Re: Examining proficiency of job applicants in FrameMaker

[eric -dot- dunn -at- ca -dot- transport -dot- bombardier -dot- com]

"Bonnie Granat" <bgranat -at- granatedit -dot- com> wrote on 01/05/2004 08:00:44 PM:
> It's odd that it took months to find out what a supervisor
> should have found out within a day or two.
> And to find out the day before it was due at the printer?
> There's more wrong here than the poor technical writer, it would seem.

Bonnie, you're too kind. I'd lay the blame 100% in the lap of the supervisor and
the writing team. Unless the team can show that they correctly trained, coached,
and followed the progress of the writer who admittedly had no Framemaker
experience to start with.

Even if the writer was an obstinate PITA who refused to learn or follow
instruction it's the fault of the team and not the writer that the deliverables
were in such a mess. The team should have known there would have been a problem
with the deliverables all along.

The only time the writer could be saddled with the majority of the blame would
be if they claimed expertise with the tool and hid their incompetence. But, even
then the team and supervisor hold the lions share of the blame for a disastrous
outcome. Any new element in a process should be monitored until its performance
can be assured.

Eric L. Dunn
Senior Technical Writer