A short recommendation report should answer a defined business question using relevant evidence, realistic options and a clear proposed next step. Write it for the person who must decide, identifying what is known and what remains uncertain.
Keep the recommendation distinct from approval. A well-supported report can inform a decision without giving its author authority to commit resources or change the process.
State the question and decision required
Explain the problem in concrete terms and define the report’s scope. Identify the decision-maker and the timing or dependency relevant to the decision.
Avoid beginning with a preferred solution and selecting only information that supports it. Include evidence that could change the recommendation and distinguish facts from assumptions.
If the issue involves legal, financial, technical or other specialist matters, obtain appropriate input rather than making the report appear to settle questions outside the author’s role.
Use a report structure
Organise the content around:
- Question: the decision and its work context.
- Evidence: relevant sources, findings and limitations.
- Options: feasible approaches, including the current arrangement where meaningful.
- Comparison: criteria, trade-offs and unresolved information.
- Recommendation: preferred approach and reason.
- Conditions: approvals, resources or checks required first.
- Next action: owner and review point if the decision proceeds.
The Australian Government Style Manual provides writing guidance for clear, usable content. Follow any required organisational report format while keeping the reader’s decision needs visible.
A fictional office recommendation
In this invented example, an office receives repeated questions about two conflicting booking guides. The report checks the current approved instruction and records where the older version is still linked.
It compares leaving the arrangement unchanged, adding another explanatory email and replacing the stale links through the approved document process. The recommendation is to update the authoritative location and relevant links, with the document owner confirming the current version.
The report does not claim a calculated productivity saving or promise that every future question will disappear. It recommends an action supported by the specific evidence available.
Explain the trade-off honestly
Describe the effort, dependencies and relevant risks of each practical option. Use verified costs or clearly labelled estimates where amounts are needed. Do not present a fictional planning figure as a supplier quote.
If one option fails a mandatory requirement, say so rather than hiding that condition inside a weighted score. A high total should not make an ineligible option appear acceptable.
Keep the comparison proportionate to the decision. A minor process question may need a concise record, while a material commitment can require a more formal business case and specialist review.
Check the claim and requested action
Before circulation, verify names, dates, references and whether each material conclusion is supported by its source. Remove assertions about motives or outcomes that the evidence does not establish.
Conclude with the precise decision requested and what happens after approval. Record the actual outcome through the appropriate process and update the recommendation if new evidence changes the basis.
A useful report lets the reader understand the question, assess the comparison and identify the next authorised step without reconstructing the analysis from attachments or informal conversations.
An authorised report example can also help demonstrate analytical writing in your next role. Use the career development guide to connect that evidence with your next step.
