Pyramid Principle - Free download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read online Minto Pyramid Principle for writing Equity research reports, Business plan. The Pyramid Principle Betters Your. Communication Test Your Structure Against The Pyramid. Rules. 1. Barbara Minto, The Minto Pyramid Principle, Consulting-The-pyramid-principlepdf (产1 0-冲♀← ι电:jGS 川习 I I D THE MINTO PYRAMID L).
|Language:||English, Spanish, Dutch|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Sign up for free]|
The Minto Pyramid Principle Online available at: ondieslinfuncton.ml staff/gatter/work/ondieslinfuncton.ml The Pyramid Principle is Barbara Minto's powerful and compelling process for producing everyday business documents. All rights are reserved to Minto Books. Barbara Minto Pearson Education Limited Edinburgh Gate Harlow, Essex CM20 2JE Tel: +44 (0) Fax: +44 (0)
A grouping of ideas is easier to comprehend if it arrives presorted into its pyramid. All Mental Processes Utilize Pyramids To Categorize Information The mind instinctively sorts information into distinctive pyramidal groupings in order to comprehend it. Business plan.. The structure helps the reader to "see" the groupings of ideas the same way the author intended.
Using this Outline.
The Introduction Should Convey the Situation. Regardless of the Graph. All of your analysis does not have to be included Draft slide titles to tell the story Create blank slides with titles.
These Slide Writing Conventions. Pyramid Principle Uploaded by pereirajoel Flag for inappropriate content.
Related titles. Jump to Page. It is difficult to start a question-answer dialogue from nothing.
We need an introduction to make sure the listener is interested. We will do this with story-telling. Preferably a time and place the listener can relate to. The complication will illustrate a problem, thus creating a relevant issue.
A certain sense of urgency or compelling reason to listen or even act. Related to this complication a question is posed. The will also be the start of a question-answer dialogue. The question will be the main lead for your story and the answer your main topic.
An example: S Many professionals worldwide use methodical approaches, often based on best- practices, to structure their work. To learn this profession you can get education and if you master it, you can even get a certification.
Q Would a common approach for consulting improve the quality of work and is a method as such available? The question-answer dialogue will be based on all kind of questions that could be raised in the listeners mind like, What exactly is it?
Every question must be answered and will raise a next level of questions. At the end, there will be a conclusion. Altogether all questions and answer should be mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive MECE. The storyline will be from the introduction to question 1, answer 1, etc.
Relating to the way people think, the way the actually brain works, is a major success factor. People will lose attention if a story is unstructured and that is actually what happens a lot.
By applying the Pyramid Principle your story will be structured and people will stay focused. Why does the problem exist? The overall structure of the situation will indicate a number of directions in which your analysis can proceed.
In our cigarette example we know we can gather facts that let us judge whether the machines were without raw material, or without maintenance, etc. In more complex situations, however, you will have to probe more deeply into both the things and the processes that make up the structure.
You will be trying to make clear the components of each, their importance to each other, and how they change over time. A number of analytical structures have been developed that permit you to initiate this probing and display its results so that they can be thought about productively. I will talk about several of the most useful of these in the next section. Clearly, in these more complex situations you will also have to be selective.
Not all possibilities are likely to prove equally important in solving the problem. Consequently, you will have to make a judgment early on about which areas deserve the greatest concentration of effort. Such judgments can only be based on experience in the industry or in solving similar problems, and are thus generally made by senior members of the consulting staff.
Once the situation has been visualized and analyzed, so that you know why the problem exists, you have a good idea of what needs to be changed. However, there may appear to be alternative ways to change, each of which derives logically from the structure of the activity under study. They must now be tested to determine which way most effectively creates the desired result.
In our cigarette company example, the problem turned out to be that the operators were not 'tuning up' their machines properly, which in turn was the result of inadequate training by their superiors. How could one go about improving the supervision, then? Which course of action makes most sense depends on its feasibility and on its likelihood of success on its benefits and risks, if you like , which must be thoroughly assessed before you choose. In making the decision to choose one alternative over the next, you must be able to visualize the new situation with the change implemented.
