This too is technical communication

[Kevin Amery]

On 6/5/07, Pinkham, Jim <Jim.Pinkham at voith.com> wrote:
> With all due deference to those who believe
> otherwise, I don't think the fact that it's not the sole or chief
> determinant of an initial choice to buy a product is really the point.
>

It was pointed out earlier that companies who don't make a point of
doing better with their documentation now won't change until it starts
affecting their revenues. If documentation isn't something that
customers use to determine which product to buy, then these companies
aren't going to see any reason to change--therefore, they'll continue
to hire TWs based on their rates or other criteria rather than the
quality of docs they produce.

> Customers come into
> Best Buy (to revisit that example) more often than you might suspect to
> complain about indecipherable or internally inconsistent instructions.

Sure, but Best Buy didn't produce the docs, and the manufacturer
already got the sale. No impetus for change there.

> Savvy manufacturers recognize this and the best work hard to
> intentionally make their documentation as clear, uncomplicated, and
> user-friendly as possible.

Absolutely, but the original point was "why can't we get rid of bad
documentation?" Answer, because some (too many) companies *don't* see
it as an investment in their profitability.

It's a bit like the Dilbert where Dilbert tells the boss that he's
found a way to save the company a billion dollars for an initial cost
of ten thousand. The boss denies the request because the ten thousand
comes out of his budget and the one billion will get credited to
another department.

-- 
Until next time...

Kevin Amery