Interview, narration or both: choosing how to explain a project

1. List the statements the story needs

Write the few things the viewer must understand, without assigning them to a voice yet. Separate context, first-hand experience and claims about the result. This helps you see whether a proposed speaker has something specific to contribute or is being asked to recite general background.

For each point, make a statement card:

• Point the viewer needs to understand:
• Type: background, decision, first-hand experience or result:
• Evidence that supports it:
• Person who can confirm its accuracy:
• Pictures that might help explain it:
• Context needed so it is not misunderstood:

A gap in evidence stays a gap whichever delivery method you choose. A confident narrator cannot verify an unconfirmed result, and an interview does not turn a personal impression into a measured outcome.

2. Identify what benefits from a first-hand account

Consider an interview when the useful part of the story is how someone understood a situation, what they were responsible for or why they made a particular decision. Choose the person for their knowledge of that part of the work.

Ask what their account adds beyond a written project summary. An answer may explain a constraint, describe a change in approach or clarify the team’s contribution. Give the speaker room to describe what they actually know, including the limits of their involvement.

• Which statement needs this person’s experience?
• What did they personally do, decide or observe?
• Which detail should another person confirm?
• Would the answer still make sense without the interviewer’s question?
• What supporting pictures are available?

Once the role of the interview is clear, use the interview evidence worksheet to prepare examples and open questions. This worksheet chooses the delivery method; that one prepares the material for the conversation.

3. Identify where a planned explanation could help

Narration can be considered for a piece of context, a transition between stages or an explanation that needs carefully checked wording. First decide what it would contribute. Adding another voice merely to repeat the pictures or the interview may make the sequence longer without answering another question.

A narrated statement should have a checking owner just as an interview statement does. Decide whether the voice speaks for the organisation, introduces the subject or simply describes agreed facts. Do not write a narrator’s line as a personal recollection if the narrator was not involved.

• Purpose of the proposed narration:
• Exact information it needs to communicate:
• Approved source and checking owner:
• Words or names requiring pronunciation guidance:
• Proposed voice and who will approve it:
• Script, recording and revision work to discuss:

Keep script approval and recording arrangements visible in the production scope. Do not assume a separately recorded voice, talent selection, later script changes or additional language versions are included.

4. Combine the voices only when each has a job

A mixed approach may use a brief contextual line, then an interview account of a decision, followed by pictures that show the result. Test the joins. Does the second voice add something, or restate what the first has already said?

Try a short paper sequence before writing a full script:

• Opening: what must the viewer know to follow the story?
• First-hand account: who explains the meaningful decision or experience?
• Supporting picture: what does it help the viewer understand?
• Bridge, if needed: what information connects this part to the next?
• Closing: which supported point should remain clear?

These are planning functions, not a required film formula. Some stories may work with an interview and pictures alone. Others may need a more structured explanation. Let the material and viewing purpose guide the discussion.

5. Test a fictional sequence

Imagine a fictional refurbishment story where the viewer needs to understand how the team coordinated access to different areas. A short introduction could establish which part of the building the film concerns. A project lead could then describe one coordination decision they personally made. An approved plan or current view could help orient the viewer.

If the proposed narration repeats the lead’s explanation word for word, one of those passages may be unnecessary. If the lead refers to “that section over there”, the preparation notes should identify the missing context. The answer may need to name the area clearly, or the sequence may need another explanation.

The decision is about what each element contributes. It does not establish which filming or graphic treatment is available. This invented example is not a Live Images project or a recommendation about site operations.

6. Record the choice before it creates extra work

For each important statement, assign a proposed delivery and a person who will check it. Mark unresolved choices rather than silently converting a discussion idea into a production requirement.

• Statement or sequence:
• Proposed delivery: interview, narration, picture, text or combination:
• Reason this treatment helps the viewer:
• Source and reviewer:
• Preparation or recording needed:
• Dependency or unanswered question:
• Status: proposed, agreed or deferred:

Keep the choice connected to the audience story-use map if different teams need different explanations. A delivery decision for one film does not automatically cover every requested version.