Re: Arguments not to use

[Bonni Graham <bonnig -at- IX -dot- NETCOM -dot- COM>]

Mike wrote:

>I have to second John Gear's position about arguments NOT to use for
>justifying the value of technical communicators.  It may work in the
>short run to portray yourself, the tech writer, as a cheap substitute
>for the infinitely valuable engineer, who really could write better
>documentation if he or she just had the time.  Many, perhaps most,
>engineering managers believe this already.  But the truth is otherwise.

It's interesting how differently we interpret this tactic.  I took it to be
essentially the same marketing tactic I use (successfully) for my business:

"Many developers look at documentation as a waste of their time. In a way,
they're right -- writing documentation IS a waste of a programmer or software
engineer's time."

With this I'm saying that to have an engineer writing is roughly like having me
coding (and I go on to basically say this in the brochure, I just don't want to
retype the whole thing).  Sure, you COULD (I've got about as good an idea of
how to code as most programmers have of how to write user doc), but it's
probably not a very good idea or very cost effective.  I then go on to say that
writing documentation is *not* a waste of Manual Labour's time -- it's all we
do. Which, incidentally means that they get better doc for comparatively less
money.  Even if I charged as much as a contract developer (which I
don't--yet<g>), I could still finish a better doc more quickly.

I've found it to be an effective way of using an emotional appeal (free up
programmer time) without compromising my professional "value addedness" by
implying that I'm less important that an engineer. At least, that's the
feedback I'm getting from clients - maybe you folks will read this phrasing
differently.

Point being, I think the emotional appeal CAN be used without selling ourselves
short.

Bonni Graham
Manual Labour
"My opinions exactly match those of my employer, since she is me."