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.
Re: The CMM and TW (was: Can strong process create writers?)
Subject:Re: The CMM and TW (was: Can strong process create writers?) From:Guy McDonald <guy -at- OZ -dot- NET> Date:Wed, 11 Nov 1998 09:14:01 -0800
Simon North raised some interesting points, to which I respond:
> The CMM eventually proposes a self-improving process (level 5), with
> a separate group responsible for monitoring and guiding process
> improvement. There are (were) only two level 5 organizations: a
> Motorola team in India and the NASA shuttle software team. The
> shuttle software is so antiquated it should be in a museum -- except
> that it's so full of bugs they'd be ashamed for it to be seen in
> public and, informed sources tell me, the Motorola effort was a con
> job (they had a second team in parallel, the assessed team did no
> production work).
No offense Simon - but you may hear some gripes from folks out at Intel.
,-)
> IMNSHO, it's growth into an unproven, untested model for quality assurance
initiatives has become blown out of all proportion. It isn't even as if it
were anything new. For example. Why 5 levels? Simple, it's based on the
traditional Denning model.
I'll assume you are talking about the late Edward Deming? If so, right on
target - the author of Continuous Improvement (CI), or as the Japanese call
it "kaizen." Fair mention should go to Joseph Juran, who worked with Deming
and Japanese industrialists beginning in the early 1950s to develop CI.
Regardless of how we argue TQM and it's place in technical writing, I think
we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. As informed readers
know, there are good and bad observations (and assumptions) in any variation
of the TQM model. The documentation process, in traditional industry or
information systems, is reliant on organizational attitudes and dependent
upon management support. Supportive evidence of how important organizational
attitudes can be are even found on this list! Case in point - the recent
"Evil SME" discussion.
Therefore, methinks it *unwise to completely discount* the CMM approach to
assess a technical writing process.
