If anybody talks like that inside their own head then God help them!

How much is jargon speak valid? Do you have to speak in jargon, or will clear, non-jargon language work better? Most jargon-speakers believe that jargon works better. But I only believe that to be true if you’re speaking about stuff that involves ‘tech-speak’. It’s pointless at a doctor’s conference, if a doctor dumbs down his presentation and doesn’t use doctor-jargon. It’s almost impossible to be at a graphic design conference and not hear ‘tweening,’ or ‘kerning’ or ‘geek talk of InDesignCS2.

That’s a totally different kind of jargon. In fact, it’s not even jargon. It’s a shorthand.

And what we need to distinguish between is: jargon and shorthand. Jargon is just jargon–and often very effective when new: e.g. ‘ISO 9001 rating.’ But it soon meanders into rubbish talk like the example above.

This is someone who can’t communicate well. That’s it.
It’s not a factor of jargon. It’s definitely not shorthand. And therefore it’s pure rubbish.

Look at: optimize their performance: What does that mean?
Look at: essential skills: What does that mean?
Again: learning solutions: what does that mean?
And the best of all: measurable business results: What does that mean?

There’s no way you can help her unless you know details, but here’s a crack at what I’d do — to create effectiveness.

Again it depends whom this is being sold to:
If it’s to the boss:
CZ enables employees to reduce work-time by 20% or more–thus reducing the need to hire more employees.

If it’s to the employee:
CZ enables employees to reduce work-time by 20% or more–so you’re not always fighting deadlines–and work under far less pressure.

Sean
http://www.psychotactics.com