How to Define Information Granularity in Technical Writing

Defining granularity, that is, how granular information topics should be is a perennial dilemma in technical writing.

A dilemma is a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between two equally undesirable alternatives. The movie “Sophie’s Choice” (1982) depicts how dramatic and terrible such dilemmas can get.

Thankfully, the similar granularity dilemmas do not get that dramatic in technical writing but it can still cost a lot of money and sometimes even careers if not handled properly.

Granularity refers to the scope and specificity of a topic. The more specific, the more focused and narrowed-down a topic is, the more granular it is said to be.

Think of grain. A mustard seed is more granular (smaller) than a wheat kernel.

Here is the granularity dilemma in technical communications:

If you keep the scope of a topic too wide, then the users cannot find what they are looking for. They can’t solve their problem easily.

But if, on the other hand, you keep the scope of the topic too narrow (a very granular topic), then the reader may not understand how that tiny sliver of information relates to all the other bits of information necessary to perform a service or use a system efficiently. If the users cannot understand the general context of information, the information may prove to be useless.

For example, imagine this very granular piece of technical direction:

“Turn the A10 screw counter-clockwise.”

That’s it. There is nothing else that is provided to the user but this very specific information about the direction in which the A10 screw should be turned.

Can we use this information?

Of course not.

Why?

Because we have no idea what an A10 screw is, where it is used, and what’s the significance of turning it. We have no idea how it relates to any problem whatsoever, what the author is talking about, and why this small shard of information was provided to us.

Compare this to the following example of procedural writing:

“To Uninstall the Remington Carburator Model N465:
1)      Remove the carburetor cover.
2)      Locate the A10 screw in the lower-right corner (marked by a triangular notch) of the mounting plate.
3)      Turn the A10 screw counter-clockwise and remove it.
4)      Remove the carburetor from the mounting plate.”

Now we understand that turning the A10 screw counter-clockwise is a necessary step in uninstalling Remington Carburator Model N465.

This second type of writing is less granular than the first one.

Its scope is larger.

It talks about a lot more things than just the A10 screw.

But by the same token, it helps us understand more why we should be removing that screw.

Thanks to lesser granularity, we have a better understanding of the significance of the job at hand.

We now exactly know why we should be removing that screw.

We can now be confident that this description will provide a solution to a specific problem.

That’s why it is better technical writing even though it’s not more granular writing.

Thus it’s always a judgment call how granular technical writing should be.
Are there other factors influencing granularity in technical documents? For that please have a look at this other post on information granularity.

What do you think about this issue?

Are you also confronted by this dilemma at your job? How do you tackle it? How do you determine how specific or general your documentation should be?

Please feel free to comment about it.