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.
Alex Silbajoris [mailto:alsilba -at- hotmail -dot- com] discussed "maturity" in a
review process:
"...for the third time, I'm telling the admins that we need en established
review process. As it is now, I'm sending out drafts like bullets into fog.
The problem is
that no one sees any worth in a review process; as with documentation in
general, it's pushed down to a low priority when time allotment is
considered."
"I don't want an elaborate model like the Hackos-based approach.... I would
simply like a reliable process of consideration of materials before they go
out to their intended audiences. To me, that would indicate a step
toward maturity for this company."
__________________
A long time ago, when I was considered the technical "Editor" not the
"Writer", the research organization I worked for used a simple one-page
document status form that listed the document name; the writer's name, the
date the document was received, the editor's name; the "sent to author's
review" date and both the "due" and "actually returned" dates; the "sent to
manager" and the "due" and "returned" dates; then the "corrections
completed" date; the "final approval" date; the "sent to printer" date; and
the scheduled availability date for the completed manuals.
The editor kept the original, and a copy was attached to any review copies
that were sent to anyone else. If a review was seriously overdue, another
copy of the status form with the missed "due date" circled was sent to the
appropriate manager or department head. Usually this resulted in someone
besides the editor putting pressure on the reviewer who was late (or
ordering him to return the document without the review). This also kept the
powers that be aware of who was holding up a scheduled release, and by how
much. This was before every writer and editor had a desk-top PC. Today it
could be done using e-mail. Once you put all your typical document
milestones on a form, it takes very little time to fill in a few blanks and
spit out an updated form when needed. It is also a good status tool to use
when answering questions about what is holding up whatever document.
At least it is one approach that I think requires very little overhead time
and effort.
Margaret Cekis
Margaret -at- mediaocean -dot- com
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Be a published author! iUniverse gives you: a high-quality paperback, a
custom cover design, and distribution to 25,000 retailers. And it's
affordable. Join our almost 10,000 published authors today. http://www.iuniverse.com/media/techwr
Your monthly sponsorship message here reaches more than
5000 technical writers, providing 2,500,000+ monthly impressions.
Contact Eric (ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com) for details and availability.
---
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.
