TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
The software companies who have worked to become CMM Level 3 or higher have
a shorter development cycle and better software products (meets the better
and quicker idea). If you think that following a defined process slows
development, think again.
Once a process is in place and proven to work (this part takes time), the
development cycle is shorter because design decisions have been made; who
does what, when, why and what is the escalation for problems has been
settled; if a question arises it is quickly answered by the requirements or
standards - this beats having a myriad of meetings and emails trying to
figure out what to do or change, how long it will take, what else it will
effect and so forth.
If there is a flaw in the process, methods or standards, it can be corrected
and changed between releases instead of during. As a writer, dealing with
just the documentation, I recognize this benefit - changes to documents are
made faster if I have standards to work with. Let's discuss standards when
we aren't trying to meet a deadline. I usually give people the glare of
death when I'm 99% done with a document and they want to make a change that
effects every single page.
The problem CMM and its defined processes creates is not adding time to the
development cycle - CMM does not allow room for cowboys, hackers and
creative geniuses. These are the ones that got the software industry up and
going; I'm a hacker at heart, so I understand the conflict and even offense
in some cases. My focus, however, is the customer/user, and meeting their
needs (not wants, BTW, there is a huge difference) comes before my own ego.
The reason consumers/companies buy half-baked software is because it's
better than what they have currently. We shouldn't accept that as the
customer being satisfied with what we give them.
Given the choice between a product that works the first time versus buying
several versions of a software because it is constantly being worked on and
repaired - which would you buy? Factor in the cost of purchasing patches,
upgrades, fixes or a maintenance plan that covers these. I also want to
differentiate between a new release of software that adds new functions and
a new release with bug fixes. The one with new functions is an option...the
one with bug fixes really isn't.