Working on the TRIUMF Five-Year Plan

--by Melva McLean

The TRIUMF Five-Year Plan 2010–2015: Building a Vision for the Future involved more than 50 contributing scientists, a pair of accounting and financial experts, and the heads of several Canadian research organizations. Tim Meyer (my co-editor-in-chief) put it best: it was “perhaps the worst combination of authoring-by-committee ever imagined.” Oh yes, and the entire project needed to be completed in fewer than nine months after it was conceived. But we did it, and the resulting 850-page baby weighed in at ten pounds! How we did it, and what we’ll do differently next time are the subjects of this article.

What is TRIUMF?
TRIUMF is Canada’s national laboratory for particle and nuclear physics. The lab serves more than five hundred researchers in Canada and as many more around the world. Each five-year plan helps TRIUMF develop strategies for the future and is the basis upon which funding depends. The 2010–2015 plan was more complex than previous plans because it was designed to be a consensus-based document that the scientific community would support. At the same time, the scientific program needed to be communicated to a broad audience.

Getting started: strategic planning
All multi-authored projects call for intellectual coherence, long-term project management, and teamwork—and, I believe, something else: management’s respect for editors. Because of TRIUMF’s respect for the editorial process, the project began with a team spirit that never failed throughout the process. Section and general editors were brought in early so they would understand the audience blend and help design a process by which to reach it.

The first step toward intellectual coherence was identifying which fields needed coverage and which writers had both the technical expertise and the writing ability to produce rich manuscripts. The editorial committee gave each contributor a “scope document,” which indicated which topics needed to be covered, who made up the “blend” audience, as well as a sample of our chapter format.

The editing process
Once the scientific editors were satisfied with the individual manuscripts, the general editors worked hard to clarify, tighten, and simplify them for insertion into the overall framework. Every detailed scientific section of the report began with an introduction meant to be accessible to a broader audience. The general editors went back and forth many times on each section until the prose was clear and easy to read. The style sheet for the publication quickly grew from 10 to 20 to 30 pages and more.

We designed a strict workflow system with tracking tools that kept the team abreast of the status of each component manuscript; we also designed a foolproof review process so that members of the scientific community could review the text and ensure it remained accurate. We controlled documents (draft manuscripts and artwork) by having dedicated space on a “docushare” web platform with read/write privileges limited to only two editors. This proved invaluable during the revision stage and then transfer to the design company.

Choosing a design company
Dr Nigel Lockyer, TRIUMF’s director, wanted the Five-Year Plan to project TRIUMF’s persona: a professional, modern, world-class laboratory.

To support Dr Lockyer in this goal, we selected a small design company with a stellar track record. Their approach to design—make it both useful and beautiful—was the perfect match for our mandate. Then we worked out a file transfer protocol that allowed us to submit files (and changes) in Word 2003. Our reason? This would allow the designers to quickly and reliably import our files into their publication-design environment. Additionally, we reasoned, the close meshing with Word would allow TRIUMF the freedom to use similar files to do it all over again in 2013.

What we’ll do differently in 2013
Lest anyone think everything ran perfectly, I should tell you that the “debriefing” session after publication was a long one. Some of the ideas for doing it better in 2013 include:

• having more section editors
• bringing in the layout and design team at the strategic planning stage
• providing authors with a “checklist” for coverage along with the scope description
• building in more time for cross-referencing and indexing.

In the end, the best indicator of a publication’s success is how its audience receives it. In September 2008, an international committee of experts reviewed the TRIUMF Five-Year Plan. The chair of that committee wrote that the plan, “presents a strategic vision for the future of the laboratory, a vision in which Canada should invest.”

Credits:
Author | Melva McLean

 
About the author
Melva McLean is a freelance writer and editor and the winner of the 2008 Tom Fairley Prize for Editorial Excellence for her work on the TRIUMF Five-Year Plan. She lives in Vancouver.