RE: No specifications

["Locke, David" <dlocke -at- bindview -dot- com>]

Dan Emory said:

>An oversimplification if there ever was one. 

And, I agree an oversimplification indeed. But, since there is a movement
afoot to merge help and the interface, you could change the label so that it
included the data ranges of the values to be entered. 

But, the whole notion that reliance on a spec or on questions put to SMEs is
equally an oversimplification. Just last Christmas at a business networking
party, an owner of a software company threw his objection at me about how
writers should ask him how it worked before we write about it. It was really
a beligerent comment with another purpose in mind, so I didn't answer it.
But, it did cause me to think. The conclusion I came to is that he was
hiring TWs that didn't experiment and didn't know how to construct
conceptual models based on those experiments. It goes back to the old issue
of how much technical knowledge a TW should have. 

This is not an issue we need to reopen. Everybody has taken well defined
sides in the past. Look in the archive before rehashing this issue. Please.

The main point was that even moving your company to SEI CMM level 1 takes
care of a lot of issues for TWs. You don't have to work without a well
maintained spec. And, you don't have to pull all nighters the day after code
freeze to get the doc out at the last moment. Getting your company to change
their practices usually takes a disaster. And, some executive has to get
fired on account of the disaster. 

Push against level 0 constantly. Just like pushing against the salary norms,
and pushing against the no value-add perception of management. Ask, or it
won't be given. Mount effective change campaigns. Complaining won't help.
Lobbying can move mountains.

David W. Locke