Let’s face it; not much has changed in the world of policy writing. The medium has changed (handwritten, typewriters, computers), but the linear nature of writing has remained. Most policy shares common elements, including a numbering system with an established hierarchy and a title or header to help the reader know the topic. Organizations crafting policy face a similar set of problems once they embark on the writing process. Let’s explore the pain points in more detail.

The blog you are reading contains formatting. It has a designated font, size, spacing, and text decorations (bold, underline, italic, bullets, etc.). Traditional word processors give users unnecessary freedoms during the writing process. This leads to final documents that are inconsistent. This, in turn, increases the administrative overhead required to regain that consistency. It’s difficult to automate and means that policy can only be released once it has passed a rigorous manual.

The presence of structure is mostly an illusion when crafting policy in a traditional document format. I’m defining structure as to how articles and sections interrelate throughout a policy document. Forcing an appropriate structure results in a proper table of contents. It also enforces order. The policy is frequently a hierarchy of ideas and is paramount to help ensure that all bases have been covered. The linear nature of storing policy is the single greatest impediment to harnessing its true potential. Why?

We are unable to “point” to a specific idea in a data-driven way. We are designed to build a table of contents based on H1 and H2 header types rather than unique indexes. We are unable to update versions for each article but are instead forced to version an entire policy. We cannot grant permissions on an article basis which effectively allows any user to edit any part of a policy.

By redefining our policy definition as a collection of related, ordered articles, we resolve these problems. We also benefit from compartmentalizing the permissions structure, ensuring that only those qualified to write specific policy areas can do so.

Before services like Google Docs, collaboration meant writing your part of a policy and then saving it to a file-share or emailing it to a project manager or clerical staff member. Google Docs improved upon this by allowing multiple users the ability to edit the same document in real-time. Its usefulness is somewhat limited at scale because performance degrades noticeably with large documents and many shared authors. Collaboration in this manner further degrades accountability back to the specific author. Changes to a policy with a verifiable approval chain are critical to satisfying the baseline policies tied to control matrixes.

PolicyCo will change the way you write, edit, and manage policy. Further, we plan to enhance procedures and revolutionize evidence gathering for compliance activities.