Creating this picture should suggest to you the additional changes that must be made to accommodate it, and once again highlight the points that need analysis and verification before you make a final recommendation. With the numerical consequences clear, you next want to explore the risks involved in achieving them.
Risks in this context would generally be of three kinds: Should it look as though the choice is very risky for any one of these reasons, you would want to stop considering it as an alternative. What this section has been saying is that before you can legitimately advise someone on how to change an undesirable result, you must have defined clearly five things: You can see that completion of Step 1 tells you not only how to direct your analysis of the problem, but also how to write your introduction.
It identifies the question your report must be structured to answer. Steps 2 and 3 identify the major analyses that must be completed before you can formulate recommendations to answer the question.
Thus, in looking critically at the draft of a report, you will want to make sure first that the introduction reflects a clear definition of the problem, and then that the findings and conclusions derive from appropriate analytical structures.
Chances are that you will find glaring omissions in both cases. Defining the problem As I noted earlier, the likelihood is that you will not have done your problem solving in quite the neat and tidy way described, particularly where you face very complex problem situations.
The difference between the two. The ease with which re-creating these structures can help you decide what to say in your introduction and how to set up your pyramid may amaze you. To demonstrate that ease, let's look at the introduction shown in Exhibit 34, DDT: The DDT system Here we have an extremely densely written text. What it says is approximately as follows: You recommended more technical studies. We have been looking at the. This is because technology is rapidly developing that could permit electronic document delivery.
Even if the graphs are correct when put in the book, however, the presenter causes another problem. He may arbitrarily decide to change it to show a clearer or more desirable trend line. In such cases, he does not inform the staff group of the change.
Since the system for producing one of them utilizes the computer to gather data, the department head has reasoned that it could be used to gather data for the others. PBG System 1 2 Computer calculates data points for graph Enter internal computer sheets in computer 3 4 5 Colour graphics puts on input sheets Enters in their computer Computer generates graph Consequently, he has decided he wants a system like this: J File , He has asked his assistant to write a memorandum to their boss, who knows about the problem, to explain the changes needed to correct it.
The result is the document shown in Exhibit The document says roughly this: Without access to the author, we cannot judge what he means by 'Information not adequately considered in making projections.
Once you have a clear mental image, you can straightaway translate it into a clear English sentence, which your reader can just as straightforwardly interpret and absorb. And he has the additional advantage of being able to store this knowledge in his memory in image form.
By rescuing the image from the words, the reader is able not only to transfer the knowledge in large chunks, which are more efficient for his mind to process, but also to transfer it as a vivid impression, which makes it easier to recall. To quote a kinsman of mine, Professor William Minto, who lived in a more leisured era: No matter how large or how involved the subject, it can be communicated only in that way. You see, then, what an obligation we owe to him of order and arrangement - and why, apart from felicities and curiosities of diction, the old rhetorician laid such stress upon order and arrangement as duties we owe to those who honor us with their attention.
Our theory has been that the solution of the problem will always lie in tinkering with the structure as indeed it will if the problem is that we do not like the result the structure is yielding.
However as I mentioned, there is another kind of problem situation where the problem is not that you don't like the result but rather that you can't explain it. You can't explain it for one of three reasons: It is possible that you may confront one of these structureless situations in the course of an ordinary problem-solving assignment.
Although such situations require a higher level of visual thinking than we have been discussing, you will be pleased to know that the reasoning process employed is very similar.
What is required is simply another form of Abduction - a name coined by Charles Sanders Peirce in to describe the process of problem solving. In calling it Abduction he hoped to emphasize the affinity of problem-solving thinking with Deduction and Induction. Let me explain the difference between the two forms of Abduction, and show you how to use the second. Peirce's insight was that in any reasoning process you always deal with three distinct entities: The way in which you can consider yourself to be reasoning at any one time is determined by where you start in the process and what additional fact you know.
To illustrate the differences: Deduction Rule: Result If we put the price too high, sales will go down. We have put the price too high. Therefore, sales will go down.
We have put the price up. Sales have gone down. The reason sales have gone down is probably that the price was too high. One reason sales go down is that the price is too high. Let me check whether in fact the price is too high. B If A then B Possibly A We have been saying throughout that analytical problem solving consists of noticing an undesirable Result, looking for its cause in our knowledge of the structure of the situation Rule and testing whether we have found it Case.
You can see that this exactly matches the Abductive reasoning process shown above. Thus, in any complex problem-solving situation you are likely to be using all three forms of reasoning in rotation. As I said earlier, the form you are using, and the results you can expect from it, depend on where you start in the process. Where you start determines the form of thinking you will use.
That is, we have two of the essential elements and can reason our way to the third. He must invent the second before he can reason to the third. In reasoning to the third, the scientist follows the classical scientific method: Devise an experiment that will confirm or exclude the hypothesis. Carry out the experiment to get a clear yes-or-no answer. Recycle the procedure, making subhypotheses or sequential hypotheses to define the possibilities that remain, and so on.
The hallmarks of the scientific method are generating hypotheses and devising experiments. Both activities demand high levels of visual thinking.
The hypotheses are drawn out of the air, but are directly suggested by examining the structural elements of the situation that produced the problem.
For example, if your problem is that you want to find a way to permit people to communicate over long distances without shouting, then you will be thinking specifically about ways to magnify the voice or amplify the ear, and your hypotheses will reflect the possibilities you envision.
Exactly how you go about envisioning productive possibilities is, unfortunately, not something one can spell out in a recipe. It frequently requires a kind of genius that permits you to see analogies between what you know of the problem and what you know of the world. And indeed this is what Alexander Graham Bell apparently did in inventing the telephone: No one knows what makes an apt analogy occur to one person and not to another.
Certainly having total knowledge of the problem situation helps, as does spelling out and re-examining all your assumptions about it. What we do know from those who have written about the process, however, is that their insight when arrived at is always a visual image.
Once the hypothesis is formulated, the next step is to use it to suggest experiments that will confirm or deny it.
Again, visual thinking is required to say, 'If this structure were valid, what would follow as a matter of course? Let me set up an experiment to prove conclusively that in fact it does follow. If B were the case, then C would follow as a matter of course. Let me check whether C does in fact follow. Aristotle says that force is that which produces velocity. From this it follows that when a force ceases to act on a body, the body should cease to move.
Yet if I shoot a ball from a cannon, the ball continues to move even though the force has stopped. Aristotle must be wrong in his conc: I can observe the relationship between motion and force simply by dropping a ball from my hand.
When I do so I notice that the situation contains three structural elements: The weight of the ball. The distance through which it falls.
The time through whic: This suggests three different hypotheses: Force is proportional to the weight of the body on which the force acts. Force is proportional to the distance through which the body moves when the force acts.
Force is proportional to the time through which the force acts. If hypothesis 3 is true, then the distance covered would be proportional to the square of the time. This means that if a body covers one unit of distance in one unit of time, it must cover four units of distance in two units of time, nine units of distance in three units of time, etc. Let me roll a ball down the side of an inclined plane.
This will slow up its fall sufficiently for me to measure the distances covered in different units of time, and thus determine whether the relation between distance and time is the one prescribed by my hypothesis. New Rule: It is the same. Therefore force is that which produc: It is not enough 'to see what happens' if you change one or another of the conditions in the situation.
The result of the experiment must allow you to state unequivocally whether you will keep or discard the hypothesis. It is in the sciences that have most rigorously applied this particular requirement that the greatest advances in our knowledge have occurred over the last 50 years. To quote Charles Darwin, 'How odd it is that anyone should not see that all observations must be for or against some view, if they are to be of any service.
As you can see, they follow a common pattern.