White Paper Critique: The World Has Changed... and Doing Nothing About It Is Costing You Money
The Communications Tipping Point is here... Are you ready?

Sponsor: Siemens

Link: click here

Grade: 61 out of 100 (sort of close to passing)

Strengths:

• Original survey data
• Plentiful charts
• Strong writing style and point of view
• Good mix of external data sources
• Self-control—Siemens didn't plug its solutions until the last page

• Headline needs a subtitle, so you know what the paper is about
• Poorly conceived charts
• Missing information
• Who is the author? His/her credentials?
• Some assertions lack data to support them
• Some comments reflect unfamiliarity with business budgeting and spending practices
• No clear call to action

Last year, I was involved in a large (~500 responses from senior executives and managers of midsize and large companies) survey for PricewaterhouseCoopers, using the Bloomberg Businessweek Research Services list, and our data had somewhat different results for the cloud vs. on premises questions. And other surveys I've seen in mid-2011 had consistent results. The variance between what else is out there and the Siemens data suggests some methodology questions.

The formatting of the charts leaves a lot to be desired, too. Multiple colors are used in each chart, but the lack of a color legend makes it difficult to understand the data. In addition, although there is a reference to each figure in the text, the figures themselves aren't labeled. Furthermore, several charts were not done correctly, making it difficult to see trends. For example, the "today" data points were done as vertical columns while the "2-years hence" was a pie chart. Another example of amateur hour.

However, other aspects of the report were well done. The design and headlines attract the eye and engage the mind. However, the headline doesn't tell you anything about the paper, which is about unified communications and other network products and services.

The grade of 61 is the result of quantifying the level of compliance of this white paper with the 10 Key Attributes of a Successful White Paper.

Was I unfair? Too tough? What do you think? Send a note and weigh in.

White Paper Critique: Sapient Global Markets' Cloudy Spin
Cloud Computing For the Financial Services Industry

Sponsor: Sapient

Link: click here

Grade: 67 out of 100 (many opportunities for improvement)

Strengths:

• No overt promotion of Sapient's offerings
• Writing style is appropriate for the audience, assuming that audience is senior business decision-makers
• Examples of the types of offerings—excellent description of the different types of cloud services
• Many of the graphics are well done

• Huge picture of a man on the cover. Is that the author? If so, why is the author above the title and so large? Which is more important to the reader?
• No information about the author is included in the white paper.
• No date on the cover. However, the Web page has a date in November 2011.
• A few old IDC survey data points are referenced, including this:
• "6% of CIOs polled felt that cost reduction across the board was a critical business priority for the future." Is that number a typo? Only 6 percent? If it is correct, it shouldn't be used in a white paper promoting the cost-reduction aspects of cloud computing.
• User experiences linked to specific benefits are not incorporated into the paper. Instead, there is a series of mini case studies on one page. The summaries rarely focus on benefits and mostly describe the cloud products used.
• Graphics need better labeling to provide guideposts to the readers. Also, more active language. One hub-and-spoke graphic highlighting benefits has the phrase "consideration factors" as the hub. Stronger and more active words would be more compelling, such as Value Drivers. Also, some of the benefits aren't well labeled—data virtualization isn't a benefit but a capability of cloud computing tools that create a benefit.

Other editing gaffs or poor judgment calls are sprinkled throughout the document. In addition to the examples noted above, consider this bullet point: "67% saw improving the marketing time for products and services as critical in the coming years."

Huh? I assume the writer meant "time to market" and some copy editor unfamiliar with business concepts and language made the point unintelligible. Either that or the piece should have had a better explanation of marketing time.

Major kudos to the authors, though, for not making the piece a blatant brochure for Sapient's services. The subtle approach of mentioning its partner Microsoft's cloud platform as part of the example list was well done, though.

The grade of 67 is the result of quantifying the level of compliance of this white paper with the 10 Key Attributes of a Successful White Paper.

White Paper Critique: Par Accel Misfires, But Comes Close
Criteria For Analytic Platform Selection

Sponsor: Par Accel

Link: click here

Grade: 57 out of 100 (not as bad as the grade would indicate)

Strengths:

• Right length, especially for assumed target audience
• No hard sell—very subtle
• Strong, knowledgeable author tone

• Starts off with business decision-makers as target audience, but technological depth will deter completion
• No customers; few experts cited
• Who is the author? What are his/her credentials?
• Where are the evidence points? Quantifications of the value?
• Weak call to action

Other writing or other content issues:

• The executive summary doesn't summarize the content, just the challenges. It doesn't mention the solution or the benefit from the solution.
• It needs more editing. Some run on sentences, fragments and other errors reduce readability.
• The business benefits of each criteria need to be better explained. The scarcity of proof points from outside experts is a big weakness.

The grade of 57 is the result of quantifying the level of compliance of this white paper with the 10 Key Attributes of a Successful White Paper.

Caveats: Personal disclosure: I, and colleagues on the Triangle team, have done a lot of work on business intelligence for Microsoft and other vendors over the years. We are currently working on several projects that involve BI, but not Sybase, Par Accel or its competitors.

Was I unfair? Too tough? What do you think? Send a note and weigh in.

