citations and references to other documents in a policy document

[Ned Bedinger]

Peter Neilson wrote:
> Ned Bedinger wrote:
> 
>> I don't mean to presume to tell you how to do your job, but if the 
>> documents matter at all  ...
> 
> The plan for your documents should include the reasons for their 
> existence and an understanding of the audience or the potential readership.
> 

Hi Peter, that's a bullseye pointer. Doc plans are powerful. Some jobs 
require such documentation plans, with final approval from the manager, 
before the tech writer can bill hours to the doc project. Feh.

The doc plan I favor describes the document in the terms Peter brought 
out, and also includes the forseeable dependencies and contingencies 
that might affect the plan's dates and deliverables.

In a situation like you're in, Brittany, I would revise my docplan and 
re-submit it, so that it declares the planned template deliverables to 
be contingent on having a.) review and approval for my templates from 
the stakeholder (my manager or whoever), b.) the necessary time to train 
the authors on how to use the templates, and c.) time for a few review 
cycles as policies take shape on the templates, to adjust the templates 
and update the stakeholder about changes.

> Restating that a bit more cynically, sometimes all that's needed is that 
> the documents exist, and nobody will ever read them, let alone nit-pick 
> them. Other times someone's going to examine the least detail, looking 
> for some way to convict the innocent.

No lie. I used to think tech writing's a thankless field.

That was before I attended the "Job Satisfaction" conference. The two 
tracks I liked best were, not surprisingly, about tools: "Photoshop Your 
Way To Power" and the ever-popular "Make the Other Guy Look Bad." :-)

Regards.

--Ned