What happened to 'completed staff work'?

Early in my military service I was introduced to the concept of 'completed staff work'.  Wikipedia has a useful definition of the term.

Completed Staff Work is a principle of management which states that subordinates are responsible for submitting written recommendations to superiors in such a manner that the superior need do nothing further in the process than review the submitted document and indicate approval or disapproval.

In Completed Staff Work, the subordinate is responsible for identifying the problem or issue requiring decision by some higher authority. In written form such as a memorandum, the subordinate documents the research done, the facts gathered, and analysis made of alternative courses of action. The memo concludes with a specific recommendation for action by the superior.

The most useful summary I've found of the concept and what's involved is a military memo issued during the Second World War.  It's short, concise and to the point.  I recommend reading the whole thing - it's worth it.

The way it was taught to me in the South African military was that any memo to one's superior officer(s) should be no more than one page in length (plus supporting documentation if necessary, but only if absolutely necessary).  That one page should include:

• a statement of the problem;
• possibly (but not necessarily) a list of potential solutions;
• a recommended solution;  and -
• the reason(s) for recommending it.

If one couldn't fit all of that onto a single page, one went back and edited for conciseness until one could.  If the material was simply too much to fit into one page, one broke the problem down into sub-problems, each of which could be expressed on one page, complete with recommended solution(s).

The one-page limit was critical.  More than once I was accused of 'sloppy thinking' when handing in more verbose submissions, which were usually tossed back at me unread.  It was an invaluable education in how to be accurate, concise and to the point, cutting out all extraneous concepts and verbiage and sticking closely to the issue at hand.  To this day, when preparing important analyses prior to making a decision, I try to do the same thing.  Sure, I'll have long in-depth analyses of issues when needed, but those don't belong in the decision-making stage.  They're background material, to be consulted if and when the need arises.  The core structure is always problem - possible solutions - recommendation - why it's recommended, and always concise.

I fear the concept of 'completed staff work' is honored far more in the breach than in the observance today.  Many people can't write to save their lives, and resort to Powerpoint as an alternative to the typewriter or word processor.  (There's a reason they speak of 'Death by Powerpoint'.)  Others waffle around all over the place without ever getting to the point, or make recommendations without specifying why they propose the selected alternative, so that one has no idea why it's superior to other possibilities.  All too often they leave out supporting documentation, or include it selectively, so that it's impossible to gain an overall, unbiased impression of the field so as to make an informed decision.

Am I missing something?  Is 'completed staff work' no longer taught or used today?  And if not, how do we bring it back?

Peter