term risk is misused in this report. For most of the report, risk should be replaced with probability.

The definition of risk involves the probability of an event and the consequence of that event. So the phrase "risk of a tree failure is high" could be correct if it defined the probability of that failure (likely) and the consequence (flattening a house). The phrase "risk of the tree hitting the fence is high" can't be correct because you are actually only referring to the probability.

After reading other people's comments, there are a few other things that I would suggest rewording.
Para 1 - ' hazard-level' defects - The use of 'hazard-level' would indicate that it has a specific meaning. Given the audience, Ms Chappy, you should define it somewhere in the report. Personally, I would have just used the term defects as you only have a long distance visual assessment of them. I think you are too far away to 'rate' them at this time.

para B 2 2. "One linden with a “frost crack” running up the entire trunk that moves under wind load." I'm no English grammar major, but to me the way the sentence is worded and punctuated, the term "moves under wind load" is referring to "the entire trunk" and not the "frost crack". However, I couldn't figure out where to put the commas to make this correct, so when in doubt I would just make two sentences.

para II a "out the upper stems of these trees. This is typical of other trees on Rocky Point Road. The trees are secondary canopy to other trees, and have not been" The term "trees" has been used 4 times in 2 lines and each refers to a different group of trees. This is a little confusing. I would be inclined to make the reference to Rocky Point Road a separate paragraph.

para II a "The cavities are asymmetrical, resulting in a compromised cylindrical shape,". I think I know what this means, but am not sure. What has a compromised cylindrical shape, the cavity?

para II b "but the lack of decay resistance in lindens makes invasive mitigation" I would change the term to "lindens" as you are referring to the species in general.

parea IIc "possible to invasively evaluate the good tissue on these trees". I would eliminate the 'good tissue' and just use 'invasively evaluate these trees".

para IIc "Climbing these trees to sound, drill and measure to assess the integrity of the good tissue may result in an altered amended opinion." My opinion on this sentence is not with the term 'altered' but with the 'climbing' part. I would just state that you could assess the integrity and this might change your opinion. How you do it I don't think is important.

I think you should also specifically define the targets.

 

[treeseer]

...you only have a long distance visual assessment of them. I think you are too far away to 'rate' them at this time....

:agree2:

JPS re the rest I think your meaning was clear overall so the suggested edits are not hugely important.

Keep up the good work!

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

:agree2:

JPS re the rest I think your meaning was clear overall so the suggested edits are not hugely important.

Keep up the good work!

Thanks Guy (I forgot BC's real name).

True, but I do like most of what BC says. I think I can rate them from the ground, since I have enough experiance with red oak I can say that these defects have a very high probability of failure compared to a healthy tree. Also the new fence under them is high value target.

Part of the need for the report is that the neighbors with the tear-down (2 years and still going) next door are frequently unresponsive to the clients concerns. So I have to say that with the evidence I have there is a very high probability that Ms. Chappy may incur liability if they are not informed of the known defects.

para II a "The cavities are asymmetrical, resulting in a compromised cylindrical shape,". I think I know what this means, but am not sure. What has a compromised cylindrical shape, the cavity?

Yes, it should have read the cavity openings are asymmetrical, subsequently compromising cylindrical strength around the branch unions.

para B 2 2. "One linden with a “frost crack” running up the entire trunk that moves under wind load." I'm no English grammar major, but to me the way the sentence is worded and punctuated, the term "moves under wind load" is referring to "the entire trunk" and not the "frost crack". However, I couldn't figure out where to put the commas to make this correct, so when in doubt I would just make two sentences.

One linden with a “frost crack”, running up the entire trunk, that moves under wind load."
​

or​

One linden with a frost crack that moves under wind load, which is running up the entire trunk.

or​

One linden with a “frost crack” running up the entire trunk, which consequently moves under wind load."