If jargon were banned, techies, IT staff, consultants and
contractors - including those who work in sales and marketing in
the technology industry - would find it difficult to talk to each
other.
This explains why IT professionals reacted with hostility when
the
Local Government Association published a list of words and phrases
it wants to see banned.
The list includes jargon that is the currency of communication
in the technology professions - baseline, benchmarking, best
practice, capabilities, early win, enabler, functionality,
interface, outsourcing, risk based, slippage, stakeholder,
transparency, transformational and vision.
But such jargon is the life-blood of IT departments.
Outsourcing is a popular search term on Google, for example, and
the
Cabinet Office publishes "capability" reviews on how well
government departments are performing.
"Transformational government" is the name given to a series of
IT-based initiatives to save money and improve public sector IT in
central and local government.
A lack of "stakeholder" engagement is a key factor in the
failure of many large IT-based programmes and projects. Numerous
NHS board papers refer to "slippage" on the
£12.7bn NHS IT scheme.
And IBM has compiled a "Jargon and General Computing Dictionary"
which runs to 65 pages. A typical entry is "noconning", a form of
no-contact, and refers to people who avoid your call.
Computer Weekly's IT Projects blog had a record number of views
within hours of publishing the association's list - and IT
professionals were quick to respond with their criticism. One
commentator asked, "Has our culture reached a point where words
such as: advocate, autonomous, capacity, cohesive, enhance, robust,
holistic, functionality, initiative, proactive (I am too angry to
go on) are classed as incomprehensible?"
He added, "The vast majority of the banned terms are common
words. I cannot believe the wealth of support for this policy. Yes,
local councils should be clear and concise in their language, but
why can't they use 'normal' words?"
Another said, "This is nonsense. Clear language is fine but many
of these words are appropriate and valid."
Not all of those who left comments were against the list. "Only
last week I came across this monstrosity "The Authority recognises
that future delivery of strategic objectives will necessitate a
culture of embedded outcome-focused co-operative working."
The Local Government Association suggests alternatives to its
banned words and phrases. But it is unlikely CIOs would take an
idea, dream or belief to their boards instead of a vision. And so
the banned list is likely to make little difference. That is a pity
because the list includes words and phrases which obscure meaning,
are needlessly vague, or are strikingly ugly - predictors of
beaconicity, conditionality, coterminosity, and place shaping for
example.
The association is not trying to ban jargon as used by all
professions in their communications with each other. It wants a ban
on the jargon when the public sector is communicating with the
public.
The Economist "style guide" has perhaps the best advice on when
to avoid jargon. It says that technical terms should be used in
their proper context and not out of it, and that jargon should not
be used to obscure the truth.
If you are tempted to write about affirmative action or
corporate governance you should explain what you mean, says the
guide. Above all, it says, avoid jargon that tries to dignify
nonsense with seriousness. "You may have to think harder if you are
not to use jargon, but you can still be precise."