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.
----- Original Message -----
From: "L." <beantown_tw -at- yahoo -dot- com>
To: "Ned Bedinger" <doc -at- edwordsmith -dot- com>
Cc: <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: Interoffice Relations/Work Productivity Dilemma
> HI Ned and Hi TechWR-L--
>
<snip>
> Ned mentioned that many people often have good reasons
> for sticking to their guns about what is "good
> documentation."
Oops. I replied to L beantown_tw instead of the list. See below for those
comments, which I hope won't cause a rash of acute dyspepsia for managers
who wish that techwriters could just cope with ambiguity while doing what
they're told!
From: "L." <beantown_tw -at- yahoo -dot- com>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 11:17 AM
Subject: Interoffice Relations/Work Productivity Dilemma
The "undocumented features" thread presents a good example of documentation
decisions that logically follow from business concerns. That thread
anticipates some of what I have to say to your inquiry, but doesn't capture
the intention of my response. I am contributing my comments as a reminder
that we may sometimes encounter non-trivial extenuating circumstances that
lie pretty far out under the bell curve, in the area where theories about
normative rules and professional behavior start to appear distorted.
>
> How have you other there dealt with someone who
> insists time after time after time on harping on a
> theoretical notion of what is "good documentation" in
> their own eyes when that drastically clashes with the
> opinions of others (especially management!!!!).
There are a lot of useful cognitive principles, some of which debunk
traditional documentation precepts as held and practiced by seat-of-pants
doc shops. Maybe you could run the "notion" by us, on the off-chance that
this is not so much a problem, as you have diagnosed it, of somebody's
personality disorder?
> At our place, as at many others, "good documentation"
> is basically whatever the boss SAYS is good
> documentation,
I can think of at least one tech writer who was successful in openly
challenging management's direction for the documentation. In weekly team
meetings, this writer was dug in, and there was no mistaking the
unwillingness to proceed the way the writing manager wanted. I found it
interesting that the writer's disposition was such that, in insisting about
the right way, it did not bring up personal differences with the manager,
but rather revealed a solid affinity for the user. The writer didn't pull
punches or get emotional, and the manager (who was not a tech writer) would
usually start turning red and break off the exchange. Exchanges between TW
and TW/Manager were like this:
TW/M: "So did you write the section the way I want you to?"
TW: "No. The user manager says that we've been giving them the repackaged
documents written for another group. I am working with the user manager to
give them a document they can use."
TW/M: "But we don't do it that way, and we have a very good business
reason. We do it the way I want it, because that is the way we ensure that
those folks learn to understand their jobs instead of relying on the
documentation."
TW: "They still need documentation that covers their work in detail, to aid
in training new hires. They say we're giving them the documentation for jobs
at a level above theirs."
TW/M: "I thought I explained that. We do this because we want the ones who
stay to advance to the next level."
TW: "The user manager tells me they need documentation that focuses on
their daily/weekly/monthly tasks."
TW/M: "I know about that. They're ignoring our limitations as a small
documentation group."
TW: "I won't have any trouble delivering what they want. It will be on
time."
TW/M: Agitated, looking around the table. "Who's next? Ned, what did you
do this week..."
This was the first writer to come to the group who actually had the right
experience and background to work with this particular group of users. In
this case, the writer's stubborn insistence on greasing the wheels seems to
me a reasonable thing to do.
> with as many of our experienced special
> touches as we can possibly work in before getting
> vetoed.
Hmm. This isn't ringing any bells with me. Are we on the same page? I'm
not talking about personal preferences.
> This issue that caused this to arise is basically a
> major management business-related decision to withhold
> a specific type of information from the documentation
> for important reasons. This person, however, won't
> accept that -- even though he hasn't been around long
> enough to even fathom what the important reasons are.
> No matter how many times I have tried to explain that
> it's not an argument worth having, it still comes up.
Realistically, it sounds like your writer is willing to gamble. Some
business gurus will tell you that this is a trait of ambitious Type-A
personalities, and that some gamblers thrive in business. From the
trenches, I have to say that antagonistic gamblers do not constitute a large
percentage of those who survive as employees in the workplace.
> It is actually in a situation where he was so adamant
> with some people here (including management) about
> changing an entire vital business process (that he
> knows nothing about) and got shot down so many times
> in a row that he has now informed us that he has
> "quit" the document. (How someone who has only been
> here a month feels entitled to "quit" assigned
> projects, don't ask me!)
I can't see your cards, but this much is clear: either you're wrong, or he
is.
>
> I think part of this situation stems from his
> stick-in-the-mud nature, which has proven itself
> during the last month, and part from some zany notion
> that the tech writer is the ONLY person who has the
> mental capacity to determine what ought and ought not
> be in a document. It does, however, seem to be coming
> across --perhaps unintended -- as a condescending "If
> I can't do the document MY WAY, then I won't do it at
> all."
I had a boss that might be the sort of boss he needs. My old boss, upon
being promoted to documentation group manager, got together with the user
manager and made a 45 minute training video that delivered a detailed
explanation of the job those users did, explaining their documentation
needs, and why. This boss also would find a way to get rid of writers he
didn't want, but that's another story .
The video they made was remarkable for its clarifying statements, such as
"Our user group is the exact opposite of what you find in most businesses.
Unlike most organizations, our group has direct lines to the development
group,
and they support us on 90% of our information needs, rather than the 10%
that is more typical." I really admired these two managers--they produced a
video that was a very smart foray into preemptive problem-solving. These
managers had done a beautiful thing for us, with the expressed purpose of
keeping writers from getting jerked around, which is exactly what would
happen to writers who got caught in the middle of the constant
user/developer haggling over which 10% needed to be written up. .
ROBOHELP X5: Featuring Word 2003 support, Content Management, Multi-Author
support, PDF and XML support and much more!
TRY IT TODAY at http://www.macromedia.com/go/techwrl
WEBWORKS FINALDRAFT: New! Document review system for Word and FrameMaker
authors. Automatic browser-based drafts with unlimited reviewers. Full
online discussions -- no Web server needed! http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.techwr-l.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
