Document rather than communicate

I started this blog to leave a trace, not to tell a neatly finished story.
In the opening article, I explained why I needed a space to write what is really happening, while it is happening.

This second text sets out a simple principle, which will serve as a reading key for what follows.

Communication comes after, documentation happens during

In many organisations, communication happens when the topic is stabilised:

when the decision is made
when the roadmap is fixed
when the team is aligned (or we pretend it is)
when the risk has already been absorbed

Communication then becomes a narrative.
It selects, simplifies, and looks for coherence.

Documentation, on the other hand, starts earlier:

when we are still hesitating
when two options are close
when constraints surface at the last minute
when we discover that the problem was not the one we thought it was

It is not always pretty. But it is often truer.

Writing is slowing down

Documenting means forcing yourself to take the time to write.
And to write, you have to think.

In the short time of our current lives, it is almost a luxury.
We keep going, we execute, we decide, we move on to the next thing.

Except that “always rushing headlong” does not create perspective.
And without perspective, you end up:

repeating the same mistakes
confusing speed with progress
making decisions by inertia
building systems you no longer understand

Documenting means creating a tiny space of voluntary slowness.
Not to make it look nice.
So you do not get lost in the flow (and so you keep a direction while building a product).

Is documentation a form of communication?

Yes, in the strict sense: documenting means transmitting something to someone.
To a team, to a future self, to an external reader.

But what I am opposing here is not “documentation” versus “communication” in the broad sense.
It is rather two postures.

Communication, as it is often practised in companies, mainly aims to produce a message:

a clear message
a coherent message
a defensible message
a message that reassures

It is rarely a lie.
But it is very rarely complete.

Documentation aims to produce a trace:

a trace that keeps the context
a trace that accepts uncertainty
a trace that shows the reasoning, not only the decision

It can be calmer, yes.
It can be more objective, sometimes.
But that is not guaranteed.

Documentation is not neutral either

We quickly idealise documentation, as if it were factual by nature.
In reality, it is still writing. And all writing has a point of view:

what we choose to note or not
the words we use
the order in which we tell it
the level of detail

All of that shapes the reading.

The difference is that documentation can acknowledge that point of view instead of hiding it.
It can say: “this is what we knew at that moment” rather than “this is the truth”.

What I am trying to do here

My goal is not to never “communicate”.
It is to not replace the trace with the narrative.

I want to write to keep the path:

what I understood
what I missed
what I did not decide
what I decide anyway

If it becomes a form of communication, great.
But I want the trace to stay first.

An important limit: documenting does not mean saying everything

Documenting is not an excuse to expose people, sensitive contexts, or unnecessary details.

I will not document what puts individuals in difficulty.
I will not document what should remain confidential.
I will not document to “prove” anything.

I document to understand, and to leave a usable trace.
Not to settle scores.
Not to build an image.

The reading key for the next articles

If an article looks like a working note, that is normal.
If an article is incomplete, that is intentional.
If an article shows hesitation rather than a result, that is the core of the project.

I want to see whether this way of writing holds over time.

And above