Re: Tool efficiencies, Was Word up..

[Andrew Plato <intrepid_es -at- yahoo -dot- com>]

"Tim Altom" wrote...
> 
> I begin to have a sharpened sense of our disagreement, Andrew. You champion
> the lone writer, magnificent in his skill and his devotion to duty.

Wrong. I champion simple, cost-effective solutions that focus on technical
accuracy. I am not a lone writer. I have a number of writers working at my
firm.

> Simply Written, on the other hand, champions a paradigm more like that of
> Henry Ford, who could take the talents of a few and produce acceptable
> quality for the masses. 

Here it comes, the marketing-speak.  Tim, I think you should refrain from using
TECHWR-L as a medium to market your firm unless you pay Eric.  I NEVER mention
my company name in these posts because we're not debating company policy by
attitudes toward documentation. 

> Today's production systems are the most efficient, the safest, and the most
> beneficial in all of human history. 

But that does not mean they turn out QUALITY material.  Microsoft has some of
the most efficient methods of developing software - but is it quality?  General
Motors has an exceptionally efficient automotive plant in South Carolina that
produces Chevy Caviler. But are they quality products?  

In my opinion, quality is MUCH more important than quantity. 
 
> Even in documentation, quality is definable. It has to be. It is not art,
> but a repeatable business function. I suspect that the reason why your
> clients are happy to give you a free hand, when they would not think of
> doing so with vendors for their products' spare parts, is that they expect
> nothing of consequence, having been told for years that a technical writer
> is just as you describe, a scribbler willing to do whatever he is told,
> skillfully or otherwise. If the writer is gifted and the ensuing document is
> good, all the better. If it isn't, no one is particularly harmed. But it's
> just not an important enough business element to waste perfectly good
> investigation upon.

My clients resoundingly have one thing to say about tech writers: "I am sick
and tired of writers who sit around fiddling with fonts all day who don't have
a clue what we do here at ABC Corp. I'm sick and tired of paying thousands of
dollars for tools when they still write crap."  

I am reminded of a director of engineering from a Bay Area company who had just
fired his last tech writer. He called me and saying "whatever you do, don't
tell me how I need to buy some stupid software package that will take you 6
months to learn."  I laughed.  Apparently, the previous writers spent close to
6 months learning FrameMaker and during that time the only document he wrote
was a 100+ page style and policy manual about how documentation would be
written at his company.

I think companies are tired consultants telling them they need complex and
expensive solutions when they just need hard work and expertise.  I think
they're tired of promises. They want results first and fancy solutions later. 

> At Simply Written, and at an increasing number of contract houses and
> internal departments, it's no longer enough to depend on the caprice of
> individual writers, just as it's not enough to depend on the brilliance of
> craftsmen on the assembly line. There is room for brilliance, and good
> people make a great deal of difference. But the best work for the entire
> company is done within a system that supports both quality and efficiency.
> There is no reason to consider them polar opposites, unless you are unable
> to supply both, as we customarily do. And we can measure both, as well.
> There is no reason why anybody else cannot. We've taught a good many
> technical communicators to do so.

More marketing.  Canned, single-intent solutions are a dying breed. Anderson
Consulting had to change their name to escape the stigma of their consulting
failures.  That stigma of "do it our way or you're a loser" is no longer
acceptable.  Anderson Consulting has been sued for millions for forcing
unwanted methodologies on clients. 

Companies don't want complex, proprietary solutions any more. They want
consultants who are true experts and not just single-trick salesmen. 

> As I said in opening this message, you and I are on opposite sides of a
> paradigm. I am finished arguing for mine. I will discuss matters concerning
> technical communication, but I will not defend the very paradigm under which
> my company, and so many others, operate. 

No we're really not.  We do the same thing. It just comes down to how you solve
the problem.  You stress structure and the rigid implementation of your
trademarked methodology.  

I stress technical accuracy and the capabilities of individual writers.  The
methodology is irrelevant.  

Unlike you, Tim, I can work under many different systems.  You apparently can
only work under one - yours. 

Yes, some companies will benefit from rigid structure. As I said before, firms
with massive tons of documents that are mostly just in maintenance mode. But,
that comprises a small chunk of the market. Many firms are still trying to get
their act together and need skill, intelligence, and hard work above all else. 

Andrew Plato 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Develop HTML-based Help with Macromedia Dreamweaver! (STC Discount.)
**NEW DATE/LOCATION!** January 16-17, 2001, New York, NY.
http://www.weisner.com/training/dreamweaver_help.htm or 800-646-9989.

Take XML and Tech Writing courses online!  Our instructor-led courses
(4-6 hrs/wk) give you "hands on" experience at your convenience. STC members
get 20% off!  http://www.online-learning.com/index.html.
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit 
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.