Take the Jargon Out and See What Remains

Here is a fictional proposal: “We will operationalise a cross-functional knowledge enablement framework to accelerate stakeholder alignment.” It sounds busy. It may even sound ambitious. But imagine being asked to approve it. What would you actually be agreeing to?

A useful first rewrite is deliberately plain: “We will put the team’s instructions in one place so people can find the same answers.” This version may omit something important. Good. The omission gives us a concrete question to ask. Did the original proposal mean shared instructions, a new discussion process, or something else entirely?

Removing jargon is not simply substituting short words for long ones. It is a way of discovering whether an idea has been specified. A polished abstraction can conceal several different proposals. Plain language makes the writer choose among them, or admit that the choice has not yet been made.

Begin a workshop by underlining the nouns that do not point to anything you can picture. In the fictional sentence, “framework,” “enablement,” and “alignment” deserve attention. None is forbidden. Each needs a job. Ask what a person would see, receive, make, or do if the proposal happened.

Suppose the answer is a searchable handbook with an owner for each section. Write that down: “We will create a searchable handbook. Each section will name the person responsible for keeping it accurate.” Already the proposal has become easier to discuss. Someone might ask whether a handbook addresses the real difficulty, which is exactly the sort of discussion the opening sentence postponed.

Next, restore the people. Abstract writing often makes actions appear to happen without anyone doing them. “Content maintenance will be prioritised” leaves responsibility floating in the air. “Section owners will review their instructions each month” names an actor and an action. If no one can agree who those owners are, the language has exposed a planning problem.

Then explain the intended benefit without inflating it. “Accelerate stakeholder alignment” might become “Help new team members find the current instructions without asking several people.” That is narrower, but it gives the proposal a useful test. The reader can consider whether the handbook would help with that particular difficulty.

Now examine the verbs. Words such as “drive,” “unlock,” and “enable” can sometimes work, but they often avoid describing a mechanism. How would the handbook help? Perhaps search results would show a single maintained answer. Perhaps old instructions would redirect readers to the current page. A concrete mechanism is more informative than a promise of improvement.

There is a place for specialist vocabulary. If a group shares a precise term, replacing it with a loose everyday approximation may make the explanation worse. The question is whether the word helps this reader distinguish something that matters. A term earns its place through useful precision, not through its ability to signal membership in a profession.

Try a second fictional example: “The interface facilitates progressive disclosure of advanced functionality.” For a design discussion among people who use that term consistently, it may be economical. For a general audience, try: “The page shows the basic controls first. People can open an extra panel for the less common options.” The idea survives, and the reader can picture it.

A final read should look for missing conditions. “Everyone will find answers quickly” overpromises. “People should be able to find the current setup instructions by searching the handbook” states an aim with a recognisable scope. Clarity includes knowing where a claim ends. It does not require pretending that every plan is certain to work.

Read the rewrite aloud to someone unfamiliar with the proposal, or imagine the questions such a reader would ask. Can they tell what will change, who will act, and why the change might help? If so, the writing has done more than become approachable. It has made the idea available for disagreement, improvement, and an informed decision. That is a stronger achievement than sounding impressive for a paragraph.

The exercise can end with two versions kept side by side. Comparing them shows which information was added, which claims became narrower, and which impressive words had been doing no practical work. Those differences are often the most useful part of the workshop.