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.
> Well I'm going to pitch a spanner in the works... I think the
> certification by evaluation approach was the wrong approach
> to take. I'll
> admit to not having paid attention during the period when
> this was being
> considered.
>
> However, my thinking was that certification and the STC
> project to develop
> a "Body of Knowledge" were joined at the hip and that certification
> wouldn't become possible until the BOK was fully developed
> and released. I
> thought that at that point, STC would be going down the same
> path as PMI
> which bases PMP certification on testing of applicant's
> understanding of
> their BOK.
>
> Now I don't doubt for a minute that developing a comprehensive BOK for
> technical communication is a massive undertaking but having
> that BOK in
> place would give STC certification an imprimatur that certification by
> evaluation couldn't possibly achieve.
Drat! I was hoping to let my e-mail address cool off
on this topic...
A problem that was pointed out by others is that not
everybody is eligible for a given evaluation or testing
protocol - ex. the people who can't legally let you see
their portfolio.
I've also raised the point that once your program gets
big enough, you are almost forced to leave behind any
labor-intensive evaluation practices in favor of more
testing-oriented certifications.
So I would want to see a classification system or a
categorization for the certs that would let people in
TW niches be represented properly.
The testable body of knowledge needs to be organized
such that:
a) it is easily and repeatably accessible to all
(when anybody comes looking, there's one obvious
path in, and the content is mostly constant, and
there's a defined "end" - i.e., not totally open-ended
until you discover you self-paced/self-selected
studied for the wrong test...)
b) it offers equivalent blocks or checkpoints for
people in widely divergent industries and workflows
that nevertheless fall under the rubric 'techwriter'.
If there's a group of people that you simply don't have
a way to evaluate (at this time), then please say that
very obviously on your website(s). Legitimate techwriters
will need to point to an acknowledged reason why they don't
have your certification once you become the certification
heavyweight.
The basic modules should be freely accessible (and free-gratis)
because:
a) pay is low or non-existent at-and-below the ground floor,
and most people are already paying for a formal education
at this-or-that institution
b) they should be, well, basic.
I would also allow the taking of the tests/evaluations without
requiring that a person has formally completed each of your
study modules.
You can build a fee structure onto continuing education if
you want that to be a profit center, and on higher-level
testing/evaluation that certifies the levels above basic.
If there's a second general level of competence to
certify, then avoid having it require experience in
different industries. Wouldn't want to hold back a
really excellent documenter of silo equipment and
safety gear because s/he never wrote for Merck-Frosst
and doesn't know Mil-spec from a hole in the ground.
Here's a little story (hint to stop reading...).
There's an international aeronautical federation (under
a French name) that has an international Parachuting
federation arm. National organizations often (though not
always) have a connection to the international body, and
observe some standards that help skydivers everywhere
to have a clue about how skilled and comptent a visiting
jumper might be.
Each country will have a licensing and progression system.
In many countries, including the USofA, that basic
framework was a four-level thing. Beginners achieved an
"A" license that certified them as having basic skills
and being basically self-supervising. Then there were
"B", "C", and "D" levels for progressively greater
demonstrated knowledge, skills and achievement. You needed
certain levels in order to teach others, for example.
In Canada, much the same exists, and in fact our coaching
and training model was good enough to get exported to
much of the world... but the licensing... The "A", "B",
"C", and "D" levels were pretty much equivalent to (and
recognized as such) to the appropriate levels in the USA,
Britain, France, etc., etc. Then there was the "E".
"E"?
Some of the gang that grew up in the sport when it was
first becoming a sport in the 1960s and '70s had done
some things in their time, and they decided - over an
indeterminate number of brewskis - to recognize those
achievements as the requisites for an "E"-level parachutist
license.
Some of them were extremely difficult or extremely
irrelevant for later jumpers, because the sport had
moved on, equipment had evolved, even some of the old
jump aircraft were no longer around. It's much more
difficult in the modern era to convince the pilot of
a hot-air balloon to let you jump from his craft.
That's mostly because there's more official scrutiny
than in the heady days of the '50s, '60s, and '70s when
it was all much less formal. Some guy would be tethered
in a field, offering balloon rides to the public, and
you could stroll up to him with your rig under your arm
and a $20 bill in your hand and ask: "Can you let me
off at 2500 feet?" And chances were, he'd say yes.
These days, it's $120 to go up, and "Hell no! If I
let you jump out, I could lose my license! And everybody's
got a camera-phone these days, so there'd be a record...
and enough duct tape to cover my serial numbers would
make the balloon sag..."
It's also become logistically and legally MUCH more
difficult to perform a water jump - for one thing,
you need a full set of equipment that you don't mind
having dunked in salt water or lake water. Much easier
in the days when "sport" parachutes were bought from
military surplus and weren't purpose-built ten thousand
dollar sets of fitted, color-coordinated... well, you
get the idea. And let's not forget some of the modern
safety equipment that dies an expensive death if soaked.
Anyway, pretty much nobody beyond the original handful
of buddies could possibly qualify. I think CSPA got
rid of the "E" when the last of the bunch retired or
turned to dust.
So, the point of that was to suggest that certification
be kept as inclusive as possible, without sacrificing
real, valuable criteria.
Except as, possibly, a joke, don't make a category
that can only be attained by somebody who wrote for
_all_ of NASA, a nuclear submarine builder, Glaxxo-Wellcom,
IBM, John Deere, Lehman Bros., the Australian Department
of Lands and Resources, MI-5, and ... the training
manul for Hamburger U. Unless you want it to be
something of an Honorary PhDucky like the CSPA "E"
license and the Oscar for Lifetime Achievement.
- Kevin
<bumpf-continue> The information contained in this electronic mail transmission
may be privileged and confidential, and therefore, protected
from disclosure. If you have received this communication in
error, please notify us immediately by replying to this
message and deleting it from your computer without copying
or disclosing it.
Gain access to everything you need to create and publish information
through multiple channels. Your choice of authoring (and import)
formats with virtually any output. Try Doc-To-Help free for 30-days. http://www.doctohelp.com/
---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-
