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.
> Under the heading of not all things work for everyone, I note the
following
> snippet.
--- Jo Baer <jbaer -at- mailbox1 -dot- tcfbank -dot- com> wrote:
> >
> > Actually, I don't interview SMEs in person all that often. I use a
question
> > and
> > answer template that I developed (took about ten minutes) and
submit written
> > questions along with any relevant written materials, such as a
project
> > requirements document or a draft of a manual chapter. I make my
written
> > questions as specific as possible, and often give a page (and
sometimes
> > paragraph) reference so the SME can go back to the document in
question.
> I'm not criticizing this method, especially if it works, but I've
not had
> success submitting written questions to SMEs and getting responses
(let alone
> timely responses). My experience has been that SMEs resent the extra
assignment
> and think the writer is trying to get them to do the writer's work
for the
> writer.
My experience with written responses from SMEs is that they can be
pretty cryptic at times. I have one piece in my inbox, an update to
an existing procedure, where the SME notes are more cryptic than the
original.
They can also be pretty good. I once did a descriptive piece to
explain the process behind a function in some billing software.
Result. Two pages of descriptive text and fourteen pages of sample
calculations--all from a two page e-mail. (Oddly enough, the sample
calculations were more for my benefit--it helped me understand the
process. When the project supervisor discovered they existed, she
suggested sending them back to the SME for validation--along with the
descriptive document.)
Still, like Tom below, I find I have more success with face-to-face
interviews. I do, however, prefer something closer to an hour, and
for complex documents, sometimes even more time.
> I have a lot more success with the face-to-face. I try to limit the
time
> involved to short bursts rather than having to clear a lot of time
on someone
> else's schedule. I prefer the 30 minute Q&A to the two hour, or half
a day,
> meeting. And I do my leg work ahead of time by reading everything we
have on a
> product, feature, or process. That way I'm not asking basic
questions the SMEs
> have already answered in some preliminary document.
--
John Fleming
Technical Writer
Edmonton, Alberta
email: johnf -at- ecn -dot- ab -dot- ca
*** Deva(tm) Tools for Dreamweaver and Deva(tm) Search ***
Build Contents, Indexes, and Search for Web Sites and Help Systems
Available now at http://www.devahelp.com or info -at- devahelp -dot- com
Sponsored by Information Mapping, Inc., a professional services firm
specializing in Knowledge Management and e-content solutions. See http://www.infomap.com or 800-463-6627 for more about our solutions.
---
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.