White Paper Critique: Sybase Needs an Editor
The Power of Real-Time Continuous Intelligence with ESP

Sponsor: Sybase

Link: click here

Grade: 46 out of 100 (failure on many levels)

Strengths:

• Writing not bad for awhile
• Right length
• Customers and third-party experts incorporated into the report

• No charts or other graphics—the layout will repulse readers not lure them in
• No real proof points of financial benefit
• Who is the author? What are his/her credentials?
• Poor editing—numerous typos (# instead of £) and repetition or structural problems
• No call to action for products mentioned

Other weaknesses due to a lack of smart editing:

• It says this is a white paper for business, but the paucity of proof points relevant to business readers is telling. Evidence based decision-making is the order of the day for marketing or finance, but the lack of evidence of the business benefit of the Sybase stack is a huge weakness of this report. In a few cases the white paper mentions improved development times but doesn't connect those improvements to specific cases mentioned in the report. And the improved development times are repeated, another indication of the lack of editing.
• Missing words and other editing problems also mar the overall impact of this white paper. Toward the end, a series of Sybase product benefits are thrown in without any transitions or other glue to explain why these benefits are noted here.
• A smart editor would have recommended some calls to action at the end that link to specific products. The only call to action at the end of this white paper is a connection to consulting services, which aren't even mentioned in the prior text.

The grade of 46 is the result of quantifying the level of compliance of this white paper with the 10 Key Attributes of a Successful White Paper.

Caveats: Personal disclosure: I, and colleagues on the Triangle team, have done a lot of work on business intelligence for Microsoft and other vendors over the years. We are currently working on several projects that involve BI, but not Sybase, Par Accel or its competitors.

Was I unfair? Too tough? What do you think? Send a note and weigh in.

White Paper Critique: Cisco Can Do Better. Much Better
BI and ETL Process Management Pain Points

Sponsor: Cisco

Link: click here

Grade: 60 out of 100 (sort of close to passing)

Strengths:

• The right length
• Avoided hard sell
• Not difficult to read, considering the topic
• Good diagrams

• Not one customer cited by name
• No external experts
• Who is the author? His/her credentials?

Considering all of the third-party experts in this field, and all of the published material that would prove the Cisco case, I can't figure out why no one is cited as a source here. One anonymous user example at the end is sort of a case study without any quotes. Only one proof point—a 20 percent reduction in the time required—is disappointing, considering the page plus devoted to the case study.

Also, having a generic stock photo on the first page of a white paper screams collateral, not credibility. Come on, Cisco, you can do better.

The grade of 60 is the result of quantifying the level of compliance of this white paper with the 10 Key Attributes of a Successful White Paper.

Was I unfair? Too tough? What do you think? Send a note and weigh in.

White Paper Critique: It Could Have Been So Much Better
The Critical Variable in Pricing: Understanding Willingness to Pay

Sponsor: PROS

Link: click here

Grade: 73 out of 100 (solid passing grade)

Strengths:

• Good length
• Solid use of external experts
• Clear target audience and call to action
• Knowledgeable author

• Reads a bit like an academic paper
• Graphically weak
• One anonymous example, poorly displayed
• Dated material
• A few text errors

The author in 2010 made a key point that gold prices were not at historic highs when inflation is considered. And even when the report was distributed in September 2011, gold prices are not yet at the 1980 inflation adjusted peak of $2,337 an ounce, according to the inflationdata.com Web site. These few data points would have proved the author's point.

Indeed, more data would have helped this report enormously. More examples of specific pricing strategies would have also strengthened this report.

An unfortunate editing error is the claim that "an increase in pricing accuracy can make a big impact on your balance sheet." I'm sure the author meant to say income statement.

Other examples of poor editing include a footer at the bottom of every page saying that the white paper was proprietary and confidential. I don't think they meant that, either.

The grade of 73 is the result of quantifying the level of compliance of this white paper with the 10 Key Attributes of a Successful White Paper.

Was I unfair? Too tough? What do you think? Send a note and weigh in.

White Paper Critique: How Not to Do a White Paper
Data Mart Consolidation Process—What, Why, When and How?

Sponsor: Hexaware Technologies

Link: click here

Grade: 40 out of 100 (not even close to passing)

Strengths:

• The right length
• Little hard sell

• Looks like a text-heavy PowerPoint was repurposed without thinking
• No customers
• No data
• No external citations
• No clear call to action

It appears no one at this company knows how to do a white paper. The copyright notice doesn't even have a date on it.

This document should have been used as the creative brief—it would have been. It would be a great starting point for a valuable white paper.

The grade of 40 is the result of quantifying the level of compliance of this white paper with the 10 Key Attributes of a Successful White Paper.

Was I unfair? Too tough? What do you think? Send a note and weigh in.

White Paper Critique: Big Gap Between
Promise and Reality
How Unified Communications Pays for Itself
Best practice tips on building a comprehensive case for unified communications.

Sponsor: Shortel

Link: click here

Grade: 71 out of 100 (barely passing)

Strengths:

• The right length
• No hard sell
• Written by an expert

• No charts, illustrations or other graphics
• No data points (!)
• One example, buried toward the end

Nope. Instead, this otherwise well written white paper suffered from three huge flaws:

1)	The first four paragraphs talk about how the telecom industry has been transformed. Unfortunately, the target audience appears to be the buyers of this equipment and software, not the sellers. Buyers are more concerned about satisfying user needs, which Van Doren finally gets to on the second page.
2)	If someone is writing a business case, they need data. What Van Doren gives readers in this case are these platitudes to describe the benefits of unified communications (UC):
	"…significant cost savings…Many companies have paid for their entire UC solution…" on page six is typical "important cost reductions" "all of these opportunities can have a real impact"
	I guarantee the target audience was well aware that there are cost reductions before they started reading this paper. But how big are? And how much is the investment? The headline says UC pays for itself, so readers would expect some discussion of a cost range, cost per user or other benchmark. Although the embedded case study offers one quantification of one benefit, could anyone submit a credible business case proposal with this paucity of specifics? Can you imagine a CFO’s reaction to reviewing a business case with those adjectives and descriptions and without any quantification to back them up?
3)	The lack of graphics or any type of eye-appeal was the biggest factor in the low grade. White papers these days must have data, research and quantifications to establish credibility, in addition to providing something useful to the target audience. Charts, diagrams and other forms of graphics help capture and retain reader interest.