TAPS Communication Structure
Organize To be, As is, Problem and Solution around the audience’s concern, then make a bounded decision request.
Use TAPS when the audience needs to understand why a change deserves consideration. Verify their desired state, show comparable records, define the problem and discuss options before the request. When the conclusion is already clear and time is short, consider BLUF or PREP.
Audience expectations, comparable current records, gap and causal evidence, unknowns, alternatives, constraints and decision authority.
A T/A/P/S outline with a bounded request, preserving facts, targets, assumptions, alternatives and open questions.
On this page
How to use it
- Confirm the audience and decision; label unconfirmed targets in To be.
- Record comparable As is evidence, including unit, denominator and nature.
- Define the gap and impact, separating supported causes from hypotheses.
- Compare solutions and constraints, retaining simpler alternatives and a test.
- End with who decides what by when, prerequisites and a review.
Keep its limits in mind
Do not invent the audience’s desired state. Keep scope, time, units and denominators in As is. A gap does not establish a cause, and a coherent story does not validate a solution. Compare alternatives and conditions; a presentation neither approves nor implements the plan. Speaking order is not an automatic workflow.
A conditional request rather than an assumed event
Original fictional E6 teaching packet: Sailbridge Workshop. Task records, dialogue, estimates and arrangements are synthetic. No event approval, recruitment or delivery.
On a small screen, scroll across the diagram to read it.
State a proposed goal and the actual unit: The coordinator’s synthetic expectation is traceable handoffs. A 90% target is still proposed. The baseline 12/20 concerns attempts, not 20 unique participants, and a future workshop is a different cohort.
Explain the gap without inventing a cause: The target 18/20 minus 12/20 is 6 complete attempts or 30 percentage points. It is a target gap, not an observed gain. Missing fields do not prove inadequate training.
Retain alternatives and authority: The CNY 200 example and CNY 2200 workshop remain options; CNY 8000 software exceeds this trial’s ceiling. B offers a way to gather practice feedback, not guaranteed improvement. The coordinator has not approved it.
The 6-attempt or 30-percentage-point distance from 12/20=60% to the proposed 18/20=90% is a target gap, not an observed gain.
Next step: If B remains worth considering, expand it in an Event Proposal. If the cause is unclear, investigate before committing to a solution.
Three reasons to revise the argument before presenting it
First, pause when the desired state belongs only to the presenter. Ask what the audience needs to decide and which outcome they actually want. A proposed target can open a discussion, but it should not be described as the reviewer’s promise. A compelling introduction cannot supply missing agreement.
Second, do not let the gap become an explanation of its cause. A record can show incomplete task cards without showing why they were incomplete. Preserve task definitions, dates, counts, and unknowns. If the proposed solution requires a particular cause to be true, investigate that assumption before asking for a larger commitment.
Third, stop when the structure is being used to make one option feel inevitable. Retain a simpler alternative, constraints, and a genuine choice for the decision-maker. TAPS is a speaking structure for To be, As is, Problem, and Solution; its arrows do not prove causation or approve a project.
Choose an order that fits the audience’s current question
Use TAPS when the audience needs the connection from a desired state to current evidence and possible responses. A shorter request or an unresolved investigation can need another structure. These methods address different communication and reasoning tasks.
| Audience need and input | Method | Output and boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Why should this change be considered? | TAPS | Desired state, evidence, problem and options; no validated cause or solution. |
| The request is clear and the reviewer needs it immediately | BLUF | Conclusion first with conditions; supporting evidence still needed. |
| One view needs a concise reason and example | PREP | A focused statement and support; not a substitute for option analysis. |
| Several causes remain possible | Logic tree | Investigation branches and evidence needs; not a completed finding. |
Build Sailbridge’s argument from the full E6 record
The complete fictional E6 packet contains a coordinator’s expectation of traceable handoffs and twenty synthetic attempts on October 12. Twelve contain owner, next action, and review time; eight lack at least one field. Unique people and the missing-field breakdown are unknown. A future free workshop for up to twenty new handoff leads is a proposed setting, not the same observed cohort. No approval, recruitment, or event delivery has occurred.
The proposed target is at least eighteen complete cards if twenty people start, or 90%. The baseline is twelve of twenty attempts, or 60%. Subtraction gives six complete attempts on the same twenty-attempt reference, or thirty percentage points. This is distance to a proposed target, not an observed increase or a prediction of workshop results. It does not establish inadequate training as the cause.
| Part | Material to present | Boundary and question |
|---|---|---|
| T · To be | Owner, next action and review time are present; proposed 18/20 if 20 start | The 90% target still needs agreement; confirm the audience’s goal. |
| A · As is | Oct 12 synthetic attempts: 12 complete, 8 incomplete, out of 20 | Attempts are not unique people or future attendance; keep unknown field breakdown. |
| P · Problem | Gap to target: 6 complete attempts on a 20-attempt reference, or 30 pp | Causes unknown; example clarity, task complexity and time pressure are hypotheses to investigate. |
| S · Solution | Compare example A, guided-practice B and software C | Effects untested; end with a bounded request and prerequisites. |
Keep the cheaper response and the hard ceiling visible
The synthetic cash ceiling for this trial is CNY2400. The CNY200 clear-example option remains an alternative to the CNY2200 guided-practice event. The latter includes reserve in its event estimate. These two options offer different ways to gather evidence; a larger budget does not establish a larger benefit.
The CNY8000 software option exceeds the current ceiling by CNY5600 and is outside this round. Do not average that failure against a persuasive value claim. If the scope or ceiling changes, record a separate decision rather than silently treating C as eligible. None of the amounts is observed expenditure or an estimate of return.
| Option and synthetic estimate | Why it remains or does not remain | Evidence or authorization still needed |
|---|---|---|
| A · Clear example; CNY200 | Fits current ceiling; simpler response retained | Check whether an example addresses the actual task difficulty; no effect measured. |
| B · Guided practice; CNY2200 including reserve | Fits ceiling; may gather practice feedback | Check need, venue, twenty seats and two tutors; no event approved. |
| C · Software; CNY8000 | Exceeds CNY2400 ceiling by 5600; excluded here | Needs a separate scope or budget discussion; no automatic exception. |
End with a request that can be accepted, changed, or declined
The teaching request asks the coordinator to decide by October 20 whether to authorize one trial. If B is considered, site, twenty-seat capacity, and two tutors must be confirmed first; otherwise postpone. A decision to consider B is different from permission to recruit, spend, or run it. Preserve the actual decision and conditions if one is later made; none is supplied here.
Ask the reviewer which target, assumption, or alternative remains unclear, and retain their response. If causes are still uncertain, a next step may be gathering missing-field evidence or checking a clearer example rather than holding the event. A readable TAPS explanation supports the conversation without deciding the answer.
For any later authorized test, report actual starters, complete cards as x/n, unresolved results, costs, and feedback. Keep absences separate and agree what the target means if the number of starters changes. The baseline and future group are different; a before-and-after percentage alone would not prove that the intervention caused a change.
At review, distinguish whether the audience understood the request, what they approved, what was implemented, and what evidence was observed. Preserve the original proposed 90% target and 60% synthetic baseline rather than rewriting them as achieved performance. No improvement, causal finding, or return is established by this presentation.
Check your work
- T/A/P/S meanings, audience and request are explicit.
- Gap arithmetic, evidence and causal uncertainty stay distinct.
- Alternatives, conditions and authority boundaries remain visible.
Framework references
References explain the framework and its scope; they do not validate the fictional example's results.
Put the framework to work
Copy the outline and add your question, evidence, and open questions.