Re: Academic Research in TechComm

Subject: Re: Academic Research in TechComm
From: eric -dot- dunn -at- ca -dot- transport -dot- bombardier -dot- com
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:45:04 -0400


bounce-techwr-l-106467 -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com wrote on 03/31/2005 05:58:58 AM:
> The [non-fact-driven] managers who think it doesn't add value
> are unlikely to be persuaded by yet more facts than they already have
> at their disposal.

Why the never ending angst about techwriting "value"? Even the worst of
companies knows the profession has some value. And that perception of
value is fairly obvious. It's somewhat greater to them than the salaries
they pay (else they wouldn't hire writers).

But here's the catch: writing and documentation will ALWAYS be less
valuable and far less critical to company survivability and profitability
than engineering, design, development, marketing, sales or project
management.

It doesn't matter whether your management is the most enlightened and in
possession of all the facts and studies available or a cave dwelling
myopic troll. And aren't we all being a little biased when we clamour for
management to recognise studies that extol the value of techwriters while
trying to get them to ignore studies that don't? That troll might be VERY
enlightened, they just don't agree with the studies and theories we agree
with. Writers and support staff will ALWAYS be on the chopping block
before any of the core critical corporate functions.

Equally, under the same evaluation writers and support staff will always
be the first to fall under the microscope for proof of ROI whether the
company is starting an upswing and can only just justify the less critical
expenditure of publications, the company is stable and is looking to cut
costs and increase profits, or the company has started to slide and needs
to remain in the black.

That's life, that's the way it's always going to be, may as well stop
agonising over it. Have to learn to show to your supervisors and the
company decision makers that you and your department give good value to
the company and that you are operating as efficiently as possible. Then,
you play corporate politics to pull someone else under the scope.

But, it's not limited to politics. Take janitorial staff for instance. Why
would a company lay-off all the support staff before laying-off
janitorial? Because janitorial has a critical task (cleaning MUST be done)
and they can demonstrate that they save the company money compared to the
alternatives. A janitor at their salary level emptying waste baskets costs
a fraction of what it would cost an engineer or manager to do the same.
Publications should focus on the same type of analysis. Exactly what
support and services do you provide to other critical functions that would
be more expensive otherwise? These savings and dependancies are easier to
find and justify than any study involving final publications, customer
satisfaction, and effect on sales and revenue.

Eric L. Dunn
Senior Technical Writer

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This e-mail communication (and any attachment/s) may contain confidential
or privileged information and is intended only for the individual(s) or
entity named above and to others who have been specifically authorized to
receive it. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read,
copy, use or disclose the contents of this communication to others. Please
notify the sender that you have received this e-mail in error by reply
e-mail, and delete the e-mail subsequently.
Thank you.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Ce message (ainsi que le(s) fichier/s), transmis par courriel, peut
contenir des renseignements confidentiels ou protégés et est destiné à
l?usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute autre personne est par
les présentes avisée qu?il est strictement interdit de le diffuser, le
distribuer ou le reproduire. Si vous l?avez reçu par inadvertance,
veuillez nous en aviser et détruire ce message.
Merci.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________




^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

WEBWORKS FINALDRAFT - EDIT AND REVIEW, REDEFINED
Accelerate the document lifecycle with full online discussions and unique feedback-management capabilities. Unlimited, efficient reviews for Word
and FrameMaker authors. Live, online demo:
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 lisa -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
http://www.techwr-l.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.



Follow-Ups:

References:
Re: Academic Research in TechComm (Was RE: Criticizing Writers - What Would You Have Done?): From: Dick Margulis

Previous by Author: Re: FrameMaker question - literate formatting
Next by Author: RE: Academic Research in TechComm
Previous by Thread: Re: Academic Research in TechComm (Was RE: Criticizing Writers - What Would You Have Done?)
Next by Thread: Re: Academic Research in TechComm


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